1451:
do indicate that notability needs to be asserted by a source we consider reliable. That a map or directory simply lists that a thing exists does not appear to me to assert notability by our guidelines. As there are a number of people here, however, who do feel that if a geological feature is named on a map it should have an article, perhaps it would be worth establishing and making it clear on a guideline if a feature named on a map is or is not reason enough to warrant an article entry on WP. There are plenty of hills, streams, woods, footpaths, quarries etc on the very reliable
Ordnance Survey maps of the UK which would ensure that hundreds of thousands of articles can be added just for Britain. I don't think that would be wise, and my contribution to the discussion would be that we make it clear on
848:(the very page that you are waving around), say it is necessary to do. (You've shown no indication that you actually have.) It's not something that is demonstrated automatically by the passage of some length of time. Please read and familiarize yourself with our editing and deletion policies. It is clear that you do not understand them. This has been policy with respect to
1563:) and "Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". So we have a deep and wide and long-standing consensus that for an item to have an article on Wikpedia there must be a bit more than a mention on a map and a desire by a handful of people in an AfD that Knowledge (XXG) should also become an atlas.
1551:
the consensual Wiki guidelines to judge whether to include an article on Wiki. It is not up me - it is up to our consensual guidelines. We have these discussions on AfD to see if an article is meeting guidelines. An AfD is not a popularity poll in which people start voting for which flavour ice cream they want or don't want on Wiki. It's worth looking at
1390:...If a geographical location is on a map and the map is reliable (as are USGS quads), then it is notable. If we start deleting articles about map locations then we will set a bad precident for numerous stub articles we have about all sorts of geographical places that are oftentimes difficult to reference aside from a map reference.--
1282:
lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable". The word "major" is important here. As is the over-riding need for significant references. I add all this information to help those who are struggling in this AfD to understand the situation we have reached on
Knowledge (XXG) as regards notability for such topics. I hope that helps.
1555:- these lines are helpful: "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles." It's also worth looking at
1550:
an encyclopedia which reflects the sum of human knowledge, and the judgement of what is worthwhile knowledge are independent sources. If there is a scientist, geographer, geologist, or scholar that you can find who thinks this pass is worthwhile to comment on, then direct us to that comment. We use
1450:
policy page has the helpful and often quoted sentence: "Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or informative does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." Our guidelines on how to judge and interpret what is suitable
1315:
Outcomes makes no reference to mountain passes, nor to other non significant places whose names appear on maps. I felt I was being helpful in explaining the situation as it stands, and providing the sentences which explain how to judge notability. You can make of the evidence and guidelines what you
1222:
Notability guidelines can be tricky to understand sometimes. What you have put on the article are not considered to be "significant" references. All four refs (3 sources) as of time of writing merely mention the name of the pass with bare facts of height and location. None of the refs actually talks
975:
There is nothing presented which makes this pass remotely notable. I have a creek in my backyard, should I start an article about that? its a geographical feature, I can provide coordinates. Unless someone can demonstrate some notability and coverage of this feature it has no place on wikipedia, not
946:
I don't think anyone is saying it doesn't exist, but there is nothing to proove that it's notable. Also, people have had 13 1/2 months to expand it beyond a stub. If this AFD hadn't started, it still would be a 1 sentence unsourced stub (like it had been since being created, here is what the article
804:
It has not been established that this mountain pass is notable, so not indiciation that it has room for expansion. WP:Editing policy just says that some users like to expand article stubs, it doesn't say expansion doesn't have to happen immediatly. Besides, from
November 2006 until today when it was
1342:
saying that nothing not explicitly mentioned in
Outcomes isn't included — its "etc." naturally signifies that the reader is to expect more than just lakes, rivers, and mountains. Of course, not everything in the world is suitable for an encyclopedia, even if well-referenced (we don't have articles
1147:
as I've already put up a "strong keep": please note that there's plenty of potential for expansion (we could easily get a picture, for example), and a local editor could likely find local history and other references. Moreover, note that we now have three independent sources, at least two of which
235:
I apoligize if I sounded rude. I am just sick of seeing people (mainly in school related AFD's) cite that essay as their only argument. OUTCOMES is just a statement (an unsourced statment BTW) of how AFD's usually end. So it's basically saying "similar articles are usually kept, so this one should
1281:
page is an indicator of how consensus has gone in previous AfDs, however as it says: "For rules, guidelines, and consensus on a more detailed basis, visit the various notability policy pages". And for the section on geography the wording in Common
Outcomes is "Major geographical features such as
425:
as sufficiently sourced (I've expanded with GNIS data) and by precedent of plenty of AFDs in OUTCOMES, despite what some seem to think. In light of precedent that major geographical features are considered notable, a claim that this is one is surely a sufficient assertion to qualify it if we can
1424:
OUTCOMES is not the authority except as the summary of what we do at WP. What we do at WP is keep named natural geographic features whose existence can be demonstrated on reliable sources, and this is so well established that those saying delete are probably really arguing for a change in that
1501:
The point is that we don't know if it is a reasonably prominent geographic feature because nobody has said it is, and it would mean that "original research is needed to extract the content" from the maps and directory information to work that out. For this pass to be included all we need is a
1300:
Well, perhaps some of us would disagree on the precise situation we have reached on
Knowledge (XXG) :-) There's been widespread consensus to keep articles like this, as seen in OUTCOMES; if you want to delete this, you'd likely do better to propose a policy page and try to get it accepted.
1445:
I have a lot of respect for your experience in these fields, so I am surprised when you say that you feel a mention of a place on map is sufficient reason for inclusion on WP when the spirit and word of the guidelines and policies we have arrived at appear to suggest otherwise. The
1425:
practice--as they have every right to do. I think the discussion above shows the consensus is very much to keep the practice. I think that wise, rather than set us to arguing here over every feature individually. I wish we had similarly firm consensus in many other fields.
490:
I wouldn't consider a mountain pass as a major geographical feature. It doesn't matter though since OUTCOMES has no bearing on whether an article is kept or deleted since it's just an essay (meaning it's just the opinions of the editors who wrote it).
641:
Just because there are articles that have been stubs even longer doesn't mean that this one was OK (it just means the others are even worse, it's like saying one pile of dung doesn't smell that bad because there are large piles of dung nearby).
1570:
to reinforce the decision - and if the review supports the keep or delete that we make explicit in guidelines that geological features mentioned on maps or directories with no other supporting sources or materials are or are not notable.
1528:), but they are to scientists, geographers, geologists, scholars or any other person interested in this topic. These articles make this online encyclopedia stronger, not weaker. That is what is so good about Knowledge (XXG) not being a
994:. The reason for deleting stubs, as explained in the policy, is that it is impossible to expand them. You have failed to even argue that case. You've argued it for your neighbour, but your neighbour isn't the subject of this article.
976:
a single person has demonstrated a valid reason why this should be kept, and "not deleting a stub" isn't a valid reason. If I make a stub about my neighbour do we keep it even if we can't find anything about him? I don't think so.--
321:(a guideline and a policy, both of which carry far more weight than a editors personal opinion and a essay). Also, this article has been a 1 sentence stub since it's creation in November 2006, so its had more than enough time.
48:. I've considered the citations of policy, guidelines and outcome below, but as a verifiable, gazetted geographic feature and the lack of consensus on the notability of such an entity, I've chosen to err on the side of keep.
1198:
The key word is significant coverage, the sources right now currently prove that the place exists and no other info, there needs to be more sources that cover the subject in detail, google books is a good place to check.
1064:
Where does it say that all geographical features are notable? AFAIK, the only ones considered inherently notable are settlements (towns, cities, villages, etc.) Things like mountain passes are not inherently notable.
278:
220:
I cited the essay that i felt applied to the situation and the closing admin can decide if my application is correct or not. However I thank you for the great concern you expressed as to how exactly I form my AFD
757:
So far NONE of the people voting keep have cited any guidlines or policies that support keeping this article, only an essay (which is just an opinion piece). I hope the closing admin keeps this is mind.
1208:
Even aside from the broad consensus seen in OUTCOMES, we already had two references that address the subject directly in detail, and I've now added a third. I'm still not clear: what do you want?
476:
one of these features. Have you checked out any of my sources above? there are more if you google yourself. I'd suggest notability can be satisfied by choosing the right sources from the list.--
852:
since the beginning of this project, and is policy now. The closing administrator, as I, will be familiar with project policy. Other editors' arguments are grounded in it. Yours are not.
1251:
is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Ref: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
620:
1502:
reliable source saying there is something prominent or significant about the place - but we don't have that source, currently all we have is sources saying that the place exists.
1343:
on most individual words, even though scores of dictionaries can testify to them), but this is neither a non-encyclopedic topic nor an inherently POV topic, such as an article on
115:
1335:
1025:
is official policy. Both say the same thing - a place, regardless of whether it's a mountain pass, a stream, a tower, a cinema, etc, needs to be notable for inclusion.
599:
The article has been a stub since
November 2006, 13 1/2 months is WAY too long. Hell, until this AFD was started it was just 1 sentence (and unsourced on top of that).
540:
My bad on the links and appologize to all (but stand by the principal). Been up for too many hours to dig up good links i guess. I'll bow out till I get some sleep.--
805:
nominated for deletion, it was a unsourced 1 sentence stub. 1 month would be more than enough time to let people expand it, yet alone 13 1/2 months. It still fails
88:
83:
1620:
as this topic clearly is, are some of those common sense exceptions and there is no evidence, either in this AfD nor anywhere else, that consensus has changed. --
92:
357:. WP:V is a reason to delete an article if absolutely nothing can be verified, not simply because an editor doesn't see sources placed in the article (see also
75:
1184:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." What's missing?
1046:- Major geographical features such as this are inherently notable. The sources verify the pass (contrary to users claims above, it easily passes
1127:, and sourcing is a concern, as the current sources show that the mountain pass exists, but no other info likely can be found about it. For the
1655:
1018:
200:
How about citing something that actually has any official say? Also, OUTCOMES doesn't mention mountain passes (only mountains themselves).
866:
Believe what you want. I still see no evidence that the pass is notable (and that is the job of those saying it is notable to proove it).
1481:
937:
444:
though, the article doesn't even assert why it is notable, yet alone prove it. Also, again, OUTCOMES doesn't mention mountain passes.
17:
299:
1248:
1546:
Consensus is that we do not include "information" - we focus on the "knowledge". Because consensus on
Knowledge (XXG) is that we
79:
1593:
knowledge. You disagree, granted. To simply use the iron clad "must be the primary in depth subject of secondary sources" on
1344:
256:
No prob, however i think the message is articles of a certain type usually can be sourced, even if they aren't sourced as yet.
1339:
1401:
Names on maps are not the criteria for notability. My street appears on many maps, but wouldn't pass the notability criteria.
1660:
1629:
1584:
1541:
1515:
1492:
1471:
1436:
1414:
1394:
1382:
1356:
1329:
1310:
1295:
1217:
1203:
1193:
1179:
1157:
1139:
1109:
1080:
1059:
1038:
1003:
985:
965:
941:
932:
Genuine geographical site; coordinates (longitude/latitude) provided. May stay a stub, but someone might be able to expand.
923:
906:
881:
861:
841:
823:
799:
773:
752:
726:
706:
681:
657:
636:
614:
594:
567:
549:
534:
506:
485:
459:
435:
413:
395:
374:
336:
303:
251:
230:
215:
195:
172:
152:
134:
57:
933:
530:
1613:
1609:
1236:
1532:
encyclopedia. As it's billed as "The sum of all knowledge," there is unlimited bandwidth for encyclopedic information.--
512:
1678:
1567:
1556:
991:
783:
668:
36:
71:
63:
787:
664:
1240:
1677:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
585:
It is a stub. Stubs are present in WP until someone expands the stub into an article. Don't be so impatient.
130:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1566:
What might be worthwhile is that however the closing admin closes this as a keep or delete, there should be a
1525:
1347:
would be. Therefore, what's to keep it from remaining, if it has all these sources to prove its notability?
1457:
Knowledge (XXG) is NOT a map, and should not simply list geographical features which are found on other maps.
897:. Real places are encyclopedic subjects and geography is an important subject for an encyclopedia to cover.
1616:." Consensus has in fact found time and time again that geographical features like this, provided they are
832:
and explains that. Read it again. As I said, xyr argument is firmly based in policy, whereas yours is not.
1605:
845:
518:
287:
555:
282:
1601:
1521:
1093:
1649:
545:
481:
295:
226:
191:
1278:
1128:
1097:
511:
By the way, Cube, all of your links except the last (and perhaps the third, but not likely) refer to a
183:
1379:
702:
358:
1096:
has decided that geographical features such as mountains, lakes, etc. are notable, as indicated by
919:
126:
741:
1625:
1581:
1537:
1512:
1468:
1411:
1326:
1292:
1172:
1105:
1073:
1055:
1035:
958:
874:
816:
766:
719:
650:
607:
499:
452:
409:
370:
329:
244:
208:
165:
148:
1529:
1148:(USGS and the Atlas & Gazatteer) are quite reliable. What more do you want for notability?
1352:
1306:
1213:
1189:
1153:
1017:. That the place exists is not in doubt, but the article does not assert or prove notability.
999:
981:
857:
795:
677:
632:
563:
526:
431:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
849:
697:
per
Eastmain and especially Nyttend; natural landmarks are by and large inherently notable.
590:
541:
477:
291:
222:
187:
53:
1560:
1552:
1452:
1447:
1132:
1022:
902:
737:
698:
391:
276:
186:
can't be completely ignored. It's the consensus of many. many AFD's and carries weight.--
157:
What guideline or policy says that? AFAIK, mountain passes are not automatically notable.
1266:
1484:? If it's a reasonably prominent geographic feature, we should have an article on it.
1223:
about the pass or gives any indication that the pass is significant. It's worth reading
915:
280:
1617:
1224:
1124:
1047:
1014:
806:
441:
350:
346:
318:
314:
1621:
1574:
1533:
1505:
1461:
1432:
1404:
1319:
1285:
1227:
as that explains the need for significant references. The relevant sentences are: "A
1167:
1101:
1068:
1051:
1028:
953:
869:
811:
761:
714:
645:
602:
494:
447:
405:
366:
324:
239:
203:
160:
144:
1647:. Sourced, and appears notable like every other real place in the world should be.--
1348:
1302:
1271:
1260:
1209:
1185:
1149:
995:
977:
853:
791:
673:
628:
559:
522:
427:
1316:
wish, but it's inappropriate to make false claims about what appears in
Outcomes.
466:
Major geographical features such as lakes, rivers, mountains, etc., are acceptable
109:
786:, which is that we don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion, and our
274:
1489:
1200:
1136:
1100:. There is no evidence that consensus is changing, in this AfD or elsewhere. --
840:
have to do the work of looking for sources that deletion policy, as well as the
779:
586:
49:
1391:
947:
looked like since its creation in July 2006 until this AFD started yesterday:
898:
387:
1334:
Of course it says nothing about mountain passes per se, but we don't have a
236:
too" without citing what guideline or policies support keeping the article.
1023:
Knowledge (XXG):Not#Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook
1559:, especially the lines "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" (as in
1427:
1255:
are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band
1164:
USGS and Atlats just prove that the pass exists, not that it's notable.
790:, which is that we don't require this expansion to happen immediately.
1123:
while it exists, I don't see why this mountain pass is notable, fails
1243:
of the subject." Followed later by an explanation of "significant": "
672:
say that it's not too long. Please familiarize yourself with them.
619:
No, it isn't. It's short compared to some. Indeed, we still have
1671:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
426:
prove that it is what it's claimed — and the data confirms it.
1247:
means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and
1252:
1480:
What makes this pass any less notable than anything else in
1235:
to be notable if it has received significant coverage in
464:
No offense, but if you're refering to Outcomes it says:
125:
nothing to indicate that this mountain pass is notable.
948:
558:
link that Cube already gave is about the right place.
345:
This is yet another example of the misunderstanding of
105:
101:
97:
1524:
of encyclopedic value. They might not be to you (see
1557:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_Policy#Reasons_for_deletion
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1589:Articles about geographical features such as this
1520:Geographical features like this are considered by
836:have to show that there's no scope for expansion.
914:, it's a stub, but stubs aren't inherently bad.
353:if it is currently unverified, but only if it is
313:No sources, no claims of notability. So it FAILS
1681:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1561:Knowledge (XXG):Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory
8:
1345:Sinfulness of people who hate Christianity
361:). Ironically, in this case, the content
258:I googled and it seems widely verifiable.
182:Sure it's an Essay, not a guideline, but
1019:Knowledge (XXG):Places of local interest
828:Ahem! Editing policy clearly says that
143:. All mountain passes are notable. --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1482:Category:Mountain passes of Montana
1608:provides that it "be treated with
24:
842:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion
1604:. Even the core stipulation of
1378:- a good stub, as per above. --
1568:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
992:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
784:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
669:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
788:Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy
665:Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy
1:
1267:"Tough love child of Kennedy"
1661:22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1630:01:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
1585:19:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
1542:03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
1516:01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
1493:01:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
1472:01:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
1437:23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
1357:06:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
1265:Martin Walker (1992-01-06).
627:, yet, after several years.
404:See response to TJ Spyke. --
349:. And article doesn't fail
58:00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
1415:20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1395:15:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1383:13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1330:20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1311:18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1296:12:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1277:) is plainly trivial." The
1218:03:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1204:02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1194:02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1180:23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1158:22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1140:21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1110:01:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1081:23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1060:21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1039:18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1004:20:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
986:17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
966:23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
942:13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
924:13:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
907:07:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
882:23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
862:10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
824:05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
800:05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
774:05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
753:04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
727:05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
707:04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
682:10:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
658:05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
637:05:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
615:05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
595:03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
568:04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
550:04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
535:04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
507:05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
486:03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
460:03:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
436:03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
414:21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
396:03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
375:21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
337:03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
304:03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
252:03:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
231:03:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
216:03:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
196:02:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
173:01:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
153:01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
135:00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
72:Willow Creek Pass (Montana)
64:Willow Creek Pass (Montana)
1698:
1606:Knowledge (XXG):NOTABILITY
846:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
830:perfection is not required
990:It is a valid reason per
1674:Please do not modify it.
934:Yellow-bellied sapsucker
711:Only some are, not all.
623:that we don't even have
513:similar pass in Colorado
32:Please do not modify it.
1245:"Significant coverage"
621:long lists of articles
46:no consensus to delete
1021:is a readable essay,
1614:occasional exception
1249:no original research
1133:consensus can change
1597:topics is actually
1259:in a biography of
468:and i'd suggest a
554:Please note that
537:
521:comment added by
306:
290:comment added by
1689:
1676:
1583:
1577:
1514:
1508:
1470:
1464:
1413:
1407:
1328:
1322:
1294:
1288:
1276:
1257:Three Blind Mice
1237:reliable sources
1177:
1175:
1170:
1078:
1076:
1071:
1037:
1031:
963:
961:
956:
879:
877:
872:
821:
819:
814:
782:paraphrased our
771:
769:
764:
750:
724:
722:
717:
655:
653:
648:
612:
610:
605:
516:
504:
502:
497:
457:
455:
450:
334:
332:
327:
285:
249:
247:
242:
213:
211:
206:
170:
168:
163:
113:
95:
34:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1679:deletion review
1672:
1659:
1656:r e s e a r c h
1575:
1572:
1506:
1503:
1462:
1459:
1405:
1402:
1320:
1317:
1286:
1283:
1279:Common Outcomes
1264:
1173:
1168:
1166:
1074:
1069:
1067:
1029:
1026:
959:
954:
952:
875:
870:
868:
817:
812:
810:
767:
762:
760:
742:
720:
715:
713:
651:
646:
644:
608:
603:
601:
500:
495:
493:
453:
448:
446:
440:It still fails
330:
325:
323:
245:
240:
238:
209:
204:
202:
166:
161:
159:
86:
70:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1695:
1693:
1684:
1683:
1666:
1664:
1663:
1653:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1564:
1526:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1496:
1495:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1440:
1439:
1418:
1417:
1398:
1397:
1385:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1336:10th Amendment
1196:
1161:
1160:
1142:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1041:
1008:
1007:
1006:
970:
969:
968:
927:
909:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
755:
731:
730:
729:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
488:
419:
418:
417:
416:
399:
398:
386:per TJ Spyke.
380:
379:
378:
377:
340:
339:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
177:
176:
175:
127:Carlossuarez46
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1694:
1682:
1680:
1675:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1652:
1651:
1646:
1643:
1642:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1582:
1579:
1578:
1569:
1565:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1509:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1473:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1458:
1454:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1373:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1280:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1171:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1072:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
988:
987:
983:
979:
974:
971:
967:
964:
962:
957:
949:
945:
944:
943:
939:
935:
931:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
910:
908:
904:
900:
896:
893:
883:
880:
878:
873:
865:
864:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
822:
820:
815:
808:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
772:
770:
765:
756:
754:
751:
749:
747:
739:
735:
732:
728:
725:
723:
718:
710:
709:
708:
705:
704:
700:
696:
693:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
666:
661:
660:
659:
656:
654:
649:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
616:
613:
611:
606:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
514:
510:
509:
508:
505:
503:
498:
489:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
458:
456:
451:
443:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
424:
421:
420:
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
382:
381:
376:
372:
368:
365:verified. --
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
335:
333:
328:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
281:
279:
277:
275:
271:
259:
255:
254:
253:
250:
248:
243:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
219:
218:
217:
214:
212:
207:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
174:
171:
169:
164:
156:
155:
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
132:
128:
124:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1673:
1670:
1665:
1654:
1648:
1644:
1610:common sense
1602:WP:CONSENSUS
1598:
1594:
1590:
1573:
1547:
1504:
1485:
1460:
1456:
1426:
1421:
1403:
1387:
1375:
1318:
1284:
1272:The Guardian
1270:
1261:Bill Clinton
1256:
1244:
1232:
1228:
1165:
1144:
1131:commenters,
1120:
1094:WP:CONSENSUS
1066:
1043:
1027:
1010:
972:
951:
929:
911:
894:
867:
837:
833:
829:
809:
759:
745:
743:
733:
712:
701:
694:
662:
643:
624:
600:
582:
492:
473:
469:
465:
445:
422:
383:
362:
355:unverifiable
354:
322:
310:
273:
272:
270:
257:
237:
201:
179:
158:
140:
122:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1241:independent
1129:WP:OUTCOMES
1098:WP:OUTCOMES
844:and indeed
542:Cube lurker
517:—Preceding
478:Cube lurker
423:Strong keep
292:Cube lurker
286:—Preceding
223:Cube lurker
221:comments.--
188:Cube lurker
184:WP:OUTCOMES
1618:verifiable
1380:Iamunknown
359:WP:OSTRICH
1522:consensus
1239:that are
916:Lankiveil
1622:Oakshade
1612:and the
1576:SilkTork
1534:Oakshade
1507:SilkTork
1463:SilkTork
1406:SilkTork
1321:SilkTork
1287:SilkTork
1233:presumed
1102:Oakshade
1052:Oakshade
1030:SilkTork
1013:. Fails
531:contribs
519:unsigned
406:Oakshade
367:Oakshade
300:contribs
288:unsigned
145:Eastmain
116:View log
1599:against
1349:Nyttend
1303:Nyttend
1210:Nyttend
1186:Nyttend
1150:Nyttend
1145:Comment
996:Uncle G
978:Crossmr
854:Uncle G
792:Uncle G
778:False.
746:BQZip01
674:Uncle G
629:Uncle G
560:Nyttend
523:Nyttend
428:Nyttend
89:protect
84:history
1553:WP:AfD
1490:Elkman
1453:WP:Not
1448:WP:Not
1338:or an
1201:Secret
1137:Secret
1121:Delete
1011:Delete
973:Delete
780:Hmains
625:at all
587:Hmains
384:Delete
311:Delete
123:Delete
93:delete
50:Canley
1650:h i s
1530:paper
1488:. --
1455:that
1392:MONGO
1229:topic
1174:Spyke
1075:Spyke
960:Spyke
930:Keep:
899:Quale
876:Spyke
850:stubs
818:Spyke
768:Spyke
738:Glass
721:Spyke
703:Cobra
699:Glass
652:Spyke
609:Spyke
501:Spyke
454:Spyke
388:Tavix
331:Spyke
246:Spyke
210:Spyke
167:Spyke
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1645:Keep
1626:talk
1538:talk
1486:Keep
1433:talk
1422:Keep
1388:Keep
1376:Keep
1353:talk
1307:talk
1225:WP:N
1214:talk
1190:talk
1154:talk
1125:WP:N
1106:talk
1056:talk
1050:. --
1048:WP:V
1044:Keep
1015:WP:N
1000:talk
982:talk
938:talk
920:talk
912:Keep
903:talk
895:Keep
858:talk
807:WP:N
796:talk
736:per
734:Keep
695:Keep
678:talk
667:and
663:Our
633:talk
591:talk
583:keep
564:talk
556:this
546:talk
527:talk
482:talk
474:like
470:pass
442:WP:N
432:talk
410:talk
392:talk
371:talk
351:WP:V
347:WP:V
319:WP:V
317:and
315:WP:N
296:talk
227:talk
192:talk
180:Keep
149:talk
141:Keep
131:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
1595:all
1591:are
1548:are
1428:DGG
1340:RPW
1253:IBM
1231:is
950:).
838:You
834:You
515:.
472:is
114:– (
1628:)
1540:)
1435:)
1355:)
1309:)
1269:.
1216:)
1192:)
1169:TJ
1156:)
1135:.
1108:)
1070:TJ
1058:)
1002:)
984:)
955:TJ
940:)
922:)
905:)
871:TJ
860:)
813:TJ
798:)
763:TJ
744:—
740:.
716:TJ
680:)
647:TJ
635:)
604:TJ
593:)
566:)
548:)
533:)
529:•
496:TJ
484:)
449:TJ
434:)
412:)
394:)
373:)
363:is
326:TJ
302:)
298:•
241:TJ
229:)
205:TJ
194:)
162:TJ
151:)
133:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
1624:(
1580:*
1536:(
1511:*
1467:*
1431:(
1410:*
1351:(
1325:*
1305:(
1291:*
1275:.
1263:(
1212:(
1188:(
1152:(
1104:(
1054:(
1034:*
998:(
980:(
936:(
926:.
918:(
901:(
856:(
794:(
748:—
676:(
631:(
589:(
562:(
544:(
525:(
480:(
430:(
408:(
390:(
369:(
294:(
225:(
190:(
147:(
129:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.