Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The People's Cube

1276:

games are citing the New York Times? No, they cite gaming websites which normally wouldn't be considered "RSs" except when dealing with video games. "The People's Cube" is a political satire site which is mostly going to be cited by other satire sites, political sites, talk shows, etc; and it's those types of things which establish its notability. We wouldn't expect it to be cited by the Journal of the American Medical Association. As for some people's interpretation of policy: if this article fails notability by that interpretation, then probably 70% of the other articles here would also fail by the same interpretation. An interpretation of policy which would rule out most of the articles here is not a reasonable interpretation, and it's stridently Deletionist. The trouble with Deletionism is that it pretends Knowledge (XXG) has a strict space limit like a print encyclopedia, thereby defeating the entire point of an online, open-ended encyclopedia.

939:

throughout the blogosphere. Oleg Atbashian's writing has been published by websites too numerous to mention, including The American Thinker, PJ Media, and his political activism explored extensively by other websites, such as FrontPageMag.com. He's been interviewed by dozens of prominent media outlets, including The Rebel Media, and given speeches throughout the country to civic and political groups and clubs. His work has been cited by Michelle Malkin, among many others. His graphics have been used in scores of protests, both before and after the Tea Party revolution. The only rationale for deleting this entry would be extreme ideological bias against the ideas he's expressed.

2088:- the scientific guide to the various species of Pokemons. Here you will find a taxonomic chart that includes the full evolutionary sequence (Squirtle evolves into Wartortle; Mega Lizardon X does not evolve, and so on). What do you suppose the "reliable sources" are for this chart? Scientific journals? Biology textbooks? CNN? No, most of it comes from the game company's own "Pokedex". There are tens of thousands of similar articles dealing with other video games, using sources that most of the people here would not consider reliable but which are usually deemed usable for that type of context. Don't accuse me of 3734:. The sources used to support it are, at best, weak. Reference 1 is a passing mention in a book. Reference 2 might be useful in the context of other references, but by itself is of minimal use; discussing the logo in the context of an opinion piece on a separate topic rather than the site itself. Reference 3 has a passing quote from Atbashian and doesn't discuss the site. Reference 4 is another trivial mention in a book. The remaining references are about the urban legend/meme, which as others have noted doesn't have merit for notability for itself. We should also perhaps take a look at a possible AfD for 677:- Whenever the subject of "notability" comes up, I'm reminded of the persistent attempt to delete all articles about historical nobles below the rank of Baronet while keeping every single article about every minor video game character. "Notability" is very much a relative thing: I think "The People's Cube" is notable to anyone who is interested in political satire, just as nobles below the rank of Baronet are notable to historians and history buffs even if they may not be 'household names' to the video gamer set. I don't see any reason to delete this article. 3534:- There seems to be a great deal of interest in this topic and a number of people who support having an article on it, but there doesn't appear to be the number and degree of independent sourcing to establish a standalone article. If there were some other sort of list type article which could reasonably include this one, fine, maybe add it there. If there isn't, there seems to be based on the number of comments here to be enough basis to salt the article until and unless separate notability can be clearly established. 2812:, which is the what the primary beef a lot of the !voters expressed above. Furthermore, your hypothetical is already doomed, since "the only information they have" does not come from the website or its owners. That would be the job of the other ~15 citations or so. This goes back to what I was saying earlier - if you think certain sources are "not reliable" on this matter, please lay those out here, in detail, so they can be addressed, and the offending text re-sourced or removed. I also have to point out 1323:

character. But no one objects to that, based on the reasoning that a gaming database is the best available source for stuff like this. There's a tremendous double standard here. My 70% figure was a very rough estimate, sure, but think of all the tens of thousands of articles on video games and video game characters, soap opera characters, porn stars, etc, etc. How many of those articles would pass your litmus test? And how many of them are backed up with citations from prestigious RSs? And no, this isn't

2492:

a "People's Cube" toy, NOT the site. 8 (and the others that are just blogs) - self-created content. 9 - no mention of the site. 12 - about the Toy, not the site. 13 - passing mention. 14 - passing mention. 15 - passing mention. 16 - passing mention. 19 - yet another blog. 20 & 21 - not about the site. I haven't missed any out, I just don't like repeating myself. Now, you probably aren't going to understand the problem, so let me point it out in as few words as possible. None of these are

2766:) I can wikify that interview list (since it's strictly a list of titles, dates, and links - no copyvio) and add it to the article if you think it's really necessary, but given what I just read, and the policy on interviews, there are at least 35 verified interviews with the author of this site that appear to be independent of the author himself. In my mind, that establishes notability all by itself to the word and spirit of 1542:: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." What a talk show host says on their talk show is not a reliable source either. Even if they were, they provide only passing information. 1074:

not an encyclopedia, that is a directory. I could write pages upon pages about my experience with my first car or the comic that showed up in my local neighborhood newspaper. I could find notable people to also write about it and publish it or interview me. That doesn't make me or that comic notable. Perhaps I am misunderstanding because I'm new but it seems that this is not the place to challenge notability

3613: 73: 3053:, and clicked through to several of the sources. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable Knowledge (XXG) article. There's a fairly wide variety of sources, including significant coverage in books from academic institutions, and some from major newspapers. Further sources will certainly help in creating a more nicely-rounded article, but what's in there now is, in my view, enough to clear the 3083:; but inaccuracy, such as a fake newspaper headline from 1943, has the general effect of reducing the due weight to be given to the information. There is also a problem here of WP:SYNTH, as Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought, which this topic as a whole represents. The attempt by the topic to preserve its article on Knowledge (XXG) is evidence that the topic hasn't 2794:. Putting aside for a moment the details of policy and guidelines, do you think that anyone could write a faur and objective article about a website when the only information they have comes from the website or its owners? And bear in mind it is a "satirical" website that distorts reality for humorous effect. This discussion for example is referred to in its site as a "show trial." 3202:- After lots of revision to respond to this discussion the article relies so much on the NYT meme for content that it's now less about the site and more about the meme. Rather than prolong this process proponents of the article could spend some time gathering better sources with more focused references to the site, and then run a new draft by some of the more experienced names above. 603:

website, but the most common iteration of the meme is not that from The People's Cube, but a significantly modified one. The Cutts blog is, well, a blog; it's not a reliable source. That Google yanked TPC off its lists isn't notable, that happens hundreds of times (if not more) a day. I'm sorry that the website isn't as notable as you'd like, but it simply isn't.

552:- Not finding independent reliable sources for which this website is the primary (or even a significant) subject; there are only passing references. The mere existence of a meme originating from a website does not make the website itself notable (although the meme could be independently notable - the whole point of a meme is that it goes beyond its origin). 1520:

people who have discussed this subject at length. Michelle Malkin, an extremely popular blogger and best-selling author has praised Oleg and his website on several different occasions. All of his major radio and Web interviews are linked to on his site, but these interviews took place on other forums. I don't see what part of this is difficult to understand.

2564:: I disagree with this interpretation. If a source is notable because of a certain thing they did, in this case, creating a bogus news article, it is not a "passing mention" to call out that thing they did (13). Snopes confirms that this image was being circulated via email, and debunked it. (14), About.com did similar (15). All of these are RSes. 2990:, but I didn't mean for it to become a major focus of the discussion -- just that Wikipedians should be aware of it, if they found themselves confused by why there were so many !votes from new and less experienced contributors. I'm pretty sure the outcome will be just fine, and will not afford undue influence to the site itself. - 2964:

Except "rallying their readers" doesn't appear to have done much in this case, and this was with a stickied front page article on their site. What else are they going to do? I see few questionable comments by newbies, and the atmosphere was very much in favor of nuking it before I tried reworking it.

2913:

is happy to have a Knowledge (XXG) article sourced entirely to them, either directly or indirectly. They see it as a advertisement. But as soon as any piece of negative information is written about them or anyone connected with them in reliable sources, that advantage will disppear and this article

2491:

1 - Alexa - does not establish notability. 2 (and 11) - Washington Times Communities - written by Abtashian - not independent source. 3 (and the others from) the People's Cube - not independent source for obvious reasons. 5 - only a passing mention of the site. 6 - passing mentions. 7 - article about

1275:

The argument about a lack of "RSs" in this case is rather silly, since we're dealing with an element of pop culture whose notability must be established by other things in the pop culture, not by academic journals or top news sources. Do you think the thousands of Knowledge (XXG) articles about video

1073:

and that is why articles require different types of sources. Anyone can write about anything and generate search results in google or publish it in a local paper. If this were the accepted standard, every person that wanted a Knowledge (XXG) page for their fly-by-night business would have one. That's

1020:

sources exist but not a single source that you linked is independent and reliable... Also one should not have to look solely at the subject's website to determine notability, that's the entire point I'm making. Anyone can claim anything they like about themselves - that's why interviews are generally

735:

Well the problem is whatever you were referring to, you don't seem to have explained why this article is notable. It being notable to people who are interested in political satire isn't an argument based on any accepted guideline or policy. (Nor for that matter the baronet thing. Significant coverage

3109:

there are dozens upon dozens of instances of organic media coverage both online and off. Ranging from citations-and reprints of previously published articles-in Advertising Age, the Washington Times, the Washington Post and the New York Post to discussions of the website on Russia Today. Even if you

2879:

The intention there was your refusal (and continuing refusal) to point out specific issues with the non-primary sources used. WP:WEASEL is about the use of weasel words rather than quoting individual people. Your complaints are about unspecified bad sources rather than quoting individual ones, which

2134:

But it mostly uses the company's own website as a source for the "data" on Pokemons. You're also missing the main point, which was: it's common practice to allow a different litmus test for "reliable sources" based on individual context (in the Pokemon articles, gaming websites and the company's own

3147:

as no consensus and renominate if needed. The article that is being discussed now is fundamentally different than the one that was discussed originally, and the inherent complexity of considering every !vote in accordance with how the article was at that particular time makes this discussion nearly

2292:

who has been quietly working to improve the article during the AfD. Any administrator should have the ability to see past the !votes that are not rooted in policy, and should apply less weight to !votes that were entered prior to improvements and not updated. You should of course proceed as you see

2193:

I'm working on a userspace draft of this article. Currently, it has most of the primary cites excised and the remainders used explicitly to support self published statements, and a heck of a lot more secondaries. However, I'm going to wait until this closes as delete before I even think of floating

1805:

Keep: Oleg Atbashians job in the ussr was a propagandist. To see him censored here creates a very dangerous precedent, esp in these times. I can unequivocally say that Knowledge (XXG) will not receive a single penny from me ever if he is censored. But I will work on a competitor and replacement for

1120:

Your comparison to blatantly self-promoting websites is revealing. This is a prominent website which has been repeatedly cited on national talk radio shows-the most popular talk radio show, in fact-podcasts, published articles, interviews, and books, and whose artwork has been broadcast on national

602:

The mention in the deGrasse book is fleeting - a single sentence; it's not a significant subject of the book by any stretch of the imagination. We'd be looking for several pages of discussion, if not a whole chapter. The Snopes and About.com references mention that the specific meme started at the

2315:

I see where you're coming from, but I'm speaking from years of reading AfDs here. We live in a world where people don't often act rationally even if it is good faith at the end of the day. I'm concerned that any improvements made here and now will be deemed insufficient (seriously, look upthread -

1293:

While I mostly agree with your reasoning regarding Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines being overly restrictive (I am often saddened to see decent articles getting deleted, merged, or gutted), I think there is also a matter of verifiability here. If there are no sources actually going in depth

958:

I'm not going to dispute that with you but I am going to ask for sources. Several people in this AfD have said ""he" or the website have been talked about at xyz" but so far no one has provided any sources and those of us who did do some searching came up empty handed for RS. I can say the moon is

822:

arguments in the world is not going to change the facts of the matter. All the pleas from the website isn't going to fix the fact that there isn't enough independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in depth. There is not enough there to show that the website merits an independent Knowledge

2949:

Of course not. But they can lobby their readers to vote for keeping, which they have done in this case. If they get enough of their readers to do that, then they can win a keep vote. Even if they do not do that, they are perfectly free to vote in deletion discussions and to attempt to persuade

2350:

WP:RS does a rather poor job of explaining anything objectively, rather pointing at a set of criteria that will have to be interpreted. As in judgment calls made. The problem is, I want to actually go over the article and its cites (and not in the handwavy "not good enough" sense that's been done

3474:

Note that going back to the beginning of this thread, those in favor of deleting have outnumbered those in favor of keeping. The margin by which they are outnumbered has been growing at a steady rate since then. I'm fairly certain this isn't so much an influx of "delete" !votes, but an influx of

3283:

as others have said there is a lack of quality sourcing to support an article at this time. The site itself can't be used as a notability source either. Article in its current state is little different from how it was when first nominated, so that call to "close as no consensus" above is silly.

1846:

Nobody is being censored, and nobody is impressed by threats to withhold donations - you can't influence editors in that way. If the subject of this article has Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources then this article will be kept. If it doesn't, it won't. It's really that simple.

1519:

What are you talking about? I've referenced and linked to multiple non-trivial sources, on the Internet, talk radio, and television,which have discussed The People's Cube and Oleg Atbashian at length. Again, Rush Limbaugh-the most popular terrestrial radio host in this country-is just one of the

1322:

To establish that something is popular in the culture, you don't need academic journals or other prestigious sources. The many articles about Pokemon characters often cite the company's own website as a source, since the New York Times doesn't have a database on the exact traits of every Pokeman

644:

Newly invented? The GNG required significant or multiple non trivial coverage since the early development of the guidelines which was in the days when a bunch of people still thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the 44th President of the USA as she'd manage to defeat this upstart senator ....

3226:

these are still passing mentions, except for one article dedicated to The People's Cube, by which I mean the toy - not the site itself. There is no reason for me to change my vote, and given the amount of time that has passed since this article's nomination I'm not convinced that the in-depth,

2218:

to support the recreation of this article later, why not just add them to the article now? That'd remove the reason for its deletion. There's no rule that says articles can't be improved during AfD discussions - be bold, remove all the silly blog-based sources from the article now and add the

2169:

Yeah, it's part of a very large group of articles on literally every single character in that video game series, no matter how obscure some of the characters may be; and yet here we're being told that a popular website isn't "notable" ? That's astoundingly ironic, and THAT was my main point.

1429:

While anybody can comment, deletion discussions tend to be an exclusive affair for the local Knowledge (XXG) community. We would not be much of a global encyclopedia if we let random external websites dominate and decide AfDs for us. Our policies and criteria are based on the consensus of the

1948:

The way it works is quite simple and straightforward. If the subject of this article meets the notability criteria that have been pointed out, the article is kept. If not, it isn't. It doesn't matter how many canvassed votes appear on this page - after all, this is a discussion not a ballot.

938:

The idea that this isn't a notable website is absurd on its face. It's been discussed, repeatedly, on Rush Limbaugh-the most popular talk radio show in the country. Its work has been cited by astronomer Michael Eric Dyson in The Pluto Files. Its dispute with Google was chronicled extensively

1571:

Recognition in the general culture is not sufficient reason to have an article, there must be reliable sources that can be used to write the article. The Malkin and Limbaugh references for example fail reliable sources and should be removed. All we would be left with is information from

3110:

adhered to the esoteric definition of notability used by some of the editors above, i.e. any reference on Web magazines and weblogs, no matter how prominent, doesn't count, it still wouldn't erase the dozens of references on cable television, published books, newspapers, and magazines.

3104:

The people advocating for deletion seem to have a tendency to ignore the massive amount of evidence which refutes their argument. The fact that information supporting notability is hosted on The People's Cube doesn't mean that evidence was created by the website itself. As Oleg has

2686:

Again. How is a book (many of them, by otherwise reliable authors) saying "Website X did Y thing, here is an evaluation of it" a mere "namecheck"? Please explain your reasoning. I've done so. There's entirely too much repetition and very little in depth reasoning being used in this

2367:

You'll have to take it through the Articles for Creation process then if you insist on doing it the hard way - if it's not substantially different to this article (should it be deleted after this discussion) then there's a good chance your new article will be speedily deleted under

2849:

is established by coverage in reliable secondary sources, not by how often something is discussed in the blogosphere, unless and until reliable secondary sources pick up on it. If you don't like that policy, get it changed. Furthermore, while self-published sources may be used,

1387:

I am a bit split on this sites notability. In a YouTube video Fareed Zakaria complains about this site without mentioning it directly (as an obscure website). So on one end they aren't very notable based on my simple google search. On the other hand they caused enough grief to be

2288:. I have not !voted here yet, because it has not yet become clear to me whether or not the site is notable; and I suspect the closing administrator will take the evolution of the article into account. It's clear that a lot of people think it is, and I appreciate the efforts of 2722:

I'm inclined to agree with Peteforsyth that this is looking a bit closer to the fence than it did at the beginning. Now that sources have been offered from a few published books and reputable authors, I've temporarily struck my delete !vote above and will take a second look.

3087:, and is seeking to attract that attention. Knowledge (XXG) has a duty to not help in that attempt. It seems unlikely at this point that the world will ever care that this website existed, and a look at Google Books and Google Scholar is not a reason to think otherwise. 2316:

even one single N,RS should be enough to merit inclusion, yet here we are with a torrent of delete votes), and this held against the article. I want to have the "what sources are okay" and "how many are enough" discussion on the drawing board, not the slaughterhouse floor.

2336:- How many? Enough to establish Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources - there's no set limit. I've seen articles survive AfD discussions due to 3 articles about them in reliable sources. Note the "about them" part - passing mentions aren't enough. 1767:. It would indeed be notable if there was an example of good, funny, right-wing satire, but the consensus appears to be that this isn't it, so has been generally ignored by the kinds of sources we require. Sadly, all right-wing satire appears to fail Poe's Law. 762:- Throwing out the existing unreliable sources leaves the article with very little good info to go on. However, as a general rule, I dislike subjective notions of notability used as the primary reason for deleting anything. I could just as easily point out the 2597:

I didn't think you'd agree, but I find your statement that you think I'm not acting in good faith to be rather offensive after spending my free time evaluating the sources you provided. I'm not going to help you any further or reply to you. Please remember to

877:. None of the article's current sources demonstrate notability and none of the article's statements are supported by a reliable source. There are a couple of reliable sources out there, but they only mention The People's Cube in passing and do not provide 2707:

for the effort, you have greatly improved the case for keeping an article. Those voting Delete should take a look and reconsider; I'm convinced it's not the clear-cut case it initially appeared to be. I'm still on the fence; I appreciate your efforts.

2249:

and canvassed environment. On top of that, I find that RFC is much more friendly and much less "sudden death" than AfD. Let this one burn, and then I'll see if the community thinks it deserves to rise from the ashes. If it fails there.. welp, I tried.

770:. I think notability is a non-issue here. However, the lion's share of the article being a blatant copyvio is. I think this article needs to be rewritten, and some better sources (like the one I just gave) used. I don't think it needs to be trashed. 1327:

given that such articles make up such a large percentage of Knowledge (XXG). They are in fact the norm, not the exception. My point was that some of you guys would need to delete most of Knowledge (XXG) to enforce your interpretation of the rules.

621:

is proof of the site's notability. Discounting the reference in "Pluto Files" as "fleeting" seems like POV -- the requirement for a citation to involve "several pages" to count seems newly-invented. To summarize, the site is no less notable than

2818:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are

1121:

television in a number of well-publicized protests. To try to minimize the significance of this website and its founder is illustrative of your real motives, which have nothing to do with the procedural minutiae you've been harping on.

648:. Actually the time from now to when it was added to GNG is a few years more than the time from when it was added to when wikipedia first came to be. In other words, if that's "newly-invented" you have a very weird definition of "new". 343:

The efforts to remove the article about the site can only be explained by the severe dislike of the site itself -- this becomes immediately obvious after reading the article's discussion-page... There are no reasons to delete it.

1141:

for the last time, stop accusing me of having an ulterior motive unless you have some sort of evidence. I presented my reasoning and have not given any reason to doubt that. And since you seem to have missed my point last time,

1494:, "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." There are few if any mentions in mainstream media and none in depth. The "Snopes" article is about a rumor that started with the 2135:

website are allowed for certain things), but whenever anyone in this discussion asks for evidence of notability in the pop culture, they refuse to accept pop cultural sources and then claim there aren't enough sources.

278: 1874:

KEEP. Not sure how this works. But why would you remove anything? You're supposed to be wikipedia. You shouldn't be any more frightened of libertarian satire than left leaning satire. So here is a link to Limbaugh...

2880:

I would like to fix if present. I have to assume that this means that you haven't actually examined them yet. Please do so. Also please see my above notes about interviews by multiple parties establishing notability

2297:, but I'd urge you to consider simply putting your draft in article space, where it might further benefit from the efforts of others. Even if it's deleted, if you feel the deletion is improper, you can always seek a 1992:(see "notability fallacies"). The question is not whether you or me have heard of it — it's whether it's received independent, in-depth coverage from secondary sources. And this website doesn't appear to have those. 448:

I'm not sure why you think I was canvassed into coming here? The only reason I even noticed this page is because of a tweet that appeared in relation to a Knowledge (XXG) search on Twitter. Ironically, it was from

2083:

If anyone really thinks that a double standard isn't being used regarding "reliable sources" and "notability", I invite you to look at any of the uncountable articles about the Pokemon video game series, such as

3049:. My strong inclination prior to this AfD was to delete, and the flood of ill-informed "keep" votes underscored that view. However, I have now reviewed the newer version of the article put together primarily by 2985:

Agreed. All the hand-wringing about canvassing is in my view a little silly. Our administrators know how to ignore !votes (on both sides) that fail to reference policy or advance an argument. I think I was the

3729:

It's disappointing, if all too common, that people attempt to recruit biased voters to an AfD. Though such behavior leaves a bad taste, it does not influence my recommendation here. I've reviewed the article

2531:

mentions in books by various authors, one of whom is Neil DeGrasse Tyson (4,5,13) , and one more from a notable talk show host (8). All of these are secondary sources. One should be enough, have six. It is

1556:

He was offering those sources as proof that the site and its author have recognition in the general culture, rather than claiming these sources are prestigious or neutral journalistic or academic sources.

3017:

I mentioned the canvassing up, because A Certain White Cat commented "I noticed this article on this very nomination." I wanted to point out that the article he linked to was a call for canvassing on

1382:

against this deletion, interfering with our local affairs. Even if the article is kept, it is evident that this article needs to be closely watched against conflicts of interest by the editors editing it.

1403:

Our local affairs? This is not the Kiwanis Club. This is a global encyclopedia that allows anyone-and everyone-to edit articles and contribute to discussions, regardless of whether they are Wikipedians.

818:

and you need to understand that this is not the place to air your grievances towards Knowledge (XXG) policy. This article does not meet notability as it is currently written. Sorry it doesn't. All the

3222:

As I gave my word that I'd revisit this issue once all the unreliable references (blogs, passing mentions and references from T.P.C.'s own site) were removed, I've come back for a second look. As of

921: 709:

I was referring to a systematic problem with the way "notability" is analyzed, so I think my comments were relevant and not based on a "misunderstanding". This type of issue comes up constantly.

2933:

I'm not sure what relevance this has to do with keeping the article or not. The subject of the article doesn't get to unilaterally decide if the article should exists or not, or its content.

2194:

it in an RFC, given the !voting landscape I see here. This discussion is a mess thanks to TPC's canvassing, and the overwhelming sentiment here is to nuke it rather than fix its problems.

1308:"Other things in the pop culture" still have to be reliable. That's a discussion for WP:RSN, not for here. Your estimate of the 70% is based on nothing at all, as far as I can see. Sorry, 404:"debunking" The People's Cube's satire. The "rumors" they "debunk" have originated on the site, which makes the site notable. It is not any more a "faked newspaper", than is, for example, 1213: 2550:: Only ever used to source a claim that.. the primary source said something. If the paragraph says "Exemplo347 said X", and the cite is Exemplo347's website, it is not unacceptable per 2536:

a requirement of WP:N that it be established by one particular source to the exclusion of others. I question how you conclude that direct references of secondary sources talking about

1232:

per Risker. Needs independent RS coverage. Snopes doesn't establish notability, otherwise we'd have an article on Brian Peppers. (Oh god I'm old enough to remember that edit war!)

231: 2620:

for you to have fully evaluated 21 sources in 27 minutes. This would require you to have spent absolutely no more than 1 minute and 17 seconds per source assuming you started looking

3620: 1989: 80: 1970:

I'm from the French part of Switzerland and I know this parody website , some of their edits are even translated in French. This WP page meets the notability criteria for me. --

1378:

on this very nomination. This is a FIRST for me where the AFD itself has coverage when I search for the article topic on google news. It seems like the source itself is trying to

885:

by someone affiliated with the site and included a lengthly "founder's bio", a copyright violation, that stuck around for almost 9 years. Canvassing has taken place both on their

309:

Only sources are their own website, snopes and an urban legend debunking website. Article would need to be significantly rewritten to be encyclopedic and is questionably notable.

987: 1050:

Right. This comment basically proves for me that the "notability" policy as it exists here is utterly and completely broken. When someone can have this much coverage and it's

814:

You know, I wasn't actually going to !vote here but the sheer misunderstanding of notability as it pertains to Knowledge (XXG) on this AFD is astounding. You all need to read

272: 2756:

An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability.

511: 823:(XXG) article of its own. I'm sorry. Facts are facts. And the fact is, the website doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. That is not to say that it will 52:. There isn't any other way this is going to end. There are a couple (and only a couple) of reasonable comments in favour of Keeping this, but consensus is clear. 2569:

I also find it very hard to believe that you critically evaluated 21 different citations in the 27 minutes between my comment being posted and your original reply.

1351:: An editor has now substantially reworked the article. I have not reviewed the references or changes in detail; just noting this here for those following the AFD. 2092:

because articles like these are practically the norm, not exceptional cases. I fully expect the Deletionists to go through and get rid of all of these articles.

3185:

obvious huge promotional pressure and this doesn't meet GNG. The revision of the article doesn't change that. Even what is there now, are passing mentions.

1216: 767: 2668:

The problems remain. Sources are either unreliable, or not about the subject. Namechecks is about as good as it gets. Sorry, I'm afraid you wasted your time.

2918:

And if you then decide you want the article deleted, it is going to be difficult, especially if the evil mainstream media have published an exposé article.

2624:

after I posted. If you want me to assume good faith, I'd thank you to not attempt to deceive me by claiming that you did work you couldn't humanly have.

366:

the snopes article talks about the faked newspaper itself and that it was once on the website, which is the only mention of the website in the article.

1865: 1474: 1432: 1393: 492: 238: 2852:"Knowledge (XXG) articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." 2506:

Before anyone suggests that I didn't go through each one of these sources individually, I assure you I did, giving myself a headache in the process.

1730: 2643:

Oh, bullshit. How long is it supposed to take to determine that a passing mention is only a passing mention? If there's nothing more to read, you

1078:. The policy exists currently and until that changes, it has to be applied to any and all articles, not those that you and I selectively choose. 2223:

policies - if you can remove every single primary, blog based or other useless source and add something real, I'll change my !vote on the spot.

1099:...in any case, I guess there's no point in litigating that here. I think it's blindingly obvious just by a count how this discussion will end. 992:

Which you might have noticed if you had taken a cursory glance at his website-you know, the one you're so eager to delete from Knowledge (XXG).

204: 199: 2044:

The trouble might be one less page on Knowledge (XXG) might be the competitors gain including satirical sites like Encyclopedia Dramatica. --

1576:

and Snopes' statement that one of their satirical pieces was taken literally. And surely that is not enough to write an informative article.

3106: 3005: 2869: 1472:

Yes, but those normally don't show up in the google news feed. That can create a lot of noise here (as evident by the blatant canvassing). --

1375: 1256: 886: 208: 3760: 2786:

Interviews are not reliable sources except for what someone has said. And lots of the sources are not reliable anyway, such as programs by

989:. And here's a link to a selection of interviews he's done over the past 5 years on the Web, satellite and terrestrial radio, and podcasts. 3629: 2841:

It always ring alarm bells when someone links to a policy or guideline without explaining how it relates. WP:WEASEL for example links to

89: 191: 3168:- As per Neutrality, there's no in-depth secondary coverage to differentiate this from a million other places where people talk online. 1933: 1914: 1893: 1827: 1813: 3659: 1937: 1835: 1686: 119: 3571: 3406: 1724:

demands. I would like to note that personal blogs are generally not considered reliable sources by Knowledge (XXG)'s standards, since

925: 17: 293: 3756: 260: 2845:. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, it is just a bogus argument from authority on your part. Also, note that 2112: 2467:

enumerate those sources here, and explain why you think they fail policy. A number of unsourced statements have been removed.

2821:(and I see no failures of the following list). Again, if you disagree, let's talk about the details, rather than these vague 904: 3645: 2965:

Furthermore, they can canvass all they want, this isn't a vote. I also question what relevance their conduct has to keeping

1029:

from Knowledge (XXG). I'm advocating deletion of an article that currently does not conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s standards.

105: 1716:– As I noted on the article's talk page before this AfD, I have, unfortunately, been unable to find the requisite level of 3564: 3560: 3399: 3173: 1682: 519: 3747: 3122: 2927: 2089: 1324: 882: 819: 692: 571: 325: 2763: 2120:. Why are you insisting that this article survives with a lot less? Are you sure it's not you who has double standards? 1693:

Sorry, Snit333, but the point of this deletion discussion is that the (remarkably sparse) sources identified don't meet

465:

reason I nominated this was per what I said above. So I guess technically, I was the opposite of whatever canvassed is?

3783: 3390:

of coverage, and no major awards, etc., won either, which is another relevant condition. Hence this article fails both

2298: 40: 2759: 2085: 1430:

Knowledge (XXG) community and the purpose of an AfD is to discuss if the article meets these policies and criteria. --

990: 414:

into this -- without ever participating in the article's discussion, you propose an AfD of the 9-year old article on

254: 3475:!votes following the same pattern as before. As for myself; yes, it was indeed the ANI thread that brought me here. 3579: 3118: 1525: 1409: 1126: 997: 944: 3764: 3618:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

3598: 3573: 3543: 3520: 3504: 3490: 3442: 3425: 3408: 3358: 3337: 3314: 3293: 3275: 3252: 3236: 3214: 3194: 3177: 3160: 3139: 3096: 3066: 3031: 3012: 2999: 2980: 2959: 2944: 2895: 2873: 2836: 2803: 2781: 2732: 2717: 2698: 2681: 2655: 2638: 2611: 2580: 2515: 2478: 2457: 2397: 2381: 2362: 2345: 2327: 2310: 2275: 2261: 2232: 2205: 2179: 2144: 2129: 2101: 2067: 2053: 2039: 2021: 1996: 1979: 1958: 1897: 1856: 1821: 1800: 1780: 1757: 1743: 1725: 1706: 1669: 1649: 1632: 1599: 1585: 1566: 1551: 1529: 1511: 1456: 1413: 1366: 1337: 1317: 1303: 1285: 1267: 1247: 1224: 1204: 1130: 1110: 1065: 1001: 948: 929: 906: 861: 836: 802: 781: 745: 718: 704: 686: 657: 639: 612: 597: 583: 561: 523: 435: 353: 78:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

56: 3092: 3027: 2955: 2923: 2865: 2799: 1975: 1581: 1547: 1507: 1452: 3691: 250: 151: 3484: 3331: 3169: 2245:. I'd rather the new version of the article be evaluated on its own merits, rather than in the context of this 1876: 981: 515: 3387: 3583: 3433:

There has been a rapid deluge of "delete" votes one after another. What's going on? Is someone canvassing?

2750:

I did some more digging (and apologies for the watchlist spam, I just keep finding more). There's a blurb in

2465:

The reworked version of the article has been posted. If there are still issues with the sources used, please

2289: 1929: 1910: 1889: 1831: 1817: 1212:

There are lots of mentions on lots of sites that fall far short of being RS. The best I could find was this

195: 3675: 3649: 3416:

There's no obvious evidence of notability and the burden of proof lies on the article's proposers here. --

3080: 2857: 2846: 2813: 1881: 1809: 1645: 1143: 917: 300: 135: 109: 3735: 3345:- No, no, and thrice no. Lacks reliable independent third-party coverage, and there is a clear attempt at 3149: 2987: 1353: 1200: 490:

I canvas you. Seriously though, this is not a vote. It is a discussion. Arguments are all that matters. --

3634: 2751: 2058:

If other sites choose to have less stringent inclusion criteria, that's their choice. Good luck to them.

94: 3779: 3539: 3114: 3062: 2995: 2713: 2351:

above) ref by ref, cite by cite, and gather input on what people think is okay and what isn't, and why.

2306: 1925: 1906: 1885: 1521: 1424: 1405: 1362: 1138: 1122: 1008: 993: 940: 398: 36: 3322:

I haven't seen any significant, independent coverage, either here, in the article, or at article talk.

187: 62: 2969:

article. What they might do in the future or are doing now is immaterial to the fate of the article.

1641: 421: 3743: 3516: 3464: 3456: 3305:. Simply, we lack more than a tiny amount of citable evidence for the notability of this website. -- 3232: 3209: 3088: 3076: 3023: 2951: 2919: 2861: 2795: 2607: 2511: 2501: 2377: 2341: 2271: 2228: 2161: 2153: 2125: 2063: 2035: 1971: 1954: 1852: 1796: 1628: 1577: 1543: 1503: 1467: 1448: 1164: 1156: 1088: 1080: 1039: 1031: 969: 961: 475: 467: 388: 376: 368: 319: 311: 53: 3367: 3346: 2851: 2551: 1539: 1491: 1151: 3500: 3477: 3421: 3324: 3289: 3269: 2978: 2942: 2893: 2834: 2779: 2696: 2636: 2578: 2476: 2395: 2360: 2325: 2259: 2203: 1108: 1063: 800: 779: 741: 653: 286: 2842: 2822: 2151:

I'm not sure what your point is, that isn't a standalone article...it's part of a character list.

1918: 1658: 3681: 3612: 2455: 1590:

See my other comments about the normal manner for handling this type of thing in other articles.

1299: 1263: 1240: 902: 337:) found it necessary to "debunk" the site's satire, is the best evidence of notability a site -- 266: 141: 72: 3383: 2915: 2555: 984: 959:

purple and I've talked about it on Anderson Cooper but it doesn't make my idea notable or true.

890: 540: 3354: 2242: 1678: 1665: 1196: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3778:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3511:

If there's any evidence of canvassing (in either direction) then by all means, post it here.

3395: 3227:

reliable, independent coverage that Knowledge (XXG) requires will be found for this article.

2625: 2439: 2238: 1721: 1294:

about this website, how are we supposed to write a reasonably detailer article on the topic?

1218:. I don't think this is enough in-depth independent coverage in RS to establish notability. 1188: 1147: 874: 815: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

3554: 3535: 3249: 3190: 3058: 2991: 2709: 2652: 2302: 2246: 2049: 2017: 1702: 1358: 1313: 832: 700: 608: 588:

Citations of the site have, in fact, been offered on the article's discussion-page already.

579: 557: 3559:

I looked at suggesting a redirect as a solution- but couldn't quite see where it would go-

3391: 3054: 2599: 2435: 2431: 2220: 2030:

Ah, good, so there's no great need to keep the page here then? Thanks for letting us know.

1616: 1192: 1022: 3739: 3512: 3310: 3228: 3203: 3136: 2603: 2507: 2497: 2373: 2337: 2285: 2267: 2224: 2121: 2059: 2031: 1993: 1950: 1863:

Knowledge (XXG) does not work like US politics. You cannot BUY your place on this site. --

1848: 1792: 1624: 857: 635: 593: 431: 349: 2423: 2420: 2369: 2333: 1717: 1694: 1620: 1535: 1447:

It actually is fairly common for websites to rally their readers to AfD conversations.

3496: 3438: 3417: 3285: 3261: 3050: 2970: 2934: 2885: 2826: 2771: 2704: 2688: 2628: 2570: 2468: 2387: 2352: 2317: 2294: 2251: 2219:

secondary sources that you've found. My delete !vote was based purely on the GNG &

2195: 2175: 2140: 2097: 1595: 1562: 1333: 1281: 1100: 1055: 792: 771: 737: 714: 682: 649: 3084: 2427: 763: 3593: 3587: 3378:

in the sources. Unfortunately, that is all we have here- as they only give (at most)

3009: 2791: 2728: 2676: 2670: 2447: 1775: 1769: 1753: 1739: 1619:. It's been blogged about by other bloggers, but no significant coverage online from 1295: 1259: 1233: 897: 617:

The fact-checkers have "debunked" multiple "rumours" originating on the site -- that

3709: 3697: 3665: 3350: 1674: 1661: 169: 157: 125: 736:

of these people in sources published by historians obviously is a good argument.)

225: 3644:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

104:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

3454:

My guess is attention was unintentionally brought to the AfD by the ANI thread.

3302: 3245: 3186: 2648: 2045: 2013: 1698: 1309: 845: 828: 696: 604: 575: 553: 1748:

Striking !vote to give this a second consideration following discussion below.

3306: 2787: 853: 631: 589: 485: 443: 427: 361: 345: 2762:. The top one is especially interesting - it is directly about the website. ( 1257:

expect a couple of SPAs to show up as TPC has put out a public call for help.

3434: 2171: 2136: 2093: 1877:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/08/03/mega_dittos_from_the_motherland

1591: 1558: 1329: 1277: 710: 678: 623: 405: 2521:

WP:CIVIL, please. I do not appreciate the patronizing comments. See below:

2494:

articles about The People's Cube website, from Reliable Independent Sources

893: 691:

So...a misunderstanding of notability as it applies to Knowledge (XXG) and

1498:, but otherwise says nothing about it. If readers want to know about the 2724: 2544:. This is a standard of notability not used elsewhere on Knowledge (XXG). 1749: 1735: 2914:

will probably rank higher in searches than the company's website. Read

768:

founder gets into legal trouble (with the site mentioned multiple times)

3376:

trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content

1219: 394: 334: 3085:

attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time

983:. Here's Michelle Malkin effusively praising Oleg and his website: 461:. Frankly, I don't care about the website one way or another. The 2538:

things the web site and its author has done or is responsible for

3772:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3607: 3008:

and I'm not going to opine in any direction as a consequence.

1191:

and the Snopes mentions don't amount to what we require under

67: 3366:

This appears to have been exciting! -but, unnecessarilly so.

2760:

here's an entire page of linked interviews going back to 2014

980:

Well, here's a link to a conversation between Rush and Oleg:

3638:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1195:. Sorry, this isn't notable under Knowledge (XXG) policies. 914:- The Site's satire has been reprinted in numerous places. 541:

https://twitter.com/ThePeoplesCube/status/815990773661528064

98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2916:"An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing." 2266:

Ah well, nobody can say I wasn't 100% reasonable about it.

2012:

and/or the Wayback Machine and will upload it elsewhere. --

2009: 827:

meet said criteria. Just that at the moment it does not. --

3260:. Only a handle full of sources does not make it notable. 2008:, I have a feeling then someone will archive the entry to 1054:

handwaved for contrived and subjective-looking reasons...

3628:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

88:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

3731: 3244:

per Gamaliel. Oh god, I remember Brian Peppers, too. --

3223: 3022:

website, hence it did nothing to establish notablity.

646: 570:

Noting that the applicable notability standard here is

221: 217: 213: 285: 2216:

Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources

1790:

Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources

1534:

The Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin sites are not

418:, an attempt for "non-controversial" PROD of it (by 3372:

the subject of multiple non-trivial published works

3004:Canvassing is certainly annoying. I came here from 1988:"I've heard of it" seems to be exactly the kind of 299: 2768:the world at large giving attention to the subject 2241:, and because the canvassing initiated by TPC has 2386:Hm.. Hadn't thought of that. Alright, see below. 1640:. Same reason as Brian Peppers and Filthy Frank. 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3786:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2110:Double standards? The article you've linked has 2436:Knowledge (XXG)'s General Notability Guidelines 986:. Here's an interview he did with Rebel media: 626:'s, even if it never had a dead-tree edition. 3658:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 1443:The "article" about this AfD is a posting on 512:list of Websites-related deletion discussions 118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 3380:a brief summary of the nature of the content 2602:in your future dealings with other editors. 510:Note: This debate has been included in the 410:Personally, please, do not deny having been 1025:. And please stop accusing me of trying to 3632:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 2855: 1879: 1807: 915: 509: 92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 3495:Yes, I also came to this AfD via ANI. -- 2854:They cannot be based on primary sources. 1990:argument to avoid in deletion discussions 1905:: An editor has expressed a concern that 881:coverage. Worth noting that this article 459:fight the leftist Knowledge (XXG) editors 3652:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 1154:doesn't mean something is not notable. 530: 2817: 2767: 2755: 2616:Allow me to put it another way. It is 2496:- I can't make it any clearer to you. 1729: 922:2605:6000:101B:C048:223:32FF:FE9F:B256 791:Retracted upon further consideration. 333:That various "fact checkers" (such as 1150:does not mean notable and conversely 1016:I don't think there was a doubt that 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 3738:, which has even less references. -- 1731:high-quality mainstream publications 1728:. Are there examples of coverage in 3349:here to keep this article afloat.-- 2950:other editors to agree with them. 1490:The topic has not, as required by " 1255:per "Brian Peppers" bruhaha. Also, 2754:that I think is very interesting: 2442:Sources are all blogs or, at best 1726:anyone can create and maintain one 24: 2988:first to point out the canvassing 2214:If you think you've found enough 1502:, they can go to their website. 3611: 3370:is perfecly clear: It has to be 2116:including reliable sources like 572:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web) 71: 534: 3131:- not seeing the significant, 2540:does not establish notability 2527:: Snopes, About (14,15) three 2504:) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1: 3755:Per Mjolnirpants and others. 3648:on the part of others and to 108:on the part of others and to 1397:19:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 3765:17:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3748:17:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3599:17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3574:17:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3544:16:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3521:16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3505:17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3491:16:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3443:16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3426:15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3409:15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3359:14:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3338:13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3315:13:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3294:13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3276:12:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3253:11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3237:11:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3215:06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3195:05:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3178:04:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3161:04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3140:23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC) 3123:16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC) 3097:23:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC) 3067:21:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 3032:07:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3013:08:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC) 3000:00:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC) 2981:23:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 2960:23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 2945:22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 2928:22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 2896:22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 2874:22:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC) 2837:06:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2804:06:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2782:04:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2733:05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2718:03:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2699:02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2682:02:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2656:11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 2639:02:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2612:01:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2581:01:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2516:01:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2479:00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2458:22:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2398:00:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2382:23:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2363:23:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2346:23:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2328:22:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2311:22:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2276:22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2262:22:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2233:22:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2206:22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2180:22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2145:22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 2130:21:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2102:21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2086:Bulbasaur evolutionary line 2068:21:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2054:21:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2040:20:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 2022:20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1997:23:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC) 1980:18:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1959:18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1898:18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1869:20:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1857:18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1822:17:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1801:17:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1781:14:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1758:05:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1744:06:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1707:03:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1670:02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1650:00:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1633:22:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1600:22:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1586:00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 1567:21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1552:23:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1530:19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1512:19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1478:20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1457:00:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1436:20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1414:19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1367:19:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1338:21:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC) 1318:23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1304:18:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1286:17:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1268:17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1248:15:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1225:03:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1205:03:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1131:19:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1111:20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1066:16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 1002:03:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 949:03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 930:00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 907:00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 862:22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 837:21:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 803:22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 782:21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 746:17:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 719:21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 705:21:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 687:21:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 658:17:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 640:21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 613:21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 598:20:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 584:20:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 562:20:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 524:20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 496:19:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC) 453:canvassing for editors and 436:20:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 354:20:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 326:19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC) 57:18:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC) 3803: 3580:List of fake news websites 2843:"Unsupported attributions" 2808:Indeed. But as mentioned, 2882:per published site policy 2810:they establish notability 2542:of the site or its author 3775:Please do not modify it. 2825:-sounding generalities. 32:Please do not modify it. 3690:; accounts blocked for 3660:single-purpose accounts 3630:policies and guidelines 2626:Deception is bad faith. 2554:. No interpretation or 2419:Not enough coverage in 2332:What sources are okay? 455:Knowledge (XXG) experts 150:; accounts blocked for 120:single-purpose accounts 90:policies and guidelines 3398:particularly. Cheers, 1354:Special:Diff/758140351 766:or articles where the 3486:Tell me all about it. 3333:Tell me all about it. 2284:I tend to agree with 1938:few or no other edits 1836:few or no other edits 1687:few or no other edits 341:web-site -- can have. 3736:Communists for Kerry 3135:secondary coverage. 3077:Dewey Defeats Truman 3055:notability guideline 1940:outside this topic. 1921:to this discussion. 1838:outside this topic. 1689:outside this topic. 1540:"News organizations" 1146:or a high number of 854:пан Бостон-Київський 632:пан Бостон-Київський 590:пан Бостон-Київський 428:пан Бостон-Київський 346:пан Бостон-Київський 61: 3642:by counting votes. 3621:not a majority vote 3170:NorthBySouthBaranof 2758:With that in mind, 2090:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 1866:A Certain White Cat 1475:A Certain White Cat 1433:A Certain White Cat 1394:A Certain White Cat 1325:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 820:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 693:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 516:AntiCompositeNumber 493:A Certain White Cat 426:) is turned down... 102:by counting votes. 81:not a majority vote 3757:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 3079:is famous for its 2334:Here is the policy 2299:WP:Deletion review 2290:Anonymous555444666 1806:this anachronism 1445:The People's Cube. 848:feels entitled to 695:. Alright then. -- 3723: 3722: 3719: 3646:assume good faith 3597: 3487: 3334: 3020:The People's Cube 2911:The People's Cube 2876: 2860:comment added by 2680: 2600:assume good faith 2518: 2243:poisoned the well 1941: 1922: 1900: 1884:comment added by 1868: 1839: 1824: 1812:comment added by 1788:- No evidence of 1779: 1690: 1574:The People's Cube 1477: 1435: 1396: 1246: 932: 920:comment added by 526: 495: 451:The People's Cube 188:The People's Cube 183: 182: 179: 106:assume good faith 63:The People's Cube 54:Black Kite (talk) 3794: 3777: 3732:as it stands now 3717: 3705: 3689: 3673: 3654: 3624:, but instead a 3615: 3608: 3591: 3569: 3558: 3489: 3485: 3482: 3469: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3404: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3336: 3332: 3329: 3272: 3266: 3158: 3155: 3152: 3148:indecipherable. 3115:Ruthfulbarbarity 2976: 2973: 2940: 2937: 2891: 2888: 2832: 2829: 2777: 2774: 2694: 2691: 2674: 2634: 2631: 2576: 2573: 2562:Passing mentions 2505: 2474: 2471: 2453: 2450: 2424:reliable sources 2393: 2390: 2358: 2355: 2323: 2320: 2257: 2254: 2201: 2198: 2166: 2164: 2160: 2156: 1923: 1901: 1864: 1825: 1773: 1672: 1536:reliable sources 1522:Ruthfulbarbarity 1473: 1471: 1431: 1428: 1425:Ruthfulbarbarity 1406:Ruthfulbarbarity 1392: 1243: 1238: 1236: 1169: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1139:Ruthfulbarbarity 1123:Ruthfulbarbarity 1093: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1044: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1027:delete a website 1021:not accepted as 1012: 1009:Ruthfulbarbarity 994:Ruthfulbarbarity 974: 972: 968: 964: 941:Ruthfulbarbarity 900: 764:260k google hits 543: 538: 491: 489: 480: 478: 474: 470: 447: 425: 393:, first of all, 392: 381: 379: 375: 371: 365: 324: 322: 318: 314: 304: 303: 289: 241: 229: 211: 177: 165: 149: 133: 114: 84:, but instead a 75: 68: 34: 3802: 3801: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3784:deletion review 3773: 3707: 3695: 3679: 3663: 3650:sign your posts 3565: 3552: 3478: 3476: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3455: 3400: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3325: 3323: 3270: 3262: 3183:delete and salt 3156: 3153: 3150: 3089:Unscintillating 2974: 2971: 2938: 2935: 2889: 2886: 2862:The Four Deuces 2830: 2827: 2775: 2772: 2692: 2689: 2632: 2629: 2574: 2571: 2548:Primary sources 2472: 2469: 2451: 2448: 2434:article. Fails 2391: 2388: 2356: 2353: 2321: 2318: 2255: 2252: 2199: 2196: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2152: 1718:reliable source 1638:Delete and salt 1468:The Four Deuces 1465: 1422: 1241: 1234: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1155: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1079: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1030: 1006: 970: 966: 962: 960: 898: 546: 539: 532: 520:Leave a message 483: 476: 472: 468: 466: 441: 419: 386: 377: 373: 369: 367: 359: 320: 316: 312: 310: 246: 237: 202: 186: 167: 155: 139: 123: 110:sign your posts 66: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3800: 3798: 3789: 3788: 3768: 3767: 3750: 3721: 3720: 3616: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3547: 3546: 3524: 3523: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3493: 3471: 3470: 3446: 3445: 3428: 3411: 3394:generally and 3388:WP:PERSISTENCE 3361: 3340: 3317: 3296: 3278: 3255: 3239: 3217: 3197: 3180: 3163: 3142: 3112: 3111: 3099: 3070: 3069: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3002: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2559: 2545: 2483: 2482: 2460: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2209: 2208: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2105: 2104: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2025: 2024: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1983: 1982: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1943: 1942: 1871: 1870: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1841: 1840: 1803: 1783: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1720:coverage that 1711: 1710: 1709: 1652: 1635: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1514: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1460: 1459: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1417: 1416: 1389: 1384: 1383: 1369: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1270: 1250: 1227: 1207: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1148:google results 1115: 1114: 1113: 952: 951: 933: 909: 867: 866: 865: 864: 840: 839: 808: 807: 806: 805: 786: 785: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 565: 564: 545: 544: 529: 528: 527: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 481: 307: 306: 243: 181: 180: 76: 65: 60: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3799: 3787: 3785: 3781: 3776: 3770: 3769: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3751: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3728: 3725: 3724: 3715: 3711: 3703: 3699: 3693: 3687: 3683: 3677: 3671: 3667: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3651: 3647: 3641: 3637: 3636: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3617: 3614: 3610: 3609: 3600: 3595: 3590: 3589: 3584: 3581: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3568: 3562: 3556: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3492: 3488: 3483: 3481: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3460: 3453: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3429: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3412: 3410: 3407: 3405: 3403: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3385: 3369: 3365: 3362: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3341: 3339: 3335: 3330: 3328: 3321: 3318: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3282: 3279: 3277: 3273: 3267: 3265: 3259: 3256: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3240: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3225: 3224:this revision 3221: 3218: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3207: 3206: 3201: 3198: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3181: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3164: 3162: 3159: 3146: 3143: 3141: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3108: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3075: 3072: 3071: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3045: 3044: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3011: 3007: 3003: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2977: 2968: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2941: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2912: 2897: 2894: 2892: 2883: 2878: 2877: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2853: 2848: 2847:WP:NOTABILITY 2844: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2824: 2820: 2815: 2814:WP:SELFSOURCE 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2792:Cliff Kincaid 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2780: 2778: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2746: 2745: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2695: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2678: 2673: 2672: 2667: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2635: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2568: 2563: 2560: 2558:has happened. 2557: 2553: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2522: 2520: 2519: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2475: 2464: 2461: 2459: 2456: 2454: 2445: 2444:Rush Limbaugh 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2414: 2399: 2396: 2394: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2359: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2324: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2258: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2204: 2202: 2192: 2189: 2188: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2168: 2167: 2165: 2157: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2114: 2113:72 references 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2004: 2003: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1926:Pork chop1948 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907:Pork chop1948 1904: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1886:Pork chop1948 1883: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1867: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828:84.226.81.215 1823: 1819: 1815: 1814:84.226.81.215 1811: 1804: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1787: 1784: 1782: 1777: 1772: 1771: 1766: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1611: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1476: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1434: 1426: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1402: 1399: 1398: 1395: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1347: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1292: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1249: 1244: 1237: 1231: 1228: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1208: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1168: 1160: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1098: 1095: 1094: 1092: 1084: 1077: 1072: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1064: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1053: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1043: 1035: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 988: 985: 982: 979: 976: 975: 973: 965: 957: 954: 953: 950: 946: 942: 937: 934: 931: 927: 923: 919: 913: 910: 908: 905: 903: 901: 895: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 869: 868: 863: 859: 855: 851: 850:his own facts 847: 844: 843: 842: 841: 838: 834: 830: 826: 821: 817: 813: 810: 809: 804: 801: 799: 798: 797: 790: 789: 788: 787: 784: 783: 780: 778: 777: 776: 769: 765: 761: 757: 756: 747: 743: 739: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 720: 716: 712: 708: 707: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 689: 688: 684: 680: 676: 673: 672: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 642: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 620: 616: 615: 614: 610: 606: 601: 600: 599: 595: 591: 587: 586: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 568: 567: 566: 563: 559: 555: 551: 548: 547: 542: 537: 536: 531: 525: 521: 517: 513: 508: 494: 487: 482: 479: 471: 464: 460: 456: 452: 445: 440: 439: 438: 437: 433: 429: 423: 417: 413: 407: 403: 401: 396: 390: 385: 384: 383: 382: 380: 372: 363: 358: 357: 356: 355: 351: 347: 340: 336: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 323: 315: 302: 298: 295: 292: 288: 284: 280: 277: 274: 271: 268: 265: 262: 259: 256: 252: 249: 248:Find sources: 244: 240: 236: 233: 227: 223: 219: 215: 210: 206: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 184: 175: 171: 163: 159: 153: 147: 143: 137: 131: 127: 121: 117: 113: 111: 107: 101: 97: 96: 91: 87: 83: 82: 77: 74: 70: 69: 64: 59: 58: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3774: 3771: 3752: 3726: 3713: 3701: 3692:sockpuppetry 3685: 3674:; suspected 3669: 3655: 3643: 3639: 3633: 3625: 3619: 3586: 3566: 3531: 3530:and (maybe) 3527: 3480:MjolnirPants 3479: 3451: 3430: 3413: 3401: 3363: 3342: 3327:MjolnirPants 3326: 3319: 3298: 3280: 3263: 3257: 3241: 3219: 3210: 3204: 3199: 3182: 3165: 3144: 3132: 3128: 3113: 3101: 3073: 3059:Pete Forsyth 3046: 3019: 3006:their appeal 2992:Pete Forsyth 2966: 2910: 2909:At present, 2908: 2881: 2856:— Preceding 2809: 2752:WP:INTERVIEW 2747: 2710:Pete Forsyth 2669: 2645:stop reading 2644: 2621: 2618:not possible 2617: 2561: 2547: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2528: 2524: 2493: 2488: 2466: 2462: 2443: 2421:independent, 2416: 2303:Pete Forsyth 2215: 2190: 2117: 2111: 2080: 2005: 1972:LaMèreVeille 1967: 1902: 1880:— Preceding 1808:— Preceding 1789: 1785: 1768: 1764: 1713: 1654: 1637: 1612: 1573: 1516: 1499: 1495: 1492:"Notability" 1487: 1444: 1400: 1379: 1376:this article 1371: 1359:Pete Forsyth 1352: 1348: 1290: 1272: 1252: 1229: 1220: 1209: 1197:TonyBallioni 1184: 1135: 1117: 1103: 1101: 1096: 1075: 1070: 1058: 1056: 1051: 1047: 1026: 1017: 1013: 977: 955: 935: 916:— Preceding 911: 878: 870: 849: 824: 811: 795: 793: 774: 772: 759: 758: 674: 627: 618: 549: 533: 462: 458: 454: 450: 416:the same day 415: 411: 409: 399: 342: 338: 308: 296: 290: 282: 275: 269: 263: 257: 247: 234: 173: 161: 152:sockpuppetry 145: 134:; suspected 129: 115: 103: 99: 93: 85: 79: 49: 47: 31: 28: 3563:, perhaps? 3555:John Carter 3536:John Carter 3107:pointed out 2823:WP:WEASELey 2764:direct link 2687:discussion. 2622:immediately 2247:bandwagoned 1936:) has made 1917:) has been 1834:) has made 1685:) has made 1642:KATMAKROFAN 1076:as a policy 883:was started 422:Hongkai2000 273:free images 3740:Hammersoft 3626:discussion 3567:O Fortuna! 3513:Exemplo347 3458:Chrissymad 3402:O Fortuna! 3374:- and not 3368:WP:WEBCRIT 3347:canvassing 3229:Exemplo347 3137:Neutrality 3081:inaccuracy 2816:, to wit, 2788:Glenn Beck 2703:Thank you 2604:Exemplo347 2552:WP:PRIMARY 2525:Notability 2508:Exemplo347 2498:Exemplo347 2374:Exemplo347 2338:Exemplo347 2286:Exemplo347 2268:Exemplo347 2225:Exemplo347 2155:Chrissymad 2122:Exemplo347 2060:Exemplo347 2032:Exemplo347 2010:archive.is 1994:Neutrality 1951:Exemplo347 1849:Exemplo347 1793:Exemplo347 1625:Wikishovel 1380:fight back 1374:I noticed 1158:Chrissymad 1144:Popularity 1082:Chrissymad 1033:Chrissymad 963:Chrissymad 469:Chrissymad 389:Chrissymad 370:Chrissymad 313:Chrissymad 86:discussion 3780:talk page 3682:canvassed 3676:canvassed 3635:consensus 3578:Probably 3497:The Anome 3466:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 3418:The Anome 3286:ValarianB 3264:QuackGuru 3051:Karunamon 2705:Karunamon 2295:Karunamon 2163:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1919:canvassed 1659:WP:NEXIST 1215:and this 1166:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1152:obscurity 1090:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1041:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 971:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 738:Nil Einne 650:Nil Einne 624:The Onion 477:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 412:canvassed 406:The Onion 378:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 321:¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 142:canvassed 136:canvassed 95:consensus 37:talk page 3782:or in a 3714:username 3708:{{subst: 3702:username 3696:{{subst: 3686:username 3680:{{subst: 3670:username 3664:{{subst: 3384:WP:DEPTH 3133:in-depth 2975:arunamon 2939:arunamon 2890:arunamon 2870:contribs 2858:unsigned 2831:arunamon 2776:arunamon 2693:arunamon 2633:arunamon 2575:arunamon 2556:WP:SYNTH 2473:arunamon 2392:arunamon 2357:arunamon 2322:arunamon 2256:arunamon 2237:Because 2200:arunamon 1934:contribs 1915:contribs 1894:contribs 1882:unsigned 1810:unsigned 1683:contribs 1615:- fails 1388:notable? 1296:Dimadick 1260:Rklawton 1235:Gamaliel 1104:arunamon 1059:arunamon 918:unsigned 899:gobonobo 879:in-depth 873:. Fails 796:arunamon 775:arunamon 457:to help 402:articles 400:multiple 232:View log 174:username 168:{{subst: 162:username 156:{{subst: 146:username 140:{{subst: 130:username 124:{{subst: 39:or in a 3678:users: 3452:comment 3431:Comment 3396:WP:NWEB 3351:WaltCip 3220:Comment 3151:Timothy 3102:Comment 2748:Comment 2489:Sources 2463:Comment 2440:WP:NWEB 2432:sustian 2239:WP:SNOW 2191:Comment 2081:comment 1722:WP:NWEB 1675:Snit333 1662:Snit333 1538:. See 1517:Comment 1401:Comment 1372:Comment 1349:Comment 1291:comment 1273:comment 1189:WP:NWEB 1136:comment 1118:comment 1097:comment 1071:comment 1048:comment 1014:comment 978:comment 956:comment 896:sites. 887:website 875:WP:NWEB 816:WP:NWEB 279:WP refs 267:scholar 205:protect 200:history 138:users: 3753:Delete 3727:Delete 3528:Delete 3414:Delete 3392:WP:GNG 3364:Delete 3343:Delete 3320:Delete 3303:Risker 3299:Delete 3281:Delete 3258:Delete 3246:Calton 3242:Delete 3200:Delete 3187:Jytdog 3166:Delete 3154:Joseph 3129:Delete 3074:Delete 2649:Calton 2529:direct 2428:verify 2417:Delete 2221:WP:WEB 2046:Sd-100 2014:Sd-100 1786:Delete 1765:Delete 1714:Delete 1699:Risker 1657:- see 1617:WP:WEB 1613:Delete 1488:Delete 1310:Drmies 1253:Delete 1230:Delete 1210:Delete 1193:WP:GNG 1187:fails 1185:Delete 1023:WP:IRS 891:social 871:Delete 846:Majora 829:Majora 812:Delete 697:Majora 605:Risker 576:Risker 554:Risker 550:Delete 395:Snopes 335:Snopes 251:Google 209:delete 50:delete 3656:Note: 3594:Help! 3382:. No 3307:Hoary 3205:Seren 3145:Close 2677:Help! 2370:WP:G4 2293:fit, 1776:Help! 1695:WP:RS 1621:WP:RS 894:media 825:never 619:alone 486:PanBK 444:PanBK 362:PanBK 294:JSTOR 255:books 239:Stats 226:views 218:watch 214:links 116:Note: 16:< 3761:talk 3744:talk 3561:here 3540:talk 3532:salt 3517:talk 3501:talk 3439:talk 3435:GBRV 3422:talk 3355:talk 3311:talk 3301:per 3290:talk 3271:talk 3250:Talk 3233:talk 3211:Dept 3191:talk 3174:talk 3157:Wood 3119:talk 3093:talk 3063:talk 3047:Keep 3028:talk 3010:Nemo 2996:talk 2967:this 2956:talk 2924:talk 2866:talk 2800:talk 2790:and 2729:talk 2714:talk 2653:Talk 2647:. -- 2608:talk 2512:talk 2502:talk 2438:and 2378:talk 2342:talk 2307:talk 2272:talk 2229:talk 2176:talk 2172:GBRV 2141:talk 2137:GBRV 2126:talk 2098:talk 2094:GBRV 2064:talk 2050:talk 2036:talk 2018:talk 2006:Keep 1976:talk 1968:Keep 1955:talk 1930:talk 1911:talk 1903:Note 1890:talk 1853:talk 1832:talk 1818:talk 1797:talk 1754:talk 1740:talk 1703:talk 1679:talk 1666:talk 1655:Keep 1646:talk 1629:talk 1596:talk 1592:GBRV 1582:talk 1563:talk 1559:GBRV 1548:talk 1526:talk 1508:talk 1500:Cube 1496:Cube 1453:talk 1410:talk 1363:talk 1334:talk 1330:GBRV 1314:talk 1300:talk 1282:talk 1278:GBRV 1264:talk 1242:talk 1201:talk 1127:talk 998:talk 945:talk 936:Keep 926:talk 912:Keep 889:and 858:talk 852:... 833:talk 760:Keep 742:talk 715:talk 711:GBRV 701:talk 683:talk 679:GBRV 675:Keep 654:talk 636:talk 628:Keep 609:talk 594:talk 580:talk 558:talk 463:only 432:talk 397:has 350:talk 287:FENS 261:news 222:logs 196:talk 192:edit 3710:csp 3706:or 3698:csm 3666:spa 3640:not 3588:Guy 3585:). 3462:❯❯❯ 3386:or 3057:. - 3024:TFD 2952:TFD 2920:TFD 2819:met 2796:TFD 2725:Mz7 2671:Guy 2534:NOT 2430:or 2426:to 2301:. - 2159:❯❯❯ 2118:IGN 1770:Guy 1750:Mz7 1736:Mz7 1697:. 1578:TFD 1544:TFD 1504:TFD 1449:TFD 1162:❯❯❯ 1086:❯❯❯ 1052:all 1037:❯❯❯ 1018:any 967:❯❯❯ 473:❯❯❯ 374:❯❯❯ 339:any 317:❯❯❯ 301:TWL 230:– ( 170:csp 166:or 158:csm 126:spa 100:not 3763:) 3746:) 3716:}} 3704:}} 3694:: 3688:}} 3672:}} 3662:: 3542:) 3519:) 3503:) 3441:) 3424:) 3357:) 3313:) 3292:) 3274:) 3248:| 3235:) 3193:) 3176:) 3121:) 3095:) 3065:) 3030:) 2998:) 2958:) 2926:) 2884:. 2872:) 2868:• 2802:) 2770:. 2731:) 2716:) 2651:| 2610:) 2514:) 2452:bh 2446:. 2380:) 2372:. 2344:) 2309:) 2274:) 2231:) 2178:) 2143:) 2128:) 2100:) 2066:) 2052:) 2038:) 2020:) 1978:) 1957:) 1932:• 1924:— 1913:• 1896:) 1892:• 1855:) 1826:— 1820:) 1799:) 1756:) 1742:) 1734:? 1705:) 1681:• 1673:— 1668:) 1648:) 1631:) 1623:. 1598:) 1584:) 1565:) 1550:) 1528:) 1510:) 1455:) 1412:) 1391:-- 1365:) 1336:) 1316:) 1302:) 1284:) 1266:) 1221:MB 1203:) 1129:) 1000:) 947:) 928:) 860:) 835:) 744:) 717:) 703:) 685:) 656:) 638:) 630:. 611:) 596:) 582:) 574:. 560:) 522:) 514:. 434:) 352:) 281:) 224:| 220:| 216:| 212:| 207:| 203:| 198:| 194:| 176:}} 164:}} 154:: 148:}} 132:}} 122:: 3759:( 3742:( 3718:. 3712:| 3700:| 3684:| 3668:| 3596:) 3592:( 3582:( 3557:: 3553:@ 3538:( 3515:( 3499:( 3437:( 3420:( 3353:( 3309:( 3288:( 3268:( 3231:( 3208:_ 3189:( 3172:( 3117:( 3091:( 3061:( 3026:( 2994:( 2972:K 2954:( 2936:K 2922:( 2887:K 2864:( 2828:K 2798:( 2773:K 2727:( 2712:( 2708:- 2690:K 2679:) 2675:( 2630:K 2606:( 2572:K 2510:( 2500:( 2470:K 2449:J 2389:K 2376:( 2354:K 2340:( 2319:K 2305:( 2270:( 2253:K 2227:( 2197:K 2174:( 2139:( 2124:( 2096:( 2062:( 2048:( 2034:( 2016:( 1974:( 1953:( 1928:( 1909:( 1888:( 1851:( 1830:( 1816:( 1795:( 1778:) 1774:( 1752:( 1738:( 1701:( 1677:( 1664:( 1644:( 1627:( 1594:( 1580:( 1561:( 1546:( 1524:( 1506:( 1470:: 1466:@ 1451:( 1427:: 1423:@ 1408:( 1361:( 1357:- 1332:( 1312:( 1298:( 1280:( 1262:( 1245:) 1239:( 1199:( 1125:( 1102:K 1057:K 1011:: 1007:@ 996:( 943:( 924:( 856:( 831:( 794:K 773:K 740:( 713:( 699:( 681:( 652:( 634:( 607:( 592:( 578:( 556:( 535:^ 518:( 488:: 484:@ 446:: 442:@ 430:( 424:: 420:@ 408:. 391:: 387:@ 364:: 360:@ 348:( 305:) 297:· 291:· 283:· 276:· 270:· 264:· 258:· 253:( 245:( 242:) 235:· 228:) 190:( 178:. 172:| 160:| 144:| 128:|

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube - Knowledge (XXG)

Index