526:. I don't buy the argument. We do say notability is not temporary, which I think means the "general conditions for notability" once met remain met, since they are focused on the existence of reliable independent sources. What this does not encompass is the latitude of editorial judgement, in that routinely things that felt like a big deal are much less notable (in the colloquial sense) later on and tend to be edited out. Our policy does immediately say that the general criteria only indicate a presumption of notability, and we all know consensus can change. If this article is kept now, I would not at all be surprised if a few months from now it is silently whittled down and merged and/or deleted, not due to dastardly consensus-violators skulking in the the biushes until peoples' attention goes elsewhere, but by natural evolution of editorial judgement. Anyway, soapbox mode off.
494:. I agree with the deletion nominator that this is recentism. I also agree with commentators above that some degree of merging and pruning is currently appropriate. I strongly suspect that we will come back in a few months time and decide that a small subset of these tributes bear mentioning in the Tim Russert article, and many others are no longer notable. If it has not by then already been done, merging the content from here and deleting the subarticle with this name will likely be noncontroversial. In the meanwhile, separating this content which would overwhelm the main article, but is referenced and notable at the present time and likely to be of interest to many readers, feels like sound editorial judgement. Recommend a closure of "no consensus" or "keep for now", without prejudice to renominating later.
1461:
Further, Tariq's edit summary claimed he objected to your "move in the midst of AfD." I don't know if he was right or wrong to revert you, but I too found it surprising that an article would be moved before its AfD was resolved. I'm not sure what the protocol is. But to say he had an ulterior motive and actually wanted the "Tributes" title back because that makes it easier to delete is to say he was lying in his edit summary. So you are not compromising and assuming bad faith on the part of editors who disagree with you. Please, try to practice what you preach.
1064:
article for the tributes or "reactions" to
Russert's death. Then, when Everyking tries to come up with a viable alternative to deletion, Fletcher hops in to say no, that the only acceptable alternative is straight deletion. If positions are that hardened, what's the point of this discussion? I'm very disappointed that it appears that those vying for deletion (or the semantically different, but practically identical "merging") are not even willing to consider alternative solutions. Very disappointing, indeed.
1738:
are important, but that importance needs to be explained and supported with other sources. I do however tip my hat to
Eyabbott for adding a media criticism section, which does finally contribute to the article's notability. Nevertheless, the article is still very lopsided in favor of sappy tributes, and I'm doubtful there is enough media analysis to support a full article. The media criticism section should definitely be saved and merged under Tributes in
1788:
they said about
Russert and the manner in which they spoke to each other at his funeral. The fact that there was media criticism or analysis means very little; the media analyzes everything. And yet you have devoted space in the article for all this content -- and more -- to give the impression there's this huge wealth of information on this subject that must be included somewhere on Knowledge (XXG). There isn't, and it doesn't. Merging this article into
1838:. Of course I'm not going to change my stance (as nefarious as you make me sound by doing that); my conclusion that the topic is not notable enough to have its own article did not come from lack of information, but rather from my survey of all the relevant basic information. You will be unable to sway me because you are providing me with nothing new. I see you have a problem with people disagreeing with you, though, so I'll leave you be for now. --
1416:
should have a place for people to learn more about it. Along those lines, I think that Dean's change of title was a helpful edit that I support. Whether the article ultimately will pass the test of time is of course unknown, and the subject can be re-visited sometime down the road if editors have a problem with it later on. But for now I think the 'recentism' argument should be set aside. Further,
31:
559:) will show that they don't have 'tribute' pages. Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository for all the information in the world - some of it belongs elsewhere and memorials like this are exactly the kind of thing that belongs elsewhere. We don't have Knowledge (XXG) articles on 9/11 victims (unless notable in some other way) for exactly that reason. Incidentally
1881:
and that's fine. However, given the number of people in support of deleting or merging this article (in comparison to those in favor of keeping it), my standard is clearly more in line with the community's as a whole. Also, please stop saying I'm "angry" as you have said in the last four comments on this subject; this is clearly an attempt to
1151:, you are I think under the misapprehension that everyone here agrees with you that all the quotes currently in this article need to be preserved. I don't believe that is the case. Even if the number of tributes is unprecedented, we can report that by writing "an unprecedented number of tributes was made", not by quoting each one of them.
1124:"deleters" aren't willing to try to reach a compromise on the existence of some type of article documenting the extensive response to Russert's death. That response is notable in itself, simply because of it's size and scope. Compare this reaction to the reaction at Jennings' death. It's without precedent, which makes the
846:
tribute to him. The large majority of it is not about the tributes at all, but just quotes from various tributes to honor their subject. Those portions that actually are about the tributes (rather than simply using the tributes as an excuse to proffer quotes about
Russert) have little or no sourcing.
1976:
Then why not bring it up for review in a year or a month if you're right? Or perhaps there wil be more analysis of the phenomenon as the months go by? We don't know, do we. Now that the renamed article includes a section of critical commentary regarding the subject it certainly cannot be accused of
1880:
The irony is you're criticizing me for not wanting to change my position, when you also aren't willing to change yours. The difference is that I'm not expecting you to. Notability is not objective. Obviously, our standards for what makes a topic notable enough to have its own article are different --
1787:
is what demonstrates notability. It doesn't, and it doesn't matter what "health professionals" (who, for some reason, have a section in this article) say, or that there was media coverage of the
Challenger explosion. We don't need to mention Obama and McCain each three times, including precisely what
1756:
So you say "delete" (well, "merge", but it's the exact same thing) even in the face of growing proof that your concerns are addressed, and that the subject of the article is, in fact, notable of itself, and not just as part of
Russert's article? If a sub-section on "Media criticism of the reaction to
1410:
I am asking whoever closes this discussion to not take "Amerocentric" into consideration because I believe it is not a valid cause. If "Amerocentric" was gratuitous, then it should not have been here. If it was not gratuitous, as you say, then I say again that it is not a valid reason for deletion.
1165:
The best way to deal with a long and cluttered main article section would be to trim it down to size, keeping a sampling of what people said about
Russert while noting the coverage was more extensive. So my underlying disagreement is that most of the subject matter doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG);
952:
Article is not an encyclopedic topic. Needs to be merged with Tim
Russert. Everyone just have some patience and work out a consensus in the Tim Russert article. I don't know of anyone who wants to have a long, extended tribute section that overwhelms the article. Most people either want a tribute
867:
applies to this. I don't think that "an unprecedented outpouring of coverage" is notable, nor is it particularly surprising that Tim
Russert's fellow journalists would use news time to speak about one of their own during a time of shock and sorrow. As Fletcher points out, some of the more memorable
1716:
clear that the article is (and was) intended to be about the phenomena of the massive coverage that
Russert's death received. It's becoming very apparent that there is not going to be consensus here to delete, and it's my understanding (per my reading of the rules of AfD) that this means the article
1583:
If this article were to somehow survive, then yes, it should be at something along the lines of "Reactions to Tim Russert's death", but this has nothing to do with my deletion rationale. You are attempting to address the concerns of delete and oppose voters by (a) doing something irrelevant to their
1420:
is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it can be considered, but it's hardly revolutionary to ignore it, and it itself says "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". So, I did not particularly feel the need to spell all of this out in responding to Woohoo's point, but since
1200:
I see no evidence the tributes are notable. As I've said, they confer notability on Russert but not themselves. Expressions of condolences are common and unremarkable, and it's to be expected that the death of a highly prominent person would garner condolences from many other prominent people.
845:
No need to merge -- there is already a lengthy description of tributes and the effect on the media in Russert's main article. Overall this is a mawkish and embarrassing article. Note that the article should be named "Tribute to Tim Russert," (without the 's' in "Tributes" because it is primarily a
825:
After someone dies there is a flurry of activity on their article. The argument that the article had become to cluttered is a bad one, considering he died less than a week ago. It's high profile and morbidly exciting right now, but in a few weeks the excitement surrounding this article will wane and
328:
back to Tim Russert. We don't need to have an exhaustive list of tributes (akin to an "...in popular culture" article), but a brief section within the main article addressing reactions to his death is appropriate. I don't think we need an entire article for just this topic, but nuking it outright is
1792:
does not mean including every word of the current vision and putting in the article. It means cutting the article down to size, removing trivial details and full quotes that really are just taking up space so you can say "wow! look how long this article is; the subject must be notable!" and putting
1737:
the tributes that analyzes or explains their significance, but rather we have mostly quotations of people giving their condolences. We should be able to summarize the condolences on Russert's page. To quote many of them, even though they are all saying pretty much the same thing, is to imply they
1108:
I'm sorry if you didn't mean it but, the "not even considering" thing came across like you were accusing me (and others). Merging to me is the prefered option because it means keeping some of the content of this article (but, ensuring it is in the correct place) as opposed to deleting it and losing
2219:
in announcing the decision. Knowledge (XXG)'s ban on memorials is one of its better policies; in effect, it says that nobody, no matter how "notable", rates a separate article about the reaction to their death. Whether someone is "utterly notable" is a moot point if all memorials are barred. If
1959:- recentism, violates WP:NOTNEWS. True, a respected figure unexpectedly died and, quite naturally, there was an outpouring of grief from his media and political friends for a few days. But that's not encyclopedic material, I'm afraid to say. No one will care in a year or, for that matter, a month.
1182:
I think you're cutting this too fine, Fletcher. The words themselves may or may not be notable - some are more than others perhaps - but the fact that they were said, by such a wide range of notable people, in considerably more than a perfunctory way, is certainly notable and to not include the
1078:
Okay I'm obviously opening myself up for a world of hurt but, can you please explain why you feel that merge is "semantically different, but practically identical" to deletion? And why you feel those that "voted" merge are "not even willing to consider alternative solutions"? Because, I thought by
1063:
This is becoming something of a farce.Those who wish to have this deleted aren't even interested in solving the underlying problem that led me to create the page: the tributes section of the main article was becoming long and cluttered. I tried to improve the encyclopedia by creating a stand-alone
1048:
That would not be acceptable to me. It's not about giving it the right feel, but about having quality articles! And the subject matter is just not notable or significant to merit an article: when someone dies, people react, and if a public figure dies, other public figures react to express their
1415:
we regularly include material about recent events. Whether we think of ourselves as a news source or not, people do come here for information, and I don't think that's something we can ignore. The phenomenon of the response to the death was surprising and seems to be significant, and I believe we
1405:
Tariq, I'm not here to reply to everything that everyone says, but I saw a comment that appeared to be an irrelevant point to the discussion, so I said so. I commented at first on the part of the objection that seemed out of process to me - "Amerocentric" not being a valid reason for delete in my
1667:
is intended to keep out of Knowledge (XXG). And creating articles on unencyclopedic subjects is not the way to stop people adding unencyclopedic information to other articles - we have mechanisms such as recent changes patrol, semi-protection and protection for that, depending on how serious the
1588:
information, rather than cutting down on the excess information in the article). But, fine; it doesn't matter. The article will likely be deleted in a few days anyway and it doesn't matter from where it's deleted. However, I do hope in the meantime you can take a long enough break from shouting,
1386:
And you complained that it was nothing more than a memorial, then when I moved it to a more appropriate article name, you moved it back. I'd like all arguing for deletion (or "merging") to note that one side is trying to work for an amicable solution, while the other is simply digging into their
1123:
The article was created so that there could still be a place to document the extensive coverage of Russert's death, while keeping the main article free from clutter. To trim and merge is practically speaking, no different than just deleting it. This has been my point all along. The "mergers" and
1093:
It's "practically identical" because to "merge" the articles, the article in question must be deleted, and then the section on the tributes will be vastly pared down. How is that -- for practical purposes -- any different than simply deleting the article? Working for an alternative would include
1833:
something notable. I, for example, am not notable (in the Knowledge (XXG) context). Even if I write 20,000 words about myself, spending inordinate amounts of space on the most "notable" events in my life, that doesn't make me notable. This is what you're doing here. You're trying to take what I
1460:
The name of the article is indeed a red herring, as those people arguing for deletion have objected to the substance and notability of the article, not what it's titled. For all your talk of amicable resolutions and compromise, you appear unwilling to make an actual compromise on the content.
1813:
a notable occurence (much like it was after the VT massacre). It's illuminating if only because it brings to light what I'm sure most of us suspected: your position is your position, no matter the facts we bring to light that contradict it. As such, I appreciate having that out there, and I'll
1530:
that deleting this article will somehow better the project. It's simply my contention that his thought processes--and yours, for that matter--are completely wrong-headed, and would actually do harm (however slight) to the project. That's why I argue so vigorously--and object so strongly to the
242:
article to demonstrate that he had a huge impact on American journalism and politics, but we don't need to have an entire article that details every condolence offered after his death. In the long run, no one's going to care about this minutiae, and, even though some might be interested in the
826:
experienced editors will pare down the quotes about his death to a reasonable number. Undoubtedly, a link to Wikiquote for the full list of tributes will be added as well. Finally, if this is kept it sets a bad precedent for future "Tributes to ..." articles for both past and future deaths.
1834:
believe is a non-notable subject and make it notable. You are not presenting me with new information that can change my opinion; you are simply taking what I already knew -- that this was widely covered by the media and certain celebrities and figures -- and putting that in the article
1613:
You've moved the article. Okay. All of the delete/merge arguments are still valid. I've reread this entire debate, and I don't think that a simple name change invalidates anyone's arguments. To me AfDs are about content not titles, but if you want to argue otherwise, please feel free.
2043:
And you know what, DJ? That's STILL not consensus to delete. Period. It's ironic that I was castigated for calling out the "merge" votes as simply "deletes" in disguise, but now that it fits the needs of those wanting deletion, they're happy to do the same. No consensus here, sorry.
267:. The article was created to unclutter the Tim Russert page and therefore should not be considered independent of that article. Whether or not this much coverage of tributes to Russert is warranted is a content question to be nutted out on this and the main article's talk pages, not
1369:
No, it was not a "gratuitous comment" and there was zero reason to think that was case. You commented on one part of the comment, and ignored the rest. If you think Woohookitty's delete statement based on the other points is okay, why does the "Amerocentric" piece matter anyway? --
1901:
Thus far, there are 10 or 11 "keeps", around the same "merges" and 9 or 10 "deletes." There's no consensus there, and it won't be deleted without consensus. The sooner you acknowledge that, the better off we'll all be. There's no consensus here at all, and that defaults to "keep."
774:
Last time: it's not about the number of tributes, it's about the notability of the fact that there has been an unprecedented outpouring of coverage (in the form of media coverage, tributes, memorials, and official statements) of this death. I really wish people would stop with the
1032:: the topic could be broadened a bit and might be more acceptable to those who feel it's unencyclopedic if it were instead titled "reactions to the death of Tim Russert". Obviously the reactions are mostly or entirely tributes, but it would have less of a "memorial" feel.
1516:
Believe what you want about my motives. Everything I've done thus far in the mainspace has been to try to make the project better. I'm very unclear how deleting this article (and reverting to an improperly titled version) does that, but if an argument can be made that it
2010:
Or in the alternative, given that there's clearly no consensus to delete it, those of us who are actually working on the article can continue to do so, in an attempt to improve it. And those who are fighting to delete it for some reason can continue to do so as well.
739:
That ignores the problem that led to the creation of the TRt article in the first place. The article was becoming cluttered with all the tributes/memorials/responses to his death. This is the best solution, at least for now. Nothing written here has yet refuted that.
2167:
I dont recall there being any criticism of the amount of media coverage of Ford's death or an inordinate amount of coverage, so you are correct, an article on the reaction doesn't seem appropriate. The Newseum didn't even think the coverage significant enough to
238:, and seems more like a memorial than a daughter article for encyclopedic content. A few prominent "tributes" (say, for example, comments from George W. Bush, and the extensive news coverage offered by competing news organizations) can be mentioned in the main
2214:
Wow, hard to believe that this one is still going on. I'm sure that the final decision will be "no consensus", default to keep, as rendered by whichever unfortunate administrator gets the assignment. I hope that whoever does take this will comment on
724:
of key points to the main article. While it's obvious there was quite a lot of support of Russert shown after his death, a "tributes" article is kind of taking our coverage too far. I think this would be more effective if included in the main article.
1994:
Doubtful "more analysis" will follow, though I suppose you are free to save the article on your hard disk and try recreating it then. And yes, some people expressed disapproval of the broad coverage, as might be expected - but again, this is just a
703:
It was not intended as a "memorial", but rather as a way of addressing the extraordinary coverage of his death. Many people here are using "not a memorial" as a reason for deletion, when the article was not intended as a memorial of any kind.
1411:
Continuing: I did not, at first, comment on "recentism" because although I don't agree with the argument, I do think it is a valid thing to raise. Obviously I don't agree with Woohoo's position, which is why I had previously stated my own.
1862:
notable, and we're attempting to get you (and a few others) to see that. You've refused to, and stated categorically that you won't change your view no matter what evidence of notability is put forward. That's fine, though not very helpful.
663:
The coverage/tributes that have been devoted to Russert's death have been notable on their own, and the section in the main article was becoming unwieldy. I feel deleting because a person doesn't like this kind of article is a bad idea.
619:
a memorial. It would be interesting to add to the main article a (sourced) discussion as to why Russert's death had such a wide impact when his career was much shorter than that of, say, Jim McKay whose death went virtually unnoticed.
2149:
Keeping this article would set a terrible precedent. While I enjoyed watching Russert, this is completely over the top, and reeks of fanboyism. A former President of the United States died a year and a half ago and do we have a
793:
S. Dean, I don't think anyone here disagrees that this man's death has drawn statements from a surprising number of high-ranking or well-known figures. The point is that an entire article is not needed to make that point. --
1318:
Forgive me, but when did "Amerocentric" become a reason for article deletion? There are hundreds, no- thousands, of articles that thrive that have exactly 0% to do with America, and they aren't challenged on that basis.
294:- coverage is voluminous and unlike other journalists in volume; compare Peter Jennings, for example. The nominators statement about an article "that details every condolence offered after his death" is pure hyperbole.
1780:. A lot of media sources and people (mostly American, might I add) commented on this... okay, we get; adding more information on that is not going to change anything. I was aware of that before I presented my position.
2154:
article? No and rightfully so. Yet WP:English has an article dedicated to the reaction of the death of a newscaster. This is a waste of bandwidth and I'm sure if Tim were alive today he would be embarrassed by this.
1685:
The incredible amount of media coverage of this event is notable and by definition easily referenced and citeable. The article could use some cleanup but it's size makes merging back into the parent article counter
1303:. Most definitely recentism. Merge what will be important a year from now (i.e. quotes from 3-4 people) into the main article and then delete this. I know he was deeply respected but this is very Amerocentric. --
1757:
Russert's death" were included in the main article, that would simply exacerbate the problem I initially created the article to fix! This "debate" is almost taking on something of a surreal quality. Is there
1109:
everything. I'm sorry you look at it differently but, would appreciate yourself and others not making such generalised statements in future (admittedly I may have taken it more personally than it was meant).
1525:
here is being presented by those claiming this was only created to serve as some kind of memorial to Russert. I won't accuse someone of assuming bad faith, though, as that seems unfair. I believe that Tariq
685:(selectively merge) a few of the better statements about his merit or significance by world leaders to his bio article, to provide context on his importance. The nonstop coverage has bordered on
1809:
Thanks for clarifying what most of us already knew: you're intent on deleting this, no matter what evidence is presented to you that the reaction of the media, politicos, and others is
1201:
As WP is not a memorial site or a directory, we don't create compilations of tributes any time a notable person dies. But this is just my opinion. Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps there
1733:
I don't think it's appropriate to add more than one "keep" for yourself. In my reading of the article is it most definitely a memorial or tribute page, because there is very little
868:
tributes are included in the main article. Add whatever you think is important, but we don't need articles about the praise that is inevitably given for beloved celebrities.
93:), which means that a deletion unsupported by a consensus is not admissible. Reasonable editors can disagree (and have done so here) about the application of policies such as
243:
information now, it's not the kind of information that belongs in an encyclopedia. (See also my comment dated 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC) on the talk page of the article.) --
227:
1352:
No I didn't - recentism is certainly a reasonable rationale, but Amerocentric is not, in my view, and I said so. If it was just a gratuitous comment, it had no place here.
2191:. There probably wasn't criticism of the amount of coverage because the amount of coverage was appropriate given he was a former president rather than a journalist. --
1286:- This is the best way to keep this stuff from cluttering up the main article. In a few months, when this is no longer topical, we can revisit and perhaps delete.
388:
Can you identify anybody who wants an article on Russert's tributes but not on tributes for people who received even more of them? This is a ridiculous argument.
1094:
things like renaming the current article, or perhaps restructuring it in some way that makes it less like a "memorial" for those who view it that way currently.
1244:
Notable event, much coverage - this page isn't a memorial, it is reporting of a phenomenon that occurred, that is of note. I agree with Dean Jameson's points.
40:
1446:
better, instead of simply digging in the trenches, and thwarting even attempts to smooth out the issues that some have raised for deletion (or "merging").
112:
a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. Accordingly, I think that a selective merger of this article to
1535:
being flopped around--against deletion of this article. There's just no convincing evidence that deleting the article improves the project in any way.
194:
189:
198:
1712:
argument that this article is some kind of "memorial." How can that still be cogently argued? The way the article is currently constructed, it's
2237:
Notable event and plenty of coverage. Whether it will be notable in the future is questionable, but it merits an article at this point in time.
1442:
argument that it's only a memorial more cogent if it's titled "Tim Russert tributes", I guess. It's sad that we can't work together to make the
1487:
to do with the name of the article, and I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that the other people's deletes on this matter do. --
1783:
The problem is that you're trying so hard to expand something that can be stated in a few paragraphs into an entire article because you think
2045:
2012:
1903:
1864:
1815:
181:
1717:
is kept. Shouldn't we all start working toward making the article better now, instead of arguing with each other about whether it belongs?
2181:
1166:
while the tributes are testament to Russert's notability, they are not themselves notable and can be summarized on the main article.
17:
2338:
572:
article as it is now is probably appropriate. If this article were to be simply redirected to the main article that would be fine.
1977:
being a memorial, and it seems to be developing as an article. No compelling arguments have been given for this rush to delete.
1562:
146:
993:
101:
to this article, so I also can't determine which side is deemed to have consensus on the basis of the strength of its arguments.
1937:
so much coverage/tributes. Re-read the article, and let me know if you feel that the reworking addresses any of your concerns.
1999:
of opinions (already subsided), not something expected to have lasting impact (and again, if it does, we can recreate then).
888:, we're not a memorial but there's not anything inherently unencyclopedic about some mention of the tributes either. Thanks,
163:
2134:
1625:
1213:
the tributes by quoting extensively from them, but has no analysis or independent sourcing explaining their significance.
832:
456:
350:. It may be recent coverage, but it is a huge amount of coverage. It is notable and not likely to change in the future. --
1561:- there's been significant criticism about the voluminous amount of coverage this has received; I've renamed the article
689:
since he is no more dead and no more missed by his friends and family than thousands of other people who die every week.
2127:
article. It doesn't appear to be encyclopedic to have a completely different article related to reactions to his death.
1644:, thanks for adding it. I added commentary from a Washington Post writer as well criticizing the volume of coverage.--
1584:
points (moving the article; everyone here seems to be addressing its content) and (b) reinforcing our points (by adding
2320:
65:
46:
1933:
I have now removed nearly all the actual text of the many tributes, in favor of simply discussing the fact that there
2151:
2300:
2271:
2251:
2229:
2202:
2177:
2159:
2139:
2115:
2082:
2068:
2054:
2021:
2005:
1989:
1965:
1947:
1912:
1896:
1873:
1858:
seem to be, especially at the talk page. And neither I, nor anyone else is trying to "make" this topic notable. It
1849:
1824:
1804:
1771:
1751:
1726:
1695:
1677:
1653:
1630:
1608:
1578:
1544:
1498:
1470:
1455:
1433:
1396:
1381:
1364:
1347:
1331:
1309:
1295:
1278:
1256:
1222:
1195:
1175:
1160:
1137:
1118:
1103:
1088:
1073:
1058:
1041:
1022:
1002:
976:
962:
944:
919:
896:
877:
855:
837:
805:
788:
769:
749:
734:
713:
698:
673:
648:
629:
603:
581:
535:
517:
503:
482:
461:
430:
397:
383:
359:
342:
320:
303:
284:
254:
128:
1776:
I know you weren't talking to me, but in response to your question in the last sentence, I'm going to have to say
1183:
statements is unnecessarily narrow. I also note that we're not including each one of them as been implied above.
185:
2319:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
2188:
2051:
2018:
1944:
1909:
1870:
1821:
1768:
1722:
1540:
1451:
1392:
1133:
1099:
1069:
784:
745:
709:
669:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1438:
Unfortunately, Tariq took it upon himself to move the article back to the improperly titled one. It makes the
1996:
151:
2296:
2268:
2173:
2064:
2048:
2015:
1941:
1906:
1867:
1818:
1765:
1718:
1673:
1536:
1447:
1388:
1156:
1148:
1129:
1095:
1065:
780:
765:
741:
705:
665:
577:
379:
1814:
continue the deletion/inclusion discussion with others who are less-hardened in their position. Thanks,
1691:
1649:
1291:
958:
448:
2216:
2102:
Utterly notable figure, and utterly notable fork. It's too large already to merge into Russert's page.
98:
1566:
1114:
1084:
998:
478:
338:
177:
134:
1793:
the rest in Russert's own article, where it belongs. That is still possible, and always will be. --
523:
94:
2259:
Notable event that has received plenty of coverage. The new article seems encyclopedic. Finally,
2246:
2225:
2109:
1687:
1645:
1037:
972:
873:
513:
393:
355:
316:
2284:
2260:
2037:
indicate people who do NOT want this article to exist. That actually means there is (currently) a
1417:
864:
235:
2078:
1747:
1574:
1466:
1218:
1171:
1054:
851:
730:
625:
299:
159:
2292:
2264:
2060:
1669:
1620:
1152:
827:
761:
686:
644:
573:
531:
499:
375:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1641:
909:
86:
2220:
the decision is "keep", please don't make it for a wishy-washy reason like "no consensus".
2193:
1887:
1840:
1795:
1599:
1489:
1372:
1338:
1304:
1287:
1013:
954:
940:
893:
796:
694:
444:
245:
2288:
1761:
that can move you off your position that this article must not remain part of the project?
1664:
1590:
639:
WP is not a memorial. What next - tribute pages for every dead celeb, TV personality, etc?
616:
592:
410:
268:
90:
82:
2000:
1960:
1854:
No, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I'm not angry in the least, though
1110:
1080:
988:
474:
331:
447:
mentions. Trim-and-merging it back to a section in the main article seems best to me. --
1049:
grief and condolences. There's no reason to compile and catalog every such expression.
2239:
2221:
2103:
1985:
1429:
1360:
1327:
1252:
1191:
1128:
notable, and worthy of an article, instead of an overlong section in the main article.
1033:
968:
869:
556:
509:
423:
389:
367:
351:
312:
119:
2169:
1265:
78:
2332:
2074:
1743:
1570:
1569:
and to the intro. This article is fully notable and is no way a "memorial article".
1462:
1214:
1167:
1050:
847:
726:
621:
552:
371:
295:
155:
2128:
1615:
1270:
640:
527:
495:
413:
a memorial. Material is referenced, and appropriate to sit in the parent article (
215:
2156:
2124:
1789:
1739:
936:
932:
928:
913:
905:
889:
884:
690:
569:
470:
440:
414:
277:
272:
264:
239:
113:
2172:
that day. They did think Russert's coverage worth archiving. As they did the
967:
To sum up: we can't vote "no", but we can vote "yes" in any language we like?
596:
77:
default to keep. The article does not irremediably violate our core policies (
551:. A look at Knowledge (XXG) coverage of much more prominent people who died (
2039:
two-to-one majority in favour of not having this article in Knowledge (XXG).
1979:
1597:(not just only half of them, like you seem to do) and fix the situation. --
1483:
S. Dean, my suggestion that the article is nothing more than a memorial has
1423:
1354:
1321:
1246:
1185:
490:. Clearly Tim Russert, his passing, and tributes related to it, are notable
418:
760:
The number of tributes currently in the main article is more than enough.
563:
so if this isn't going to be notable in a month then it isn't notable now.
547:
My sympathy and condolences to Tim Russert's friends and family. However
953:
section or nothing. We can work on that and not have a content fork.
1336:
You completely ignored the remainder of Woohookitty's statement. --
1079:
saying merge I was considering an alternative solution to deletion.
908:, per above. The "delete and merge" rationale given above makes the
116:
would be an appropriate editorial consequence of this discussion.
1264:- Celebrities, newscasters, and the POTUS paying their wishes? -
2313:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
374:, neither of whom get a 'tributes' article on Knowledge (XXG)?
25:
1209:
tributes. This article does nothing to prove it. It aptly
1521:
better the project, I'm open to hearing it. And the only
681:
Since Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. Alternatively,
1829:
If something's not notable, it's not notable. You can't
1595:
read my move rationales and my comment on the talk page
1008:
222:
211:
207:
203:
469:
plenty of references for a decent section within the
611:
the most notable of these with the main article and
1553:
Break after renaming article and adding new section
931:and edit down. Much of what it here and what is in
2263:is just an essay, and not a reason for deletion.
1593:claims, and adding more clutter to the article to
145:The article was renamed on 06:07, 21 June 2008 to
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2323:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2123:Pertinent information should be merged into the
439:seem to have been unusual and worthy of note on
1640:- This section was very necessary to maintain
1387:position without consideration of compromise.
1663:. This is exactly the sort of recentism that
8:
1421:you asked, I have. Hope this clarifies.
1011:in response to request for rationale. --
522:Hmm. Your comment prompted me to reread
311:, quite notable due to press coverage.
45:For an explanation of the process, see
950:Merge, Illegal Content Fork (WP:CFORK)
443:, probably with a bit of trimming as
435:The reactions to this person's death
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
104:Even though there's no consensus to
1885:me angry, and it's not working. --
24:
2170:archive the newspaper front pages
2059:Two to one is an easy consensus.
549:Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial
1563:Reaction to Tim Russert's death
508:Once notable is always notable.
409:, not an encyclopedic article -
147:Reaction to Tim Russert's death
29:
2152:Reaction to Gerald Ford's death
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
41:deletion review on 2008 June 24
329:not the appropriate solution.
1:
568:The level of coverage in the
488:Keep for now, eventual delete
263:Alternatively, merge back to
1567:Criticisms of media coverage
661:(My actual !vote is below.)
561:notability is not temporary
2355:
1708:, in fact, invalidate the
366:More than the coverage of
75:no consensus for deletion,
2301:20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2272:18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2252:18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2230:17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2203:13:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2160:07:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2140:06:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2116:06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2083:17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2073:Consensus != unanimity.
2069:16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2055:16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2022:19:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
2006:18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1990:18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1966:17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1948:14:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1913:23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1897:21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1874:20:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1850:22:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1825:21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1805:21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1772:14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1752:13:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1727:13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1696:12:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1678:12:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1654:12:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1631:07:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1609:06:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1579:06:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1545:04:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1499:06:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1471:03:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1456:03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
1434:19:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1397:18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1382:17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1365:17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1348:15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1332:15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1310:09:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1296:18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1279:18:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1257:17:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1223:02:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1196:18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1176:18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1161:17:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1138:17:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1119:16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
1104:16:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1089:16:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1074:16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1059:11:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1042:06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
1023:07:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1003:03:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
977:06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
963:02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
945:00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
920:22:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
897:21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
878:21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
863:per above. I agree that
856:21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
838:17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
806:19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
789:17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
770:17:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
750:17:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
735:16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
714:15:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
699:15:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
674:14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
649:14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
630:14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
604:13:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
582:13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
536:20:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
518:17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
504:13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
483:12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
462:12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
431:11:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
398:17:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
384:13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
360:10:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
343:09:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
321:09:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
304:07:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
285:07:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
255:06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
129:20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2339:Pages at deletion review
2316:Please do not modify it.
1205:something notable about
61:Please do not modify it.
2174:Virginia Tech massacre
2287:may be an essay, but
2176:, the release of the
591:, Knowledge (XXG) is
1565:and added a section
883:Trim and merge into
178:Tim Russert tributes
135:Tim Russert tributes
1982:
1426:
1357:
1324:
1249:
1188:
615:this one. I agree
73:The result was
2182:Hurricane Katrina
2138:
2004:
1988:
1978:
1964:
1589:making unfounded
1432:
1422:
1363:
1353:
1330:
1320:
1255:
1245:
1194:
1184:
935:is repetitive. --
912:cry, by the way.
733:
687:Mourning sickness
662:
341:
167:
154:comment added by
127:
108:, however, there
89:and arguably now
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
2346:
2318:
2242:
2199:
2196:
2132:
2112:
2106:
2003:
1984:
1963:
1893:
1890:
1846:
1843:
1801:
1798:
1628:
1623:
1618:
1605:
1602:
1495:
1492:
1428:
1413:To flesh it out:
1378:
1375:
1359:
1344:
1341:
1326:
1275:
1274:
1251:
1190:
1019:
1016:
996:
991:
917:
835:
830:
802:
799:
729:
660:
601:
459:
454:
445:User:Tariqabjotu
337:
334:
282:
275:
251:
248:
225:
219:
201:
149:
126:
124:
117:
63:
33:
32:
26:
2354:
2353:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2321:deletion review
2314:
2240:
2197:
2194:
2178:Mitchell Report
2137:
2110:
2104:
2029:A vote of both
1891:
1888:
1844:
1841:
1799:
1796:
1719:S. Dean Jameson
1626:
1621:
1616:
1603:
1600:
1555:
1537:S. Dean Jameson
1493:
1490:
1448:S. Dean Jameson
1389:S. Dean Jameson
1376:
1373:
1342:
1339:
1272:
1271:
1149:S. Dean Jameson
1130:S. Dean Jameson
1126:reaction itself
1096:S. Dean Jameson
1066:S. Dean Jameson
1017:
1014:
994:
989:
915:
833:
828:
800:
797:
781:S. Dean Jameson
742:S. Dean Jameson
706:S. Dean Jameson
666:S. Dean Jameson
597:
457:
452:
449:
332:
278:
273:
249:
246:
221:
192:
176:
138:
120:
118:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2352:
2350:
2342:
2341:
2331:
2330:
2326:
2325:
2308:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2275:
2274:
2254:
2232:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2143:
2142:
2133:
2118:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2071:
2057:
2024:
1969:
1968:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1781:
1730:
1729:
1698:
1680:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1313:
1312:
1298:
1281:
1266:notable enough
1259:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1045:
1044:
1027:
1026:
1025:
981:
980:
979:
947:
922:
899:
880:
858:
840:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
755:
754:
753:
752:
718:
717:
716:
676:
651:
633:
632:
606:
593:not a memorial
585:
584:
565:
564:
557:Princess Diana
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
485:
464:
450:
433:
403:
402:
401:
400:
368:Princess Diana
363:
362:
345:
323:
306:
288:
287:
232:
231:
173:
172:
171:
170:
137:
132:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2351:
2340:
2337:
2336:
2334:
2324:
2322:
2317:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2273:
2270:
2266:
2262:
2258:
2255:
2253:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2243:
2236:
2233:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2218:
2213:
2210:
2204:
2201:
2200:
2190:
2186:
2185:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2166:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2145:
2144:
2141:
2136:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2117:
2113:
2107:
2101:
2098:
2097:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2050:
2047:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2027:Factual point
2025:
2023:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2002:
1998:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1981:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1967:
1962:
1958:
1955:
1954:
1949:
1946:
1943:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1931:
1914:
1911:
1908:
1905:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1884:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1872:
1869:
1866:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1837:
1832:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1823:
1820:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1802:
1791:
1786:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1686:productive.--
1684:
1681:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1666:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1636:
1632:
1629:
1624:
1619:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1552:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1529:
1524:
1520:
1515:
1512:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1486:
1482:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1425:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1380:
1379:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1362:
1356:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1323:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1280:
1277:
1276:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1254:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1187:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1010:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
1000:
997:
992:
985:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
965:
964:
960:
956:
951:
948:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
923:
921:
918:
911:
907:
903:
900:
898:
895:
891:
887:
886:
881:
879:
875:
871:
866:
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
844:
841:
839:
836:
831:
824:
820:
817:
816:
807:
804:
803:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
701:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
675:
671:
667:
658:
656:
652:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
618:
614:
610:
607:
605:
602:
600:
594:
590:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:Ronald Reagan
550:
546:
543:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
463:
460:
455:
446:
442:
438:
434:
432:
429:
428:
427:
422:
421:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:Ronald Reagan
369:
365:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
346:
344:
340:
336:
335:
327:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
286:
283:
281:
276:
270:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
252:
241:
237:
229:
224:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
196:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
174:
169:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
142:
141:
140:
139:
136:
133:
131:
130:
125:
123:
115:
111:
107:
102:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2315:
2312:
2307:
2293:Phil Bridger
2280:
2256:
2247:
2245:
2238:
2234:
2211:
2192:
2164:
2146:
2120:
2099:
2061:DJ Clayworth
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
1956:
1938:
1934:
1886:
1882:
1859:
1855:
1839:
1835:
1830:
1810:
1794:
1784:
1777:
1762:
1758:
1734:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1682:
1670:Phil Bridger
1668:problem is.
1660:
1637:
1598:
1594:
1585:
1558:
1533:red herrings
1532:
1527:
1522:
1518:
1513:
1488:
1484:
1443:
1439:
1412:
1407:
1371:
1337:
1305:
1300:
1283:
1269:
1261:
1241:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1153:DJ Clayworth
1125:
1029:
1012:
999:(yada, yada)
987:
983:
949:
924:
901:
882:
860:
842:
822:
818:
795:
776:
762:DJ Clayworth
721:
682:
678:
654:
653:
636:
612:
608:
598:
588:
574:DJ Clayworth
560:
548:
544:
491:
487:
466:
451:tiny plastic
436:
425:
424:
419:
406:
376:DJ Clayworth
347:
330:
325:
308:
291:
279:
260:
244:
233:
144:
143:
121:
109:
105:
103:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
2291:is policy.
2289:WP:NOT#NEWS
2217:WP:MEMORIAL
2125:Tim Russert
1997:short burst
1790:Tim Russert
1740:Tim Russert
1710:red herring
1665:WP:NOT#NEWS
1523:red herring
1440:red herring
1306:Woohookitty
955:Presumptive
933:Tim Russert
929:Tim Russert
906:Tim Russert
885:Tim Russert
779:arguments.
777:red herring
570:Tim Russert
471:Tim Russert
453:Grey Knight
441:Tim Russert
415:Tim Russert
265:Tim Russert
240:Tim Russert
150:—Preceding
114:Tim Russert
99:WP:MEMORIAL
2187:Actually,
2001:Biruitorul
1961:Biruitorul
1836:ad nauseum
1514:(unindent)
1408:To unpack:
1111:Jasynnash2
1081:Jasynnash2
904:back into
720:Selective
524:WP:NOTABLE
475:Jasynnash2
333:Horologium
122:Sandstein
95:WP:NOTNEWS
2285:WP:RECENT
2261:WP:RECENT
2222:Mandsford
2105:rootology
1811:in itself
1586:even more
1418:WP:RECENT
1211:describes
1034:Everyking
969:Everyking
870:Mandsford
865:WP:RECENT
510:Everyking
473:article.
390:Everyking
352:Dragon695
313:Everyking
236:recentism
2333:Category
2189:they did
2135:contribs
2075:Fletcher
1744:Fletcher
1688:Rtphokie
1646:Rtphokie
1571:Eyabbott
1463:Fletcher
1215:Fletcher
1168:Fletcher
1051:Fletcher
848:Fletcher
727:Tony Fox
622:23skidoo
296:Eyabbott
234:This is
228:View log
164:contribs
156:Eyabbott
152:unsigned
2281:Comment
2212:Comment
2165:Comment
2129:Qaddosh
2052:Jameson
2019:Jameson
1945:Jameson
1910:Jameson
1871:Jameson
1822:Jameson
1769:Jameson
1759:nothing
1704:. This
1700:Again,
1642:WP:NPOV
1638:Comment
1559:Comment
1485:nothing
1444:article
1273:miranda
1030:Comment
657:Comment
641:ukexpat
528:Martinp
496:Martinp
195:protect
190:history
87:WP:NPOV
2241:Enigma
2198:abjotu
2180:, and
2157:Tocino
2147:Delete
2035:delete
1957:Delete
1892:abjotu
1845:abjotu
1800:abjotu
1661:Delete
1604:abjotu
1591:WP:OWN
1528:thinks
1494:abjotu
1406:view.
1377:abjotu
1343:abjotu
1301:Delete
1288:john k
1018:abjotu
995:crewer
937:Crunch
890:Naerii
861:Delete
843:Delete
819:Delete
801:abjotu
731:(arf!)
691:Edison
683:Smerge
679:Delete
637:Delete
617:WP:NOT
613:delete
589:Delete
411:WP:NOT
339:(talk)
274:Debate
250:abjotu
223:delete
199:delete
106:delete
91:WP:BLP
83:WP:NOR
2195:tariq
2121:Merge
2031:merge
1889:tariq
1842:tariq
1797:tariq
1735:about
1601:tariq
1491:tariq
1374:tariq
1340:tariq
1207:these
1015:tariq
984:Merge
927:into
925:Merge
902:Merge
823:merge
798:tariq
722:merge
609:Merge
599:Nakon
545:Merge
467:Merge
407:Merge
326:Merge
247:tariq
226:) – (
216:views
208:watch
204:links
16:<
2297:talk
2257:Keep
2235:Keep
2226:talk
2100:Keep
2079:talk
2065:talk
2049:Dean
2033:and
2016:Dean
1986:talk
1980:Tvoz
1942:Dean
1907:Dean
1883:make
1868:Dean
1831:make
1819:Dean
1785:that
1766:Dean
1748:talk
1742:.
1723:talk
1714:very
1706:does
1702:keep
1692:talk
1683:Keep
1674:talk
1650:talk
1627:Mate
1575:talk
1541:talk
1519:does
1467:talk
1452:talk
1430:talk
1424:Tvoz
1393:talk
1361:talk
1355:Tvoz
1328:talk
1322:Tvoz
1292:talk
1284:Keep
1262:Keep
1253:talk
1247:Tvoz
1242:Keep
1219:talk
1192:talk
1186:Tvoz
1172:talk
1157:talk
1134:talk
1115:talk
1100:talk
1085:talk
1070:talk
1055:talk
1038:talk
1009:this
1007:See
990:brew
986:. --
973:talk
959:talk
941:talk
914:Tito
910:GFDL
894:Talk
874:talk
852:talk
834:Mate
821:and
785:talk
766:talk
746:talk
710:talk
695:talk
670:talk
655:Keep
645:talk
626:talk
578:talk
532:talk
514:talk
500:talk
479:talk
420:Neıl
394:talk
380:talk
356:talk
348:Keep
317:talk
309:Keep
300:talk
292:Keep
261:Keep
212:logs
186:talk
182:edit
160:talk
79:WP:V
1935:was
1856:you
829:Ani
492:now
417:).
370:or
269:AFD
97:or
2335::
2299:)
2283:.
2269:15
2228:)
2184:.
2155:--
2114:)
2081:)
2067:)
2046:S.
2013:S.
1939:S.
1904:S.
1865:S.
1860:is
1816:S.
1778:no
1763:S.
1750:)
1725:)
1694:)
1676:)
1652:)
1622:ni
1577:)
1543:)
1469:)
1454:)
1395:)
1294:)
1268:.
1221:)
1203:is
1174:)
1159:)
1136:)
1117:)
1102:)
1087:)
1072:)
1057:)
1040:)
975:)
961:)
943:)
916:xd
892:-
876:)
854:)
787:)
768:)
748:)
712:)
697:)
672:)
659:.
647:)
628:)
595:.
580:)
555:,
534:)
516:)
502:)
481:)
437:do
396:)
382:)
358:)
319:)
302:)
271:.
214:|
210:|
206:|
202:|
197:|
193:|
188:|
184:|
166:)
162:•
110:is
85:,
81:,
43:.
2295:(
2267::
2265:5
2224:(
2131:|
2111:T
2108:(
2077:(
2063:(
1983:/
1746:(
1721:(
1690:(
1672:(
1648:(
1617:A
1573:(
1539:(
1465:(
1450:(
1427:/
1391:(
1358:/
1325:/
1290:(
1250:/
1217:(
1189:/
1170:(
1155:(
1132:(
1113:(
1098:(
1083:(
1068:(
1053:(
1036:(
971:(
957:(
939:(
872:(
850:(
783:(
764:(
744:(
708:(
693:(
668:(
643:(
624:(
576:(
530:(
512:(
498:(
477:(
458:⊖
426:龱
392:(
378:(
354:(
315:(
298:(
280:木
230:)
220:(
218:)
180:(
158:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.