2899:
practices of not having articles about topics that are merely news items should not apply in this case because of an essay on what constitutes good and bad arguments. The original idea behind OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and, by extension OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) is that merely because we tolerate (or don't know about) one article that violates our inclusion guidelines or is a borderline violation of the same does not mean that we should go create more of the same. ("But Susy did it" is not an excuse when Bobby does it.) It is NOT a rejection of the principle of letting our standard practices be a guide to proper decision making. Let me ask this silly question - what argument have you made for keeping this article that would not apply equally well to having an article on
1949:, meaning that if a topic is notable today, it will be notable forever. That, of course, means the reverse must be true - if there is any possibility that the topic will not be notable in the future, then it is not notable today. Since you concede that there is at least some remote possibility that the show might not happen and that in that eventuality, however unlikely, the topic might not be notable in the future, it must not be notable now. --
866:. Once again, there is no guideline that says a telvision series article is only notable if it has a cast or plot summary. You keep harping on that one, but the simple fact is, you can't point to a guideline to back up your argument, because there isn't one. Also, it's not a pilot, because a pilot is a trial episode made to attempt to sell a television series; this series has already been ordered by Amazon and is a done deal.
1126:
beyond the fact of its existence. There are lots of news items that meet the general notability guideline, but about which an article is not appropriate. This is a news story - a deal has been struck to create a show. That's worthy of an article on WikiNews. It's worthy of mentioning in other relevant articles. But until we have something more than one piece of news, that's a news story - not an encyclopedia article. --
2816:? No, because it's just a news item. And before someone screams (again) OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, this is an illustration of what is a news item vs what is an encyclopedia article. When something else happens (a name is announced, actors are hired, filming starts, etc) then it makes sense to have an article. Until then, it's just a news item that should be at WikiNews, not in an encyclopedia. --
1774:. I was fine even before today (until today, the show had not been picked up). There is tremendous media coverage about it that goes far beyond merely reporting the news that the show was planned. Even if Amazon were to say tomorrow, "we changed our mind", I'm still fine with this article existing because there's still a huge amount of media coverage on it. I'm probably okay with
1240:(1) It's insulting to assume that I either haven't read or don't understand the essay or the concept behind it. (2) You keep saying that, as though it's a license for an article to exist that is completely outside the bounds of our normal practices. (I find it slightly humorous, by the way, that you were the first one here to cite a comparison with another article -
722:
director. Just look at the hundreds of kidvid projects we end up deleting after their pilots aren't picked up; editors jump the gun and make it seem like a sure thing when it's hardly the case. And the near-universal result for articles titled 'Untitled (person) television series/film/book/album' is they end up deleted as black holes of speculation, and rightly so.
2333:
1770:, which is one of the 2015 pilots and only just today got announced that it is going to be picked up for a full series. Both are leaps and bounds beyond the untitled Woody Allen series. Both of these have titles, have a plot, and have a pilot episode filmed (the Woody Allen series has none of these things). I'm definitely fine with having an article on
755:"We need verifiable details about what this untitled show will be about and who will be cast in it." Can you point me to a specific guideline that says we need details about a television show's plot description or cast before an article can exist about it? I don't believe there is any such guideline. The guideline that has to be satisfied is
1585:. There seems to have been one bubble of news reporting around Jan 13, then every other news outlet rehashed the same bits and/or offered opinions about the television industry or Allen himself. Until there is an actual thing, not just a planned thing, we should not have an article on it. The deal can possibly be briefly mentioned at
1963:"We don't have articles with speculation about future products." Who's speculating? It's a signed deal. I cited sources that said it's a signed deal. If this article were based on news stories that said "Rumors are that Woody Allen is considering a show for Amazon," you'd be 100% right. As it is, you're 100% wrong. And I agree with
779:"Just look at the hundreds of kidvid projects we end up deleting after their pilots aren't picked up." That's a completely different case than this. Amazon has already ordered a full season of the series, as the article (which I assume you've read) indicates. It's not a question of whether it will be picked up. It already has been.
674:, which, as he points out himself, is about films, so it doesn't apply here either. If we're going to apply standards specifically for films to an article about an upcoming television series, what's to stop us from applying those standards to other forms of entertainment, such as an upcoming-but-unreleased novel like
1834:
scores, crime logs", "routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences" and light stories like "bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award". To me, it's clear the announcement of this show isn't the kind of frivolous announcement that policy strives to prevent. As to your comparisons to
2353:
Appreciate your concern, Schmidt, but not to worry. The show is going to happen, so if the article gets deleted, another will just pop up in a few months once more details get released. I just don't understand the big rush to delete now and force somebody else to start from scratch later, rather than
1944:
Well, for one thing, even if I were trying to predict the future, that has nothing to do with what you linked. Knowledge (XXG) ARTICLES should not seek to predict the future. We don't have articles with speculation about future products, etc. Knowledge (XXG) editors are freely permitted to predict
1816:
of articles that don't warrant articles. However, this point is completely false: "Whatever the standard is - NFF, accepted pilot, or coverage beyond the routine, the article in question doesn't come close to any of them." NFF, we've established, is a bad standard to apply. As for accepted pilot, the
1120:
might not happen. There might be a war, massive flood, or some other cataclysm preventing the
Olympics from occurring. We still have the article, though, because we have lots of stuff to say about them. We can talk about the process of bidding for the venues, the financing, etc. Lots of stuff has
1048:
going to be made ... until things change and it isn't. There could be creative differences and they mutually agree to cancel the project. He could make a pilot that doesn't get picked up. He could die. Amazon
Studios could get spun off into a separate entity that decides they don't like the idea.
818:
We have an announcement. That's all we have. We don't have a cast or plot summary. WP:TV doesn't tolerate this for the 60 or so pilots currently out waiting to be filmed and presented for the 2015-16 season and would delete an article for your average 'Untitled (some writer) project' immediately as a
384:
Someone doesn't agree with you and you that's evidence to you that they're disrupting
Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point? Good grief. There isn't always a guideline that speaks exactly to what you're looking for ... but in this case, there's one that's pretty darned close - the films guideline -
2108:
Please forgive me for being dense, but I'm not sure how that show is a meaningful comparison to this article. It premiers tomorrow and when that article was created last
November, there was a title, actors, story line, and all of the other things you would normally expect to see in an article about
2007:
You misunderstand - I was not claiming that the article was engaging in speculation - I was responding to your claim that I was engaging in speculation. As for the eternality of notability, it is only eternal in one direction - the future. If you are notable today, you are notable tomorrow, but if
1537:
I think there is room for, and value to, additional discussion as to the applicability of NFF to television shows, and that the determination of whether this meets whatever bar we end up with for future television shows is or isn't satisfied via the use of specific sources, rather than a Google link
1053:
Cape Town. Everyone everywhere reported this as dead certain to happen. If you google it, there are still articles right now saying that it will be coming in 2012 with 12 episodes. This show was every bit as "guaranteed" to happen as Woody Allen's project. Until it wasn't. It just went away. I
295:
says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." This show has not commenced principal
2532:
I've already essentially responded to your main point elsewhere in this AFD so I won't repeat myself. I'll just say any snark you picked up from me was simply my response to yours in the first place ("I'm thinking that the Keep voters haven't read CRYSTAL recently"), but apologies anyway, I will be
1743:
regarding the relist note: Until very recently, by the time the TV show was publicly announced, the pilot had already been produced and accepted. I'm not sure if NFF is necessary the perfect criteria for TV shows because a whole lot of pilots get filmed, but never actually get picked up. I'll use
721:
project months down the line? We need verifiable details about what this untitled show will be about and who will be cast in it. Just because it's Woody Allen doesn't equal an automatic keep; we give the same scrutiny to every television pilot, whether it be Shonda Rhimes or a first-time writer and
2898:
I responded to something specifically directed at me. I apologize if responding to a comment directed specifically at me is offensive in some way. I think there is a pretty clear consensus to delete, but, two reviewing admins disagree so I will defer to their opinions. You think that our normal
2807:
news sources. But that's it. There is NOTHING else to say about it. You click on any of these articles and they don't have anything new to say beyond what was in the press release. It's a news item and we don't make separate encyclopedia articles about every single news item. Comcast had their
1833:
announcement in news coverage, I think that's an overly liberal interpretation that could apply to any number of notable subjects. The actual examples listed in the policy are things as "planned coverage of pre-scheduled events", "run-of-the-mill events", "wedding announcements, obituaries, sports
300:
says: "Although
Knowledge (XXG) includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be
221:
says that articles about future films should not be created until principal photography has begun. While this is a TV series, not a movie, that's still a pretty good guideline. This should be mentioned in Woody Allen's biography and maybe in an article about Amazon's original programming, but it
1781:
NFF, if strictly applied to TV shows, would probably permit an article about any TV show where a pilot has been made. That's probably too lenient because, as I said, lots of pilots get made, shopped around, and then never picked up. Probably a better standard is that there is a pilot and it has
1677:
When there is substantial significant information about the show as an entity, not just speculation about what it may or may not be about, or the state of modern media, only then should we have an article. I can find lots of things that are in lots of newspapers that don't (yet or ever) merit an
980:
The GNG is not a magic wand. Further down the same page, the notability guideline cautions against stand-alone articles "when information about a future event is scarce", which is certainly true here. It suggests, further, that "routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements,
1125:
because nothing has happened. It's a certainty that, barring some eschatological event, the 2032 Summer
Olympic games will happen, but we have absolutely nothing to say about them beyond the fact of their existence. Similarly, there is absolutely nothing to say about the Woody Allen TV series
1011:
making this project. Amazon isn't simply considering a proposal, or holding brainstorming sessions about it, or holding contract negotiations with Allen. They've hired him, and it's happening. That means the likelihood that "there ever will be a lot to write about it" is extremely high, and the
2740:
they began filming, and when all we had was well-sourced speculation and confirmation of plans... kept per coverage and then moved to their final titles when known. In this case, Amazon HAS ordered a first season. It serves the project and its readers to have this spoken of and sourced in one
1294:
You should look more closely at the general notability guideline. "Presumed" notable does not mean "it is notable". Specifically, the guideline says that "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what
2510:
I'm thinking I know damn well what they mean: for one thing, I'm pretty sanguine with calling a "series" projected two years out, where the showrunner is quoted as saying he has no idea how he got into it, he has no ideas or notion where to begin, and that the bosses will likely regret it
1148:
story" argument doesn't apply here. And likewise, your personal opinion that there isn't enough to write about this subject to warrant a story isn't a valid argument either, because we base those decisions on guidelines, not personal opinions. The article will eventually be expanded, but
2698:
1846:), I'd just say that you're once again repeating your personal opinion that there are certain elements the Woody Allen series lacks that an article should have (titles, plot, etc.). But articles are built not on personal opinions like these, but on guidelines. We've established that
262:
is only an essay, not a policy or guideline, I will note that very same essay singles out untitled aritcles based on "rumors posted to message boards, blogs, or
Facebook". That is far from the case here, where the information is coming from news outlets which are reliable sources. —
2460:
WP:CRYSTAL, period. I'm thinking that the Keep voters haven't read CRYSTAL recently. Let me quote some: "Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of product announcements and rumors ... Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."
2511:"speculative." Now I get you're invested in rebutting every Delete voter's argument, but last I checked, closing admins didn't grade AfD arguments on volume. You got a genuine rebuttal you haven't already said before, proffer it. If you're just delivering snark, add
210:
A month ago, there was a widely reported news story that Amazon has signed Woody Allen to create a new TV show. That's it. There is no name for the TV show. There is no date it will be released. There is no cast list. There is no notion of what it will be about.
1916:. Why not bring this article to AFD when and if that change happens? (Which, in all likelihood, won't happen.) And it's not our job to critique the news coverage. The question is are there third-party sources giving coverage to this topic, and the answer is yes. —
2839:. You and I have debated this over and over, and no clear consensus has been reached, so IMHO, I honestly don't think it's worthwhile to continue that back and forth and we should let other voices chime in and respond to them if need be. Again, just my opinion. —
1614:
Most of these new comments are repeating the same arguments already stated above, which I've already responded to. It seems to me this was relisted specifically do discuss the applicability of NFF to television shows, so should new comments focus on that? Maybe
1945:
the future on project pages or talk pages (provided that it's germane to building an encyclopedia, etc). But that's completely irrelevant - the question is whether or not the topic meets our standard for inclusion now, not whether it might meet it tomorrow.
1088:, and this article meets those standards. If later it turns out the show doesn't happen (which is unlikely), we can have a discussion about deleting or merging the article then, but it doesn't mean we should delete it now because of mere hypotheticals. —
2328:
Only added the "soft" to lessen the impact for a well-meant good faith contributor. I do think if made the topic will easily merit an article, but even if never made it can still be spoken of at the Woody Allen article as something he considered doing.
783:"The near-universal result for articles titled 'Untitled (person) television series/film/book/album' is they end up deleted." As I indicated in #4, this series has advanced further than most of the types of articles you suggest. But putting that aside,
464:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "the definition of a file", but assuming you meant to say "film", if you're trying to say that television shows and films are the same thing, I think you are flying in the face of common sense. The fact is
2219:
wishes it back in a draft space while the production situation progresses, I'd say give it back with our thanks for what it might possibly become. If deleted rather than being userfied or placed in draft space, I would be fine with it being
1748:. A US pilot was filmed. It never got picked up. We don't have and will never have an article on the US show that never was. This happens all the time - a pilot gets made, shopped around, nobody buys it, and we never even hear about it.
1490:
Nobody disputes that there are lots of places that reported the news item when the plans for the series were announced. Your "thousands of sources" are just reporting the same news item and not every news item warrants a separate article.
1309:
It seems we've reached a point where everybody is repeating the same arguments, which I'm not sure is productive anymore. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with you, and I still don't see the harm in erring on the side of caution and simply
347:
specifying that it be applied to TV shows as well. But that's not an appropriate discussion for an AFD discussion, and we can't depend on a film-related guidelines when it comes to deleting a TV-related article. (And I've already addressed
1886:. My claim is that NFF is too lenient and you're arguing that we need an even more lenient standard - one that permits writing an article when nothing even exists about which to write an article beyond a single press release. (Side note:
1678:
article: odd news, dumb criminals, and other water cooler news items, etc. I'm not saying this untitled, unwritten, yet-to-be program is on the same par as news of the weird, but until there is real substance to describe, what's the rush?
2653:
2412:
Yes, I've preserved it, that's all well and good, but that's not serving the readers of the encyclopedia. I still think having the separate article improves
Knowledge (XXG) by creating a centralized location (as opposed to a sentence on
2309:
All deletes are "soft deletes" inasumuch as they are not permanently purged from the database. And yes, obviously nobody would object to userfication or restoring it without pointless process hoops if/when the series comes to fruition.
335:. I understand there are similarities between films and television shows, but they are ultimately two different mediums, and there is no guidelines for TV articles that says principal photography must have commenced. If you think there
947:
As I indicated above, there is no guideline that says specific elements of a TV series (plot, title, characters, etc.) are necessary before it can be made. The guideline for whether a topic is notable enough to warrant an article is
763:"And if the project turns out to be a vaporware project months down the line?" If that happens, we'll cross that bridge, but whether or not that happens is pure speculation on your part at this point. As you've pointed out yourself,
1758:
now has a long list of pilots that are or were available for anyone to watch and most of them have now been rejected and will never get turned into a show. All of them got media coverage when they came out. Very few of them have
179:
1753:
You might see a news item here or there that someone is pitching an idea or something, but generally, we don't hear about it until it's a done deal. That has changed a bit with the Amazon model of crowdsourcing their pilots.
2593:(it does) as it is dependent upon whether or not the discussed series will actually be made. If it is made, then notability is assured. If not, it can still be (and already is) written of for now in the Woody Allen article.
1692:"What's the rush" is the exact question I keep wondering about why people are so anxious to delete the article. In the extremely unlikely instance that the show doesn't go anywhere, we can resume a deletion discussion then. —
2202:, but Allen himself is quoted as saying "I don’t know how I got into this. I have no ideas and I’m not sure where to begin. My guess is that Roy Price will regret this". Certainly Allen writing and directing a series for
2830:
You've already made this point, and I've already said my piece on this multiple times, so I'm not going to respond except to say that a signed television series that is under development and a quarterly earnings report is
1153:
for when those changes have to occur, so the fact it's not being expanded right now isn't a reason to delete the article. And again, we can always revisit this later and bring up another AFD if the show falls through. —
1443:
2802:
While that's very true that exceptions to NFF can be made when there is extensive coverage, is that really the case here? This is a news item based on a single press release. That press release has been quoted by
2867:(ADDENDUM: Apologies, B, because your comment was underneath the "relisted" tag, I thought you were simply starting a new comment thread, I didn't realize you were responding to a direct statement. My mistake. —
214:
As much as I love the original TV programs that Amazon has come up with and I'm on the edge of my seat for this Friday's release of the first season of Bosch, this is a news item, not an encyclopedia topic.
2929:
now and are simply repeating the same arguments at this point, and there's simply no more value in two people dominating an AFD, which will lead to nothing but deadline and an inevitable lack of consensus. —
1382:
1262:(I didn't mean to compare the articles, I just used it as an example to show that a guideline for films can't be applied to other mediums), although that's hardly my "main argument". My main argument is that
296:
photography, even for a pilot episode (to say the least, there's neither cast nor script yet!). If that's not satisfactory, but a TV show is considered a "product" (which is, broadly speaking, true), then
2008:
you are notable today, that does not mean you were necessarily notable yesterday. My claim is that it is not an appropriate topic for an article now, though it quite likely will be one in the future. --
1720:
We don't create articles about topics that we expect will become notable in the future. There is no "rush" to delete this article any more than there is a "rush" to delete any other article at AFD. --
1003:
The specific section of GNG you are citing cautions against writing "permanent stubs" for "when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it". That is
1971:. And your argument that my statement that we could always bring back the AFD discussion later means I'm conceding that "it must not be notable now" makes no sense. If we follow that logic, are
2647:
2390:
When the show actually gets made, the deleted article can be restored. Or, rather than deleting it, it can simply right now, today, this moment, be moved to a subpage of your user space, like
1295:
Knowledge (XXG) is not". This is a news item - nothing more - and
Knowledge (XXG) is not news. Once there is something more than a piece of news, it makes sense to have a separate article. --
825:
was pretty much a lock from the moment Viola Davis was cast in it last year in
February, but we still didn't establish the article until a day before ABC announced it, as is proper. We have no
2261:
You know I respect you as a Wikipedian, Schmidt, but I'll just politely point out that, like many of the other comments here, you are citing two sources that apply to films, not TV shows. (
1812:
apply to television show articles. As you've said, it would probably be too lenient and allow for an article about any show where a pilot has been made, which would open the floodgates for
829:
for having an article here, and when a proper title and plot has been announced, then it can have an article; for now this should probably at most be redirected to the subject's article or
173:
981:
sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage". The announcement—despite that being made in several different entertainment outlets—that a famous person has been
1882:
Amazon hasn't "picked up" the pilot because the pilot doesn't even exist. They have placed an order for a series. These get changed all the time. They had also placed an order for
132:
2277:
article, I feel you're citing your personal opinion that there isn't enough info on this yet. But personal opinions aren't what we base these decisions on. Just my two cents. :) —
399:
What are you talking about? I don't recall accusing anybody of "disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point". I was just explaining that a guideline was being misapplied. —
511:
1437:
105:
100:
109:
1755:
933:, unlike the work we are discussing, has a title, a plot, and has been written. If the untitled Woody Allen series had those things, we likely wouldn't be here. --
92:
2354:
just give it a few weeks or months. The AFD process isn't going anywhere, it could always be brought back there on the extremely remote chance it falls through. —
2907:
and if your interpretation of a rule would permit having an article on such an absurd topic, then I suggest that your interpretation of the rule may be flawed. --
139:
469:
clearly states it is the "notability guideline for film-related articles". It makes no mention of television, and television articles are not subject to it. —
1186:
where there is no information at all about the topic beyond plans for its existence? Maybe it isn't my opinion that is out of whack with the guidelines. --
2925:
and why it is more notable than some random news story, and I will not engage in this back-and-forth with you anymore. We've been debating this for nearly
2804:
2668:
1054:
have no idea why id didn't get made. Right now, at this moment, there to say about this possible new TV show that cannot be said in a one-liner in
301:
merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." Both are aspects of
2635:
1012:
likelihood that it will stay a "permanent stub" are very low. This is a notable subject in its early stages, and the article will develop in time.
1782:
been accepted or there is media coverage that exceeds merely reporting the news about the existence of the pilot, in other words, it goes beyond
1839:
1771:
1767:
2584:
until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."
662:
does not apply here in the least. That guideline refers to "unverifiable speculation", which is not the case here as this subject is clearly
194:
543:
and announced dates are not definite, even if they appear to be. How can the notability of a project be ascertained if we don't even have a
161:
2712:"Every year, Woody Allen releases a new film. And every year it’s titled “The Untitled Woody Allen Project”, well… until it has a title."
2711:
1766:, which was picked up by Amazon, and then, without explanation, cancelled prior to actually being filmed. We also have an article about
2629:
2210:, but those rare exceptions have far more information available and over a longer period of time with which to build a decent article.
2836:
2391:
1209:
1201:
1141:
784:
17:
2942:
2879:
2851:
2545:
2490:
2429:
2366:
2289:
2034:
1991:
1928:
1866:
1704:
1645:
1334:
1278:
1224:
1166:
1100:
1028:
964:
908:
799:
698:
603:
481:
411:
368:
275:
2625:
1626:
1458:
2953:
2916:
2890:
2862:
2825:
2793:
2753:
2605:
2556:
2523:
2501:
2469:
2440:
2403:
2377:
2348:
2319:
2300:
2236:
2167:
2153:
2118:
2103:
2083:
2045:
2017:
2002:
1958:
1939:
1903:
1877:
1799:
1729:
1715:
1687:
1656:
1606:
1569:
1546:
1526:
1500:
1485:
1394:
1345:
1304:
1289:
1253:
1235:
1195:
1177:
1135:
1111:
1071:
1039:
998:
975:
942:
919:
878:. If you wanted to play the comparison game, I could dig up just as many articles that started as "Unknown (name) project" that
857:
810:
746:
709:
651:
614:
574:
525:
492:
459:
422:
394:
379:
322:
286:
253:
231:
155:
74:
1675:
While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion.
1425:
1212:. Comparisons to other articles are completely irrelevant in deletion debates. Adherence to guidelines are all that matters. —
1080:, and it's not appropriate for us to make those kind of guesses when establishing notability for an article. You simply follow
2675:
1076:
Yes, Woody Allen could die, Amazon could dissolve, the Earth could explode, etc. etc. Any number of factors could occur, but
1891:
151:
2089:
994:
568:
453:
318:
249:
2762:
1843:
1511:
889:
875:
96:
2786:
67:
2978:
1821:
that phase. It's not as if Woody Allen is shopping a pilot around to companies trying to get picked up; Amazon already
40:
2947:
2884:
2856:
2550:
2495:
2434:
2371:
2294:
2039:
1996:
1933:
1871:
1709:
1650:
1339:
1283:
1229:
1171:
1105:
1033:
969:
913:
896:
only undermines your points, since that same essay makes the case that there is no need to rush to delete articles. —
821:
804:
703:
608:
486:
416:
373:
280:
201:
2904:
2900:
2813:
863:
328:
2641:
1850:
isn't a good guideline to apply to TV articles, and in the absence of a TV-specific guideline, we have to return to
1419:
88:
80:
1050:
352:
so I won't repeat myself, but suffice it to say, the section of that guidelines you are citing (and indeed, all of
2809:
1244:- and now your main argument is that comparison with other topics for potential articles should be prohibited.) --
1121:
happened already about which we can write an article. On the other hand, we do not yet have an article about the
2750:
2602:
2345:
2254:
2233:
2068:
1894:. How many of the numerous news articles about this upcoming series say anything beyond the press release?) --
1415:
990:
314:
245:
2832:
1975:
saying that this article could never be recreated later when more details emerge or the show airs? After all,
1183:
686:
that are independent of the subject. This article meets all of those standards, and should not be deleted. —
2394:, so that when the show comes to fruition, you can move it back. Nobody will have to re-type everything. --
167:
1465:
579:"How can the notability of a project be ascertained if we don't even have a name for it?" The answer, per
520:
356:, really) mostly seeks to prevent articles based on speculation and rumor, which is not the case here.) —
2808:
quarterly earnings report and announced a dividend. This is covered widely in the media and I get about
2715:
2207:
2206:
could doubtless become an excellent article... if or when he actually does it... an yes, occasional rare
548:
2974:
2937:
2874:
2846:
2540:
2485:
2424:
2361:
2284:
2139:
2029:
1986:
1923:
1861:
1699:
1683:
1640:
1602:
1329:
1273:
1219:
1161:
1095:
1023:
959:
903:
884:
794:
693:
598:
476:
406:
363:
309:. And, indeed, the article about its creator already includes everything that needs to be said here, at
270:
36:
2198:
tell us that until the project actually begins filming, we do not have a separate article on it. Sorry
1311:
1150:
1013:
893:
826:
627:
for about the 498th time; wait until we at least have a plot, cast and airdate before posting details.
552:
2109:
a TV show - far more than just the news item "hey, we hired this guy to make a TBD show about TBD". --
2743:
2595:
2338:
2247:
2226:
1620:
1544:
1524:
1145:
1122:
1117:
2262:
1913:
1826:
1787:
1783:
1670:
1662:
1582:
1578:
1555:
1322:
and talk about as if its a near-certainty, even though in reality, the chances are quite remote). —
1319:
1077:
764:
659:
624:
540:
353:
349:
297:
2661:
1451:
870:
is what distinguishes it from "your average 'Untitled (some writer) project'". Your comparisons to
848:
737:
642:
187:
2707:
2221:
1594:
1062:. When that changes and we have something to say about it, it makes sense to have an article. --
259:
241:
2701:
2570:
2512:
2417:'s article) where all the info is available, and where more can be gradually added with time. —
2185:
1976:
1964:
1946:
1431:
2265:
would apply if this were "unverifiable speculation" or rumors, but it's not in this case, it's
2022:
I think agreeing to disagree is the best you and I can hope for on this topic in general. :) —
222:
does not warrant an encyclopedia article unless/until there is something more to say about it.
2566:
1629:) can clarify. (I personally think such a discussion belongs at WikiProject Television or the
1564:
1390:
1259:
1241:
930:
675:
562:
515:
447:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2973:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2695:
2241:
1016:, and we can afford to take our time in improving the article before rushing to delete it. —
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2932:
2869:
2841:
2780:
2710:
is fine, but does not apply to all such cases. It being as yet untitled is less an issue as
2580:
should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are
2535:
2480:
2419:
2356:
2279:
2216:
2199:
2131:
2024:
1981:
1918:
1856:
1694:
1679:
1635:
1598:
1324:
1268:
1214:
1156:
1090:
1018:
954:
898:
789:
688:
593:
471:
431:
a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a cinema or on
401:
358:
265:
61:
2922:
2733:
2590:
2195:
2191:
1968:
1887:
1851:
1847:
1805:
1666:
1630:
1085:
949:
768:
756:
679:
671:
584:
466:
437:
344:
332:
306:
302:
292:
218:
1616:
1541:
1521:
989:. Even the GNG notes that topics can meet the checklist criteria and still be unsuitable.
2270:
775:"Just because it's Woody Allen doesn't equal an automatic keep." I never suggested that.
683:
667:
588:
2589:
So the question for a separate article is not based so much upon based coverage meeting
1318:
it turns out this television series falls through (which some people in this discussion
2203:
2149:
2099:
2079:
1590:
1481:
1059:
892:, and it wasn't deleted then, and everything turned out just fine. And finally, citing
836:
830:
725:
630:
2266:
1912:
had been picked up, not a pilot. "These get changed all the time." Once again, you're
1081:
663:
580:
340:
291:
If we treat TV shows like films, which is not an entirely unreasonable approach, then
2732:
to answer a question you posed up above... Yes, I can recall exceptions, allowed per
1673:, a policy not a guideline, is certainly another valid point to consider: an excerpt
2714:
That being his sourcable process, it is acceptable and allows this as one of those
1745:
1559:
1386:
557:
442:
126:
1410:. One simply has to modify the search parameters to find additional sources, at:
2912:
2821:
2774:
2736:. For instance we've had several early articles on various Hobbit film projects
2414:
2399:
2315:
2181:
2163:
2114:
2013:
1954:
1899:
1795:
1725:
1586:
1496:
1300:
1249:
1191:
1131:
1067:
1055:
938:
390:
327:"If we treat TV shows like films..." I can stop you right there: we don't. I've
310:
227:
55:
2273:.) And, like many of the other comments here, in lieu of a guideline that fits
1979:, so if you're arguing it's not notable now, it'll never be notable, right? —
2765:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1514:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
759:. I've argued it has met that standard, and so far nobody has disputed that.
2144:
2094:
2074:
1883:
1835:
1775:
1763:
1476:
882:
deleted and ultimately evolved as more details became available; hell, even
718:
2921:
As I've said, I've already made my arguments as to why this article meets
2244:
shows the topic of his Allens' upcoming project meets inclusion criteria.
2142:
of the filming stage will have been started on this television program. —
1258:
Sorry if I insulted you, and fair enough point regarding my comparison to
1182:
Can you find any example anywhere on Knowledge (XXG) of an article about
751:
You make lots of arguments here, so let me break down my response a bit:
2903:? I 100% agree with you that common sense forbids having an article on
1829:, I would argue it doesn't apply in this case. If you take that to mean
2130:
I'd hope that if the AFD is closed with a result other than keep, that
1778:
continuing to exist, even though that show is now not going to be made.
2478:
I'm thinking you might not know what "speculation and rumor" means. —
429:
Perhaps this is examining semantics, but the definition of a file is:
2908:
2817:
2729:
2395:
2311:
2159:
2110:
2009:
1950:
1895:
1791:
1721:
1492:
1296:
1245:
1187:
1127:
1063:
1044:
Well, no, there are plenty of shows about which you can say the show
934:
386:
223:
2700:
we have a notable topic in his next project... and it is one which
2812:
Google news hits on it. Are we going to create an article called
1558:. It's absurd for this to exist, at least until it's got a name.
2967:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1967:, but I've also argued this subject is notable because it meets
1790:, the article in question doesn't come close to any of them. --
767:. The question we have to ask now is whether this topic meets
1669:
and its appropriateness, but that is not the only criterion.
1383:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
1804:
I think you've actually made an excellent argument for why
1144:
is not a valid deletion argument, so your "We don't have a
2190:, this future event CAN be discussed if properly sourced.
1890:
says that coverage must be "independent of the subject".
1786:. But whatever the standard is - NFF, accepted pilot, or
678:? The real standard that this article has to meet is the
122:
118:
114:
2720:. We can move the article to its name when sourcable.
2706:
states can be spoken of within these pages. The essay
2660:
1756:
List of original programs distributed by Amazon#Pilots
1450:
339:
be such a policy, you are free to proposed one at the
186:
536:- I hold in great contempt articles titled "Untitled
331:, but television-related articles are NOT subject to
2771:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
2674:
1520:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1464:
200:
2576:it to be written of when it instructs "Individual
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2981:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2392:User:Hunter Kahn/Untitled Woody Allen TV series
512:list of Television-related deletion discussions
1314:, then reopening a delete or merge discussion
591:that are independent of the subject itself. —
1665:yet in this discussion. It's fine to discuss
8:
1381:Note: This debate has been included in the
1208:helpful if you read and tried to understand
510:Note: This debate has been included in the
385:it makes sense to see what it has to say. --
2515:to the list of guidelines worth reviewing.
2158:Obviously, nobody would object to that. --
2090:Triumph,_the_Insult_Comic_Dog#Catchphrases
1854:, which I've argued this article meets. —
1633:talk page, but that's just my opinion.) —
1380:
985:a TV show is not the same as that TV show
682:, which specifies significant coverage in
509:
1892:Here is the official Amazon press release
343:talk page, or propose a modification to
305:, and so are specific exceptions to the
1474:in this manner. Hope that's helpful, —
1049:At one point, there was going to be a
2092:if you're unfamiliar with that one. —
1840:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)
1772:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)
1768:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)
1266:article meets notability standards. —
1078:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
765:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
717:And if the project turns out to be a
541:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2330:
1817:subject of this article is actually
1661:I don't think anyone has brought up
787:is not a valid deletion argument. —
2578:scheduled or expected future events
890:Untitled Woody Allen Project (2015)
1200:I'm sure I could if I looked, but
440:is completely relevant. Thanks, --
24:
2696:looking to its extensive coverage
2180:This can be spoken of for now at
1908:I quite obviously meant that the
2331:
240:per the television corollary to
2905:Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend
2901:Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend
2814:Comcast March 16, 2015 dividend
329:already addressed this argument
89:Untitled Woody Allen TV series
81:Untitled Woody Allen TV series
1:
2794:00:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
2754:22:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
2606:20:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2557:20:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2524:19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
2502:19:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2470:18:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2441:17:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2404:17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2378:13:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2349:06:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2320:05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2301:13:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2237:02:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2168:05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2154:02:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2119:05:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2104:01:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2084:01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2046:17:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2018:17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
2003:14:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
1959:04:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
1940:02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
1904:22:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1878:21:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1800:20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1730:04:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
1716:02:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
1688:22:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1657:20:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1607:19:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1570:18:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1547:17:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1527:17:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1501:20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1486:16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1395:19:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
1346:17:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
1305:16:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
1290:12:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
1254:12:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
1236:01:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
1196:23:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1178:21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1136:20:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1112:19:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1072:19:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
1040:16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
999:16:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
976:16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
943:11:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
920:04:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
858:03:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
811:16:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
747:06:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
710:05:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
652:01:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
615:05:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
587:, is significant coverage in
575:00:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
526:22:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
493:04:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
460:01:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
423:17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
395:15:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
380:14:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
323:14:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
287:05:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
254:21:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
232:20:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
2138:the page, for the time when
1914:trying to predict the future
1007:the case here. Woody Allen
888:started as (you guessed it)
864:repeating the same arguments
680:general notability guideline
2182:Woody Allen#Future projects
1788:coverage beyond the routine
872:How to Get Away With Murder
822:How to Get Away With Murder
670:. The nominator also cites
549:notability is not inherited
311:Woody Allen#Future projects
2998:
1470:. Was easily able to find
2954:14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
2917:19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
2891:14:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
2863:18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
2826:15:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
2685:Arbitrary Section Break 2
2069:The Jack and Triumph Show
1762:We have an article about
75:01:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
2970:Please do not modify it.
2837:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
2734:their extensive coverage
2569:the very first point of
1320:keep hypothesizing about
1210:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
1184:Untitled future whatever
1142:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
1116:It is possible that the
785:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
547:for it. As we know that
32:Please do not modify it.
2833:not remotely comparable
2072:, for me to poop on. —
1402:Arbitrary Section Break
2208:exceptions are allowed
1312:waiting a little while
2835:, even putting aside
2717:reasonable exceptions
2240:Struck my delete, as
2140:principal photography
1977:notability is eternal
1947:Notability is eternal
1825:picked it up. As for
819:speedy. For instance
1472:thousands of sources
1151:there is no deadline
1146:2032 Summer Olympics
1123:2032 Summer Olympics
1118:2016 Summer Olympics
1014:There is no deadline
874:are meaningless per
1844:WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST
991:Squeamish Ossifrage
876:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
315:Squeamish Ossifrage
246:Squeamish Ossifrage
2224:when appropriate.
48:The result was
2796:
2792:
2245:
2066:Please also note
1539:
1535:Relist rationale:
1529:
1397:
1260:Go Set a Watchman
1242:Go Set a Watchman
931:Go Set a Watchman
855:
744:
676:Go Set a Watchman
649:
528:
73:
2989:
2972:
2950:
2945:
2940:
2935:
2887:
2882:
2877:
2872:
2859:
2854:
2849:
2844:
2789:
2783:
2772:
2770:
2768:
2766:
2746:
2679:
2678:
2664:
2598:
2553:
2548:
2543:
2538:
2521:
2498:
2493:
2488:
2483:
2467:
2437:
2432:
2427:
2422:
2374:
2369:
2364:
2359:
2341:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2297:
2292:
2287:
2282:
2271:reliable sources
2250:
2239:
2229:
2134:be permitted to
2042:
2037:
2032:
2027:
1999:
1994:
1989:
1984:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1874:
1869:
1864:
1859:
1784:routine coverage
1712:
1707:
1702:
1697:
1653:
1648:
1643:
1638:
1567:
1562:
1533:
1519:
1517:
1515:
1469:
1468:
1454:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1286:
1281:
1276:
1271:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1202:I don't have to.
1174:
1169:
1164:
1159:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1021:
972:
967:
962:
957:
916:
911:
906:
901:
856:
851:
845:
844:
839:
807:
802:
797:
792:
745:
740:
734:
733:
728:
706:
701:
696:
691:
684:reliable sources
668:reliable sources
650:
645:
639:
638:
633:
611:
606:
601:
596:
589:reliable sources
571:
565:
523:
518:
489:
484:
479:
474:
456:
450:
419:
414:
409:
404:
376:
371:
366:
361:
283:
278:
273:
268:
205:
204:
190:
142:
130:
112:
70:
64:
53:
34:
2997:
2996:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2988:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2979:deletion review
2968:
2948:
2943:
2938:
2933:
2885:
2880:
2875:
2870:
2857:
2852:
2847:
2842:
2797:
2787:
2781:
2777:
2761:
2759:
2744:
2687:
2621:
2596:
2551:
2546:
2541:
2536:
2517:
2496:
2491:
2486:
2481:
2463:
2435:
2430:
2425:
2420:
2372:
2367:
2362:
2357:
2339:
2332:
2295:
2290:
2285:
2280:
2248:
2227:
2088:And please see
2040:
2035:
2030:
2025:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1872:
1867:
1862:
1857:
1744:as an example,
1710:
1705:
1700:
1695:
1680:--Animalparty--
1651:
1646:
1641:
1636:
1599:--Animalparty--
1565:
1560:
1538:and a handwave.
1530:
1510:
1508:
1411:
1404:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1284:
1279:
1274:
1269:
1230:
1225:
1220:
1215:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1091:
1051:Law & Order
1034:
1029:
1024:
1019:
970:
965:
960:
955:
914:
909:
904:
899:
849:
842:
837:
834:
805:
800:
795:
790:
738:
731:
726:
723:
704:
699:
694:
689:
643:
636:
631:
628:
609:
604:
599:
594:
569:
563:
555:. Thank you, --
521:
516:
487:
482:
477:
472:
454:
448:
417:
412:
407:
402:
374:
369:
364:
359:
281:
276:
271:
266:
147:
138:
103:
87:
84:
68:
62:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2995:
2993:
2984:
2983:
2964:
2963:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2958:
2957:
2956:
2895:
2894:
2775:
2769:
2758:
2757:
2756:
2722:
2721:
2686:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2617:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2586:
2585:
2571:Crystal policy
2560:
2559:
2533:more civil. —
2527:
2526:
2505:
2504:
2473:
2472:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2407:
2406:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2323:
2322:
2306:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2212:
2211:
2204:Amazon Studios
2172:
2171:
2170:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
1779:
1760:
1750:
1749:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1609:
1591:Amazon Studios
1572:
1549:
1518:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1060:Amazon Studios
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
885:Irrational Man
831:Amazon Studios
654:
619:
618:
617:
530:
529:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
427:
426:
425:
208:
207:
144:
83:
78:
56:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2994:
2982:
2980:
2976:
2971:
2965:
2955:
2952:
2951:
2946:
2941:
2936:
2928:
2924:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2897:
2896:
2892:
2889:
2888:
2883:
2878:
2873:
2866:
2865:
2864:
2861:
2860:
2855:
2850:
2845:
2838:
2834:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2806:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2795:
2790:
2784:
2778:
2767:
2764:
2755:
2752:
2751:
2748:
2747:
2739:
2735:
2731:
2727:
2724:
2723:
2719:
2718:
2713:
2709:
2705:
2704:
2699:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2688:
2684:
2677:
2673:
2670:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2655:
2652:
2649:
2646:
2643:
2640:
2637:
2634:
2631:
2627:
2624:
2623:Find sources:
2619:
2618:
2607:
2604:
2603:
2600:
2599:
2592:
2588:
2587:
2583:
2579:
2575:
2572:
2568:
2565:And actually
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2558:
2555:
2554:
2549:
2544:
2539:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2525:
2522:
2520:
2514:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2503:
2500:
2499:
2494:
2489:
2484:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2471:
2468:
2466:
2459:
2456:
2455:
2442:
2439:
2438:
2433:
2428:
2423:
2416:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2379:
2376:
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2347:
2346:
2343:
2342:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2308:
2307:
2302:
2299:
2298:
2293:
2288:
2283:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2252:
2251:
2243:
2238:
2235:
2234:
2231:
2230:
2223:
2218:
2214:
2213:
2209:
2205:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2188:
2183:
2179:
2177:
2173:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2146:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2126:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2096:
2091:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2071:
2070:
2065:
2064:
2047:
2044:
2043:
2038:
2033:
2028:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2001:
2000:
1995:
1990:
1985:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1938:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1876:
1875:
1870:
1865:
1860:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1780:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1742:
1739:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1713:
1708:
1703:
1698:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1649:
1644:
1639:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1618:
1613:
1610:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1593:in line with
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1573:
1571:
1568:
1563:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1516:
1513:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1473:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:Find sources:
1409:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1347:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1333:
1328:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1094:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1032:
1027:
1022:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:hired to make
979:
978:
977:
974:
973:
968:
963:
958:
951:
946:
945:
944:
940:
936:
932:
929:
921:
918:
917:
912:
907:
902:
895:
891:
887:
886:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
860:
859:
854:
852:
841:
840:
832:
828:
824:
823:
817:
814:
813:
812:
809:
808:
803:
798:
793:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
749:
748:
743:
741:
730:
729:
720:
716:
713:
712:
711:
708:
707:
702:
697:
692:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
655:
653:
648:
646:
635:
634:
626:
623:
620:
616:
613:
612:
607:
602:
597:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
572:
566:
560:
559:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
535:
532:
531:
527:
524:
519:
513:
508:
507:
494:
491:
490:
485:
480:
475:
468:
463:
462:
461:
457:
451:
445:
444:
439:
436:
434:
428:
424:
421:
420:
415:
410:
405:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
383:
382:
381:
378:
377:
372:
367:
362:
355:
351:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
299:
294:
290:
289:
288:
285:
284:
279:
274:
269:
261:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
220:
216:
212:
203:
199:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
153:
150:
149:Find sources:
145:
141:
137:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
71:
65:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2969:
2966:
2931:
2926:
2868:
2840:
2760:
2749:
2742:
2737:
2725:
2716:
2702:
2691:
2671:
2665:
2657:
2650:
2644:
2638:
2632:
2622:
2601:
2594:
2582:not definite
2581:
2577:
2573:
2534:
2518:
2516:
2479:
2464:
2462:
2457:
2418:
2355:
2344:
2337:
2278:
2274:
2253:
2246:
2232:
2225:
2186:
2175:
2174:
2143:
2135:
2127:
2093:
2073:
2067:
2023:
1980:
1972:
1917:
1909:
1855:
1830:
1822:
1818:
1813:
1809:
1746:The IT Crowd
1740:
1693:
1674:
1634:
1623:
1611:
1574:
1551:
1534:
1509:
1475:
1471:
1461:
1455:
1447:
1440:
1434:
1428:
1422:
1412:
1407:
1323:
1315:
1267:
1263:
1213:
1205:
1204:It would be
1155:
1089:
1045:
1017:
1008:
1004:
986:
982:
953:
897:
883:
879:
871:
867:
862:You're just
846:
835:
820:
815:
788:
780:
776:
772:
760:
752:
735:
724:
714:
687:
656:
640:
629:
621:
592:
556:
551:, nor is it
544:
537:
533:
517:Everymorning
470:
441:
432:
430:
400:
357:
336:
264:
260:Hammer's Law
242:Hammer's Law
237:
217:
213:
209:
197:
191:
183:
176:
170:
164:
158:
148:
135:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
2690:Changed to
2648:free images
2415:Woody Allen
2222:WP:REFUNDed
2217:Hunter Kahn
2184:where, per
2176:Soft delete
2132:Hunter Kahn
1587:Woody Allen
1438:free images
1056:Woody Allen
894:WP:DEADLINE
827:WP:DEADLINE
771:. It does.
174:free images
2782:have a cup
2741:location.
2726:And a note
2574:does allow
2267:verifiable
2263:WP:CRYSTAL
1827:WP:ROUTINE
1671:WP:NOTNEWS
1663:WP:NOTNEWS
1617:Joe Decker
1583:WP:CRYSTAL
1579:WP:NOTNEWS
1556:WP:CRISTAL
1542:j⚛e decker
1522:j⚛e decker
987:being made
664:verifiable
660:WP:CRYSTAL
625:WP:CRYSTAL
539:project".
433:television
354:WP:CRYSTAL
350:WP:CRYSTAL
298:WP:CRYSTAL
63:have a cup
2975:talk page
2745:Schmidt,
2708:WP:HAMMER
2597:Schmidt,
2567:Nha Trang
2519:Nha Trang
2465:Nha Trang
2340:Schmidt,
2249:Schmidt,
2228:Schmidt,
1884:The After
1842:(despite
1836:The After
1776:The After
1764:The After
1759:articles.
1595:WP:WEIGHT
1387:• Gene93k
719:vaporware
258:Although
37:talk page
2977:or in a
2763:Relisted
2513:WP:CIVIL
2269:through
2196:Too Soon
2128:Comment:
1965:WP:NTEMP
1627:contribs
1512:Relisted
570:contribs
553:inherent
455:contribs
133:View log
39:or in a
2927:a month
2654:WPÂ refs
2642:scholar
2458:Delete:
2242:WP:NRVE
1808:should
1741:Comment
1612:Comment
1589:and/or
1561:Liam987
1444:WPÂ refs
1432:scholar
1140:Again,
880:weren't
850:chatter
816:Comment
739:chatter
715:Comment
644:chatter
558:ceradon
443:ceradon
180:WPÂ refs
168:scholar
106:protect
101:history
2923:WP:GNG
2810:16,000
2805:40,900
2776:Coffee
2738:before
2730:User B
2703:POLICY
2626:Google
2591:WP:GNG
2200:Hunter
2192:WP:NFF
2187:policy
2136:Userfy
1969:WP:GNG
1910:series
1888:WP:GNG
1852:WP:GNG
1848:WP:NFF
1819:beyond
1806:WP:NFF
1667:WP:NFF
1631:WP:NFF
1575:Delete
1566:(talk)
1554:. Per
1552:Delete
1416:Google
1206:really
1086:WP:GNG
950:WP:GNG
769:WP:GNG
757:WP:GNG
672:WP:NFF
622:Delete
585:WP:GNG
534:Delete
467:WP:NFF
438:WP:NFF
345:WP:NFF
337:should
333:WP:NFF
307:WP:GNG
303:WP:NOT
293:WP:NFF
238:Delete
219:WP:NFF
152:Google
110:delete
57:Coffee
2788:beans
2692:Keep.
2669:JSTOR
2630:books
1459:JSTOR
1420:books
195:JSTOR
156:books
140:Stats
127:views
119:watch
115:links
69:beans
16:<
2913:talk
2822:talk
2662:FENS
2636:news
2400:talk
2316:talk
2275:this
2194:and
2164:talk
2150:talk
2145:Cirt
2115:talk
2100:talk
2095:Cirt
2080:talk
2075:Cirt
2014:talk
1955:talk
1900:talk
1838:and
1814:tons
1796:talk
1726:talk
1684:talk
1621:talk
1603:talk
1581:and
1577:per
1497:talk
1482:talk
1477:Cirt
1452:FENS
1426:news
1408:Keep
1391:talk
1301:talk
1264:this
1250:talk
1192:talk
1132:talk
1084:and
1082:WP:N
1068:talk
995:talk
952:. —
939:talk
868:That
838:Nate
727:Nate
666:via
657:Keep
632:Nate
583:and
581:WP:N
564:talk
545:name
522:talk
449:talk
391:talk
341:WP:N
319:talk
250:talk
228:talk
188:FENS
162:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
2939:ter
2934:Hun
2876:ter
2871:Hun
2848:ter
2843:Hun
2791://
2785://
2779://
2728:to
2694:In
2676:TWL
2542:ter
2537:Hun
2487:ter
2482:Hun
2426:ter
2421:Hun
2363:ter
2358:Hun
2286:ter
2281:Hun
2215:If
2031:ter
2026:Hun
1988:ter
1983:Hun
1973:you
1925:ter
1920:Hun
1863:ter
1858:Hun
1831:any
1823:has
1810:not
1701:ter
1696:Hun
1642:ter
1637:Hun
1466:TWL
1331:ter
1326:Hun
1275:ter
1270:Hun
1221:ter
1216:Hun
1163:ter
1158:Hun
1097:ter
1092:Hun
1058:or
1025:ter
1020:Hun
1005:not
961:ter
956:Hun
905:ter
900:Hun
796:ter
791:Hun
695:ter
690:Hun
600:ter
595:Hun
478:ter
473:Hun
408:ter
403:Hun
365:ter
360:Hun
272:ter
267:Hun
202:TWL
131:– (
72://
66://
60://
2949:hn
2944:Ka
2915:)
2886:hn
2881:Ka
2858:hn
2853:Ka
2824:)
2773:—
2656:)
2552:hn
2547:Ka
2497:hn
2492:Ka
2436:hn
2431:Ka
2402:)
2373:hn
2368:Ka
2318:)
2310:--
2296:hn
2291:Ka
2166:)
2152:)
2117:)
2102:)
2082:)
2041:hn
2036:Ka
2016:)
1998:hn
1993:Ka
1957:)
1935:hn
1930:Ka
1902:)
1873:hn
1868:Ka
1798:)
1728:)
1711:hn
1706:Ka
1686:)
1652:hn
1647:Ka
1605:)
1597:.
1540:--
1499:)
1491:--
1484:)
1446:)
1393:)
1385:.
1341:hn
1336:Ka
1316:if
1303:)
1285:hn
1280:Ka
1252:)
1231:hn
1226:Ka
1194:)
1173:hn
1168:Ka
1134:)
1107:hn
1102:Ka
1070:)
1046:is
1035:hn
1030:Ka
1009:is
997:)
971:hn
966:Ka
941:)
915:hn
910:Ka
833:.
806:hn
801:Ka
781:5)
777:4)
773:3)
761:2)
753:1)
705:hn
700:Ka
610:hn
605:Ka
573:)
567:•
514:.
488:hn
483:Ka
458:)
452:•
418:hn
413:Ka
393:)
375:hn
370:Ka
321:)
313:.
282:hn
277:Ka
252:)
244:.
230:)
182:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
54:—
52:.
2911:(
2909:B
2893:)
2820:(
2818:B
2680:)
2672:·
2666:·
2658:·
2651:·
2645:·
2639:·
2633:·
2628:(
2620:(
2398:(
2396:B
2314:(
2312:B
2178:.
2162:(
2160:B
2148:(
2113:(
2111:B
2098:(
2078:(
2012:(
2010:B
1953:(
1951:B
1898:(
1896:B
1794:(
1792:B
1724:(
1722:B
1682:(
1624:·
1619:(
1601:(
1495:(
1493:B
1480:(
1462:·
1456:·
1448:·
1441:·
1435:·
1429:·
1423:·
1418:(
1389:(
1299:(
1297:B
1248:(
1246:B
1190:(
1188:B
1130:(
1128:B
1066:(
1064:B
993:(
937:(
935:B
853:)
847:(
843:•
742:)
736:(
732:•
647:)
641:(
637:•
561:(
446:(
435:.
389:(
387:B
317:(
248:(
226:(
224:B
206:)
198:·
192:·
184:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
154:(
146:(
143:)
136:·
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.