78:. This is a contentious matter, so I think it will be helpful if I explain my rationale in some detail. First, I don't think this is necessarily the wrong venue for this, as the OP is putting forward what they believe to be "significant new information has come to light since a deletion". The deletion discussion which took place in 2014 was closed with consensus to delete and redirect. Since it was a lengthy discussion, closed by three administrators, I would judge that outcome as representing firm consensus. Overturning this requires firm consensus in the other direction. There are some persuasive arguments put forward here in favor of undeletion, chiefly that new sources covering this topic as a conspiracy theory. In light of those, arguments that the redirect should remain because the article could promote a fringe POV must be given less weight, because the OP is explicitly about documenting this as a conspiracy theory.
1213:
things shorter and clearer (even adjust sourcing), not longer. I specifically read with interest the
Knowledge editor Blackford's critique of Knowledge (in which he identifies himself as opposing the 2014 decision in Knowledge as a Knowledge editor), but from a substantive point, it is difficult go along with that critique because his critique, mistakenly in my view, begins with "deleting" cultural marxism, for what was actually in effect Knowledge merging/redirecting/re-organizing, and then the Blackford critique performs a similar merging, that is, discussing the academic, while also discussing the connections, etc., to fringe/populist use, largely in the same vein as Knowledge does, now - so in the end, for me, it reinforces the current structuring (which does the same thing).
1382:. And though one could say that the article focuses a lot on the successes of the band, I think this is something we often see in smaller articles in an attempt to emphasize notability, so the article doesn't get deleted as non-notable. I still don't think it's extremely promotional." And in any case I find it a bit strange to speedily delete an article that has been around for years; I think in German-language Knowledge (where I'm more active than here), we would have asked for a regular deletion request.
931:, but reformulating those rules is a different discussion for a different time. In this case, DRVPURPOSE #3 applies and some of the !votes above would apply only if the nomination was alleging DRVPURPOSE #1, and they should therefore be discounted by the closer. And just to make it clear what I'm !voting for: I think the article should be recreated or sent to draft space, or at the minimum for recreation of the page to be permitted (and for this to only be overturned by a new consensus).
1374:, not the other way round. I think you know that it's very common that text from Knowledge articles that have been around for some years is taken for sites such as Google's Play Store. E.g. the first "source" (as mentioned above) explicitly states this, and also if you look e.g. at the "ismus" site, they state "From a Wikipeida-page on Baggalutur" as their source. So I think we can pretty definitely rule out
1943:. I do not see any explicit mention of "The Toronto Star", "The Huffington Post", "Global News", "AP/CTV", "Polygon", "Business Insider", or "The Telegraph". This indicates most (if not all) of the sources presented here have not been discussed at AfD. I therefore support unsalting and allowing recreation without prejudice against a new AfD to discuss these previously undiscussed sources.
984:"Cultural Marxism" was a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. The request is to restore that fork despite no new sources being provided. I suggest that before commenting editors read the AfD and explain why they think it was wrongly decided, whether because the arguments were wrong or sources were overlooked or did not exist at the time.
1714:. There's a large amount of relevant hits in Google Web and News searches (going by channel or personal name), where he's both the subject and and source for articles. Perhaps the articles previously written didn't cite enough sources, but that's not a good reason to delete an article and prevent re-creation.
274:
is the way to go. DRV's just not the right place. Hmm, wait, I see that's where you started, and got pointed here. In any case, the key point is I'd like to see you explicitly list the new sources so people can evaluate them. Whether that's done here or on the talk page is of less importance. --
998:
I count ten sources provided in this DRV. I did look at the AfD, but I didn't read it in its entirety because as I said, no-one is alleging that the closer's decision was wrong at the time. The sources given above all post-date 2014, so did not exist at the time; the AfD wasn't wrongly decided but it
273:
for this. DRV seems like the wrong venue; the general rule is that after sufficient time has gone by (four years qualifies), you don't need DRV involvement to recreate a title if the issues found at AfD are no longer valid. But, given the history here, I agree that discussion and consensus building
1776:
source is perfectly sufficient to justify creation of a new article. The article should be re-started as a simple mini-stub, that can be expanded after. I didn't see the draft before posting here. A number of sources in the draft seem inadequate, especially in the iPhone section, which could be a
1148:
log back into my
Knowledge account after a long and rather pleasant Wikibreak just to say "retain protected redirect". It's a term with two referents. There's a rare but genuine use from certain academic sources in the 1990s and a much more common use that's framing, largely but not exclusively by
620:
Yes, my point is to have a standalone article about the conspiracy theory as reliable sources have covered it. Do you disagree with that? I only focused on finding mainstream coverage of that fringe topic. I'm not that familiar with the general academic concept of cultural
Marxism, but my impression
1459:
clearly not a copyvio of that source as the link attributes
Knowledge as the source of the information. G11 is much more arguable but if a few sentences were trimmed I think it would be just about acceptable. If they really have topped the Icelandic music chart as claimed then they would presumably
1051:
I said I wasn't making a distinction between the conspiracy theory and the topic—I don't see how you can be when the section at
Frankfurt School in question is entitled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". The nominator tried to start discussion on a talk page and was sent here, so you can see how
1212:
in examining the sources presented here, I see nothing substantively "new" just various iterations/reiterations of what existed in 2014, the
Frankfurt School article is the needed context -- sure, trim/streamline/emendation of the section may be of benefit to readers, but that's just, say the same
1078:
The talk page of the archived AfD. This is the correct forum to ask whether or not the deleted article should be restored. However, the nominator has provided no new sources about the topic of the deleted article or any explanation why it is not a POV fork of the
Frankfurt School. If they want to
248:
the term exist, especially in regard to contemporary political matters, and I think readers are best served by a standalone article discussing the conspiracy theory based on such sources. The topic standing alone would also allow for more transparent collaborative editing, as opposed to being a
1806:
The best sources are the ones I gave in my original post. I would say the
Toronto Star counts as a national source. I also think if you look at the vast number of Google hits, there are a lot of articles by lessor known online-only publications, which are independent, and provide substantial
848:. One of those rare cases where three admins jointly reviewed the debate. Yes, we know that a small number of people desperately want a separate article, but the case was made and was not compelling - and new "references" from hyper-partisan sources like the Mises Institute do not change that.
231:
and the content seems to be getting bloated in its section under a broader topic. Judging from the additional content, especially in regard to contemporary political matters, a standalone article is warranted to talk about the term and its use historically and in today's world. I would suggest
535:
The 'Cultural
Marxism' thesis did not originate in Britain, nor is it invoked solely by the BNP. Since the conspiracy theory was first coined by American 'cultural conservatives', it has been re-interpreted, adopted and circulated by a wide range of right-wing individuals and political
1153:
says the redirect should point to where we cover the framing. The closer will, I hope, consider why there's been so much pressure over the years to allow a
Knowledge article that takes the term seriously... you can bet it's got nothing to do with the occasional academic use from the
957:
Just to add: I do not care whether this topic is housed at "Cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", and I'm treating them as the same subject because I cannot see how one would view them as two separate topics. Article titles are not a DRV concern AFAIK.
1791:
Yeah, that was, IMO, the only good source. It's really quite good where the only issue with one of being local (which I largely don't worry about especially in such a large market). But there isn't much after that. Could you identify the best 2 or 3 sources after that?
727:
I did not overlook them, but wrote, "All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory." The deleted article was about "Cultural Marxism," not the conspiracy theory and since no new sources have been introduced to justify restoring it, it should remain deleted.
1482:: Clearly the speedy deletion is not justified on both grounds cited in the deletion (copyright violation and promotional content). Restore article and tone down content (if necessary) leaving basic info and the discography list as this is a very notable Icelandic band
1189:. I have no interest in peddling the conspiracy theory and would want an article about it treated seriously. The growing mainstream coverage tells me that Knowledge should structure its summary of such content better, in this case having a standalone article.
1180:
Sorry! :( The goal of the discussion was to have a standalone article discussing the conspiracy theory in a serious-minded manner, like Knowledge has tackled other conspiracy theories. "Cultural Marxism" redirecting to a conspiracy-theory-titled section where
1757:
Hard call here. Sources are mostly moderate (looked like one good one). Draft creator blocked as a sock. I'd want to see what the nom thinks are the best few sources. Honestly the draft seems pretty fair and balanced and certainly wasn't a puff piece.
1823:
seem to be limited to national sources, the YouTube channel does get it's fair share of international coverage. Unfortunately, it will take a long time to go through the many sources, to pick what to include. I could create the article at
587:
as separate articles? From what I've read, it seems like the first one should be a dry academic sort and the latter focusing on the conspiracy theory. Sort of like having the 9/11 attacks article and the conspiracy theory one separately.
799:(do not restore) -- the AfD was closed not by just one, but by three admins: "This AfD has been closed after consensus was judged independently by 3 uninvolved administrators"; with the close warranting its own talk page here:
1832:
is most appropriate title of the article, since that's what's most famous. Maybe we don't have enough to really have a good biography, but we easily have more than enough coverage for an article about the YouTube channel.
268:
Perhaps a good way to start the discussion would be to explicitly list the sources which have emerged since the last AfD, and inviting people who participated in the various prior AfDs to evaluate them. I suggest using
249:
bloated section under a more general topic. I have no illusions that the editing process will be messy, but I believe that such a process will lead to Knowledge having a well-vetted article about the conspiracy theory.
800:
219:, I would like to propose for there to once again be a standalone article about this term, which has continued to amass coverage (especially coverage more relevant than what may have existed in 2014). It seems to meet
749:" redirects to a "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section. I did not list my sources to advocate for a standalone topic that is not about a conspiracy theory. Do you suggest that I just overwrite the unsalted
1940:
1858:
927:. Plenty of sources are given both on that page and in this DRV. The users above me seem to be endorsing the admin's decision at the time; I think this is a confusion caused by the incoherent nonsense that is
86:, and that the new sources are not particularly weighty, that we do not have the strong consensus required to overturn the original decision. This does not, of course, preclude further discussion elsewhere.
168:
236:
for the article title, (which is not salted, but I figured judging from the three-admin closure that a preliminary discussion is warranted). It should go without saying that such an article should follow
1591:. I am personally willing to grant this, but please ask BethNaught, who protected this, first. This venue is for requesting the reversal of an XfD discussion; and that is not what you are asking for.
1811:. Also, there is a huge amount of coverage over the whole "iPhone bending" or "bendgate" thing. While not specifically about him, he does play a central role in the story according to sources like
774:, you could do that but I strongly suggest you get consensus on the Frankfurt School talk page, or it would be considered disruptive. I don't think this forum is the place for that discussion.
1711:
1029:. There are no new sources that did not exist when the AfD for Cultural Marxism was held. "Cultural Marxism" was deleted as a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. While that does not prevent a
1816:
1499:- Speedy deletion should be uncontroversial; when reasonable doubts about applicability arise, there is no harm in restoring and allowing anyone who wishes to seek deletion to do so at
1690:
This page was deleted and can't be re-created. However, there are clearly now multiple major reliable sources providing substantial coverage of both YouTube channel, and the person
1262:
speedy deletion. There is a consensus that G12 was applied in error, and G11 is at least debateable. No prejudice to listing the article at AfD, as suggested by several editors. –
1936:
372:
564:. The problem with calling the article "Cultural Marxism" is that it was a fork of the "Frankfurt School" article, with conspiracy theories presented as criticism.
48:
34:
1932:
1673:
43:
1420:
is more of a judgement call, but I don't see the text as being so irreparably promotional as to trigger G11. The requirements for G11 use strong language:
606:
All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory. There are no new sources that did not exist when the AfD for Cultural Marxism was held.
156:
528:
504:
392:
1661:
1334:
684:
The article was deleted with good reason and no new sources have been introduced since the AfD. However, I do not think that prevents a
1703:
342:
1409:
750:
584:
430:
233:
177:
39:
1167:
425:
Note: This mentions Knowledge's role in presenting about the topic. Based on the author's thoughts, perhaps it is worth having a
1773:
1699:
1695:
1424:. The text could use improving, but I don't see it meeting that high bar. As for notability, that's for AfD to consider. --
1150:
825:. You are just repeating the outcome. Why not respond to the new sources and the reasons why not in response to my suggestion?
1707:
1682:
672:
1370:. To quote myself from the other discussion: "Doesn't look like a copyvio to me, as the potential "sources" apparently have
1349:
1587:. This is an unprotection request; it should have been made first to the protecting admin, and if that is not possible, to
1185:
the academic concept and the conspiracy theory are discussed seem messy. The conspiracy theory should be separated out per
652:. I must note, however, that the title "Cultural Marxism" is ambiguous and could be easily misinterpreted. I'm pretty sure
1378:. This is a years-old article and the text has ben used by other websites in the meantime, a common case. What remains is
21:
419:
407:
1061:
1008:
967:
940:
229:"Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept,"
1115:. Reversing a redirect consensus should be made by consensus at the talk page of the target. The question is "Should
745:, the problem is that Cultural Marxism as an academic concept and the conspiracy theory are being collapsed together. "
1522:
1808:
1198:
879:
834:
762:
718:
630:
597:
551:
442:
412:
307:
258:
296:"if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page"
1987:
1611:
1558:
1284:
1233:
1218:
1088:
1042:
989:
779:
733:
697:
611:
569:
397:
106:
17:
1812:
1925:
The DRV initiator is an established editor who is asking in good faith for unsalting and allowing recreation.
327:
212:
1359:
753:
redirect? I didn't do that because everything is mixed up together here and seemed to warrant a discussion.
1975:
1913:
1878:
1842:
1801:
1786:
1767:
1752:
1723:
1600:
1547:
1530:
1491:
1474:
1447:
1431:
1391:
1273:
1222:
1202:
1171:
1140:
1092:
1073:
1046:
1020:
993:
979:
952:
909:
883:
865:
838:
816:
783:
766:
737:
722:
701:
676:
634:
615:
601:
573:
555:
446:
311:
281:
262:
95:
1387:
1440:
PS: How long the article has existed, or what practices other language wikis employ, aren't factors. --
1596:
1405:
1111:
812:
486:
Jamin, Jerome (2014). "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right". In Jackson, P.; Shekhovtsov, A. (eds.).
270:
126:
91:
1214:
1186:
1163:
1084:
1038:
985:
928:
775:
742:
729:
706:
693:
607:
565:
291:
224:
692:. However, that is an issue that should be decided on its merits at the Frankfurt School talk page.
1947:
1926:
1920:
1874:
1738:
1543:
1487:
1136:
849:
870:
We can drop the Mises Institute source. I questioned it myself. But what about the other sources?
1967:
1958:
1910:
1838:
1782:
1719:
1631:
1444:
1428:
668:
278:
1304:
1854:
1825:
1820:
1747:
1691:
1383:
1268:
1120:
1030:
685:
525:
501:
220:
473:
1971:
1592:
1461:
1116:
1080:
1064:
1034:
1011:
970:
943:
924:
808:
804:
746:
689:
580:
561:
493:
487:
426:
357:
332:
238:
207:
190:
122:
87:
83:
70:
1037:, that is an issue that should be decided on its merits at the Frankfurt School talk page.
1862:
1797:
1763:
1729:
Unless you're saying there was something wrong with the deletion in 2016, this belongs at
1155:
648:
in some form. Undecided on the title and exact scope, but the general topic clearly meets
463:
347:
1413:
1895:
1870:
1588:
1539:
1483:
1194:
1132:
875:
830:
758:
714:
626:
593:
547:
438:
303:
254:
201:. There appear to be additional mainstream sources about the term since 2014, such as
1951:
1907:
1834:
1829:
1778:
1730:
1715:
1627:
1579:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1441:
1425:
1417:
1401:
1379:
1375:
1367:
1363:
1300:
1254:
1124:
1083:
into a separate article, that should be discussed at the Frankfurt School talk page.
904:
898:
860:
854:
822:
664:
649:
362:
275:
216:
1866:
1742:
1734:
1467:
1263:
377:
373:"'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim"
1025:
All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory, not cultural Marxism
1903:
1056:
1003:
962:
935:
82:, there is enough support for the arguments that the material can be covered at
999:
should now be overturned as new information has come to light (DRVPURPOSE #3).
621:
is that another article focusing on just that could be had. What do you think?
455:
244:
My general assessment of sources in the last few years is that sources writing
1887:
1793:
1759:
1514:
1190:
871:
826:
771:
754:
710:
653:
622:
589:
543:
521:
434:
299:
250:
202:
497:
1902:'s four sources, they're all largely interviews, which we downweight for
1899:
1898:, who edited the draft, but didn't create it. In any case, looking at
657:
189:: "I've read the discussions that took place in 2014 that led the term
801:
Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)
1538:. There are more than enough words here to warrant a discussion. --
489:
The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate
193:
to be redirected (and salted). At the time the discussion concluded,
1422:
unambiguous ... exclusively promotional ... fundamentally rewritten
1941:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lewis Hilsenteger (2nd nomination)
1859:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lewis Hilsenteger (2nd nomination)
923:. This is a clearly notable topic which is simply bursting out of
1119:
be spun out into its own article. The governing principle is at
1964:
would not have applied owing to the new sources and new content.
343:"Unwrapping the 'Cultural Marxism' Nonsense the Alt-Right Loves"
197:
is what the merged section looks like. Presently, it looks like
1416:, etc), but all of those attribute the source back to us. The
709:, I introduced post-AfD sources above. Did you overlook them?
1946:
Had the article not been salted, any editor could have moved
1052:
trying to send them back is unproductive and contradictory.
358:"What Is Cultural Marxism—and where did the term come from?"
803:. In any case, the topic is already suffiently covered in
393:"Cultural Marxism – the ultimate post-factual dog whistle"
1741:
is significantly better than the last deleted version. –
1668:
1654:
1646:
1638:
1341:
1327:
1319:
1311:
408:"Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars: Part 1"
198:
194:
186:
163:
149:
141:
133:
807:; a stand-alone article in not required at this time.
656:
or other major Marxists have thoughts on what a good
1694:(which is also deleted and protected). For example
1404:. The text does indeed appear in many music sites (
1710:. He ranked #5 Tech/Business social influencer by
1507:has been shown to be inapplicable in this case and
1117:
Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory
1081:
Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
1035:
Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
805:
Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
690:
Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
562:
Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
468:(not sure where Mises Institute stands as a source)
383:(op-ed, so not sure about this other than being in
328:"Trump's Racism and the Myth of 'Cultural Marxism'"
520:. Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right.
1937:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lewis Hilsenteger
896:I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier answer.
290:Yes, I assume Huon pointed me here because of
1933:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Unbox Therapy
8:
1149:crackpots of the American religious right.
1610:The following is an archived debate of the
1362:. This article was speedily deleted citing
1283:The following is an archived debate of the
105:The following is an archived debate of the
1572:
1247:
516:Copsey, Nigel; Ricardson, John E. (2015).
63:
1861:. "Delete", November 2017. Ping closer
482:(can't tell if this journal is credible)
1123:. The most important content policy is
1819:. So while personal profiles of the
7:
1923:without prejudice against a new AfD.
1358:See also previous discussion at the
518:Cultures of Post-War British Fascism
406:Blackford, Russell (July 27, 2015).
391:Zappone, Chris (November 10, 2017).
1990:of the page listed in the heading.
1815:. Bendgate also got coverage from
1561:of the page listed in the heading.
1236:of the page listed in the heading.
356:Gallagher, Brenden (July 6, 2018).
341:Oliver, Scott (February 23, 2017).
1919:Unsalt and allow recreation using
751:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
585:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
472:Jamin, Jerome (February 6, 2018).
431:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
371:Wilson, Jason (January 18, 2015).
298:. I'm listing some sources below.
234:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
28:
1894:. I think you're talking about
1360:deleting admin's discussion page
821:The AfD was closed in 2014, and
1986:The above is an archive of the
1892:Draft creator blocked as a sock
1557:The above is an archive of the
1232:The above is an archive of the
454:Calton, Chris (June 21, 2018).
1976:09:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
1914:13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1879:04:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1601:19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
1548:04:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1531:05:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
1492:01:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
1274:18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
1223:16:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
1203:14:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
1172:01:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
1141:04:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1093:14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
1074:09:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1047:02:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
1021:18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
994:18:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
980:16:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
953:16:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
910:16:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
884:11:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
866:08:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
839:11:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
817:07:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
784:14:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
767:14:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
738:16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
723:11:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
702:03:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
542:Please feel free to evaluate.
326:Heer, Jeet (August 15, 2017).
96:20:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
1:
1843:06:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
1802:03:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
1787:02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
1768:15:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
1753:19:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1724:17:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1475:17:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1448:14:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1432:14:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1392:11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
1372:taken the text from Knowledge
677:00:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
635:02:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
616:00:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
602:23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
574:22:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
556:21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
447:21:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
312:21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
282:21:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
263:19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
241:in how it handles the term."
1777:potential BLP violation. --
474:"Cultural Marxism: A survey"
456:"What Is Cultural Marxism?"
2013:
398:The Sydney Morning Herald
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1993:Please do not modify it.
1617:Please do not modify it.
1564:Please do not modify it.
1398:Overturn and list at AfD
1290:Please do not modify it.
1239:Please do not modify it.
112:Please do not modify it.
76:No consensus to overturn
40:Deletion review archives
1807:coverage. For example
1929:is a balanced article.
1886:. I don't understand
1400:. I'm not seeing the
429:article separate from
215:. Since on Knowledge,
1112:Talk:Frankfurt_School
1110:Send the question to
498:10.1057/9781137396211
271:Talk:Cultural Marxism
185:Copying in part from
1828:, but it seems like
1129:Endorse the 2014 AfD
823:consensus can change
217:consensus can change
205:writing about it in
1948:Draft:Unbox Therapy
1927:Draft:Unbox Therapy
1921:Draft:Unbox Therapy
1739:Draft:Unbox Therapy
1700:The Huffington Post
1614:of the page above.
1287:of the page above.
560:You could spin off
109:of the page above.
1536:Speedy list at AfD
579:What about having
320:Sources since 2014
2000:
1999:
1855:Lewis Hilsenteger
1826:Lewis Hilsenteger
1821:Lewis Hilsenteger
1751:
1692:Lewis Hilsenteger
1571:
1570:
1529:
1410:Google Play Music
1272:
1258:– The result was
1246:
1245:
1170:
908:
864:
530:978-1-317-53936-0
506:978-1-137-39619-8
2004:
1995:
1963:
1957:
1931:I have reviewed
1813:Business Insider
1774:The Toronto Star
1745:
1696:The Toronto Star
1685:
1680:
1671:
1657:
1649:
1641:
1619:
1573:
1566:
1525:
1519:
1512:
1470:
1354:
1352:
1344:
1330:
1322:
1314:
1292:
1266:
1248:
1241:
1162:
1160:
1072:
1019:
978:
951:
925:Frankfurt School
902:
858:
747:Cultural Marxism
581:Cultural Marxism
538:
510:
481:
478:Religion Compass
467:
427:Cultural Marxism
417:
413:The Conversation
402:
382:
367:
352:
337:
333:The New Republic
208:The New Republic
191:Cultural Marxism
180:
175:
166:
152:
144:
136:
123:Cultural Marxism
114:
84:Frankfurt school
71:Cultural Marxism
64:
59:6 September 2018
53:
49:2018 September 7
35:2018 September 5
33:
2012:
2011:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1991:
1988:deletion review
1961:
1955:
1884:Do not recreate
1863:User:Malcolmxl5
1737:. The draft at
1681:
1679:
1676:
1667:
1666:
1660:
1653:
1652:
1645:
1644:
1637:
1636:
1615:
1612:deletion review
1562:
1559:deletion review
1528:
1523:
1515:
1511:is subjective.
1480:Restore content
1468:
1348:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1333:
1326:
1325:
1318:
1317:
1310:
1309:
1288:
1285:deletion review
1237:
1234:deletion review
1215:Alanscottwalker
1178:You made me..."
1156:
1071:
1053:
1018:
1000:
977:
959:
950:
932:
743:The Four Deuces
707:The Four Deuces
531:
515:
507:
485:
471:
464:Mises Institute
453:
405:
390:
370:
355:
340:
325:
223:at this point.
176:
174:
171:
162:
161:
155:
148:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
110:
107:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2010:
2008:
1998:
1997:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1916:
1906:purposes. --
1890:'s statement,
1881:
1865:and nominator
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1755:
1688:
1687:
1677:
1664:
1658:
1650:
1642:
1634:
1622:
1621:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1569:
1568:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1533:
1521:
1503:. That aside,
1494:
1477:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1435:
1434:
1356:
1355:
1337:
1331:
1323:
1315:
1307:
1295:
1294:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1244:
1243:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1143:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1060:
1007:
966:
939:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
889:
888:
887:
886:
843:
842:
841:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
682:Do not restore
679:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
540:
539:
529:
513:
512:
511:
505:
492:. pp. 84–103.
469:
451:
450:
449:
403:
388:
368:
353:
338:
317:
316:
315:
314:
285:
284:
183:
182:
172:
159:
153:
145:
137:
129:
117:
116:
101:
100:
99:
98:
61:
56:
47:
44:2018 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2009:
1996:
1994:
1989:
1984:
1983:
1978:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1960:
1953:
1952:Unbox Therapy
1949:
1944:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1928:
1924:
1922:
1917:
1915:
1912:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1831:
1830:Unbox Therapy
1827:
1822:
1818:
1817:The Telegraph
1814:
1810:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1756:
1754:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1684:
1675:
1670:
1663:
1656:
1648:
1640:
1633:
1629:
1628:Unbox Therapy
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1613:
1608:
1607:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1580:Unbox Therapy
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1567:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1526:
1520:
1518:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1495:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1463:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1351:
1343:
1336:
1329:
1321:
1313:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1286:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1270:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1242:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:WP:PAGEDECIDE
1184:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1159:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1058:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1015:
1010:
1006:
1005:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:
981:
976:
974:
969:
965:
964:
956:
955:
954:
949:
947:
942:
938:
937:
930:
929:WP:DRVPURPOSE
926:
922:
919:
918:
911:
906:
901:
900:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
862:
857:
856:
851:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
785:
781:
777:
773:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
740:
739:
735:
731:
726:
725:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
680:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
643:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
591:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
563:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
537:
532:
527:
523:
519:
514:
508:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
484:
483:
479:
475:
470:
465:
461:
457:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
421:
415:
414:
409:
404:
400:
399:
394:
389:
386:
380:
379:
374:
369:
365:
364:
363:The Daily Dot
359:
354:
350:
349:
344:
339:
335:
334:
329:
324:
323:
322:
321:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:WP:DRVPURPOSE
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
280:
277:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
242:
240:
235:
230:
226:
225:WP:PAGEDECIDE
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
179:
170:
165:
158:
151:
143:
135:
128:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
115:
113:
108:
103:
102:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1992:
1985:
1966:
1945:
1930:
1918:
1891:
1883:
1867:User:Bearcat
1772:I'd say the
1689:
1616:
1609:
1584:
1578:
1563:
1556:
1535:
1516:
1496:
1479:
1466:
1465:
1456:
1421:
1397:
1384:Gestumblindi
1371:
1357:
1289:
1282:
1259:
1253:
1238:
1231:
1209:
1182:
1177:
1157:
1145:
1128:
1109:
1066:
1055:
1026:
1013:
1002:
972:
961:
945:
934:
920:
897:
853:
850:WP:GETOVERIT
845:
796:
681:
661:
660:looks like.
645:
559:
541:
534:
517:
488:
477:
459:
411:
396:
385:The Guardian
384:
378:The Guardian
376:
361:
346:
331:
319:
318:
295:
245:
243:
228:
206:
184:
111:
104:
79:
75:
69:
58:
1704:Global News
1585:Wrong venue
1146:You made me
809:K.e.coffman
1380:WP:CSD#G11
1376:WP:CSD#G12
1368:WP:CSD#G12
1364:WP:CSD#G11
1301:BaggalĂştur
1255:BaggalĂştur
1158:S Marshall
1121:WP:SPINOUT
221:WP:NFRINGE
1959:db-repost
1896:Personale
1871:SmokeyJoe
1853:Consider
1593:Vanamonde
1540:SmokeyJoe
1484:werldwayd
1462:WP:NMUSIC
1133:SmokeyJoe
1079:spin off
852:applies.
654:Karl Marx
522:Routledge
460:mises.org
239:WP:FRINGE
203:Jeet Heer
88:Vanamonde
80:That said
1908:RoySmith
1497:Overturn
1457:Overturn
1442:RoySmith
1426:RoySmith
1260:overturn
921:Overturn
673:contribs
665:Mr. Guye
646:Overturn
418:(Part 2
276:RoySmith
211:as seen
20: |
1809:Polygon
1683:restore
1647:history
1589:WP:RFPP
1469:Hut 8.5
1414:Discogs
1350:restore
1320:history
1210:Endorse
1199:contrib
1154:1990s.—
1031:spinoff
880:contrib
846:Endorse
835:contrib
797:Endorse
763:contrib
719:contrib
686:spinoff
658:culture
631:contrib
598:contrib
552:contrib
536:groups.
443:contrib
308:contrib
259:contrib
178:restore
142:history
1968:Cunard
1939:, and
1911:(talk)
1731:WP:RPP
1712:Forbes
1708:AP/CTV
1445:(talk)
1429:(talk)
1418:WP:G11
1402:WP:G12
1125:WP:DUE
1057:Bilorv
1027:per se
1004:Bilorv
963:Bilorv
936:Bilorv
650:WP:GNG
279:(talk)
227:says,
1888:Hobit
1869:. --
1794:Hobit
1760:Hobit
1735:WP:RM
1669:watch
1662:links
1517:Godsy
1460:meet
1406:Ismus
1342:watch
1335:links
1131:. --
905:Help!
861:Help!
246:about
164:watch
157:links
52:: -->
16:<
1972:talk
1954:and
1904:WP:N
1875:talk
1839:talk
1798:talk
1783:talk
1764:talk
1748:talk
1720:talk
1655:logs
1639:edit
1632:talk
1597:talk
1544:talk
1524:CONT
1488:talk
1388:talk
1366:and
1328:logs
1312:edit
1305:talk
1269:talk
1219:talk
1195:talk
1191:Erik
1183:both
1151:POLA
1137:talk
1127:.
1089:talk
1067:talk
1043:talk
1014:talk
990:talk
973:talk
946:talk
876:talk
872:Erik
831:talk
827:Erik
813:talk
780:talk
772:Erik
759:talk
755:Erik
734:talk
715:talk
711:Erik
698:talk
669:talk
627:talk
623:Erik
612:talk
594:talk
590:Erik
583:and
570:talk
548:talk
544:Erik
526:ISBN
502:ISBN
439:talk
435:Erik
420:here
348:Vice
304:talk
300:Erik
294:#3:
255:talk
251:Erik
213:here
199:this
195:this
187:here
150:logs
134:edit
127:talk
92:talk
32:<
1950:to
1900:Rob
1857:.
1835:Rob
1779:Rob
1743:Joe
1733:or
1716:Rob
1674:XfD
1672:) (
1509:G11
1505:G12
1501:afd
1264:Joe
1201:)
1085:TFD
1062:(c)
1039:TFD
1033:of
1009:(c)
986:TFD
968:(c)
941:(c)
899:Guy
882:)
855:Guy
837:)
776:TFD
765:)
730:TFD
721:)
694:TFD
688:of
675:)
671:)Â (
633:)
608:TFD
600:)
566:TFD
554:)
494:doi
445:)
310:)
261:)
169:XfD
167:) (
22:Log
1974:)
1962:}}
1956:{{
1935:,
1877:)
1841:)
1800:)
1785:)
1766:)
1722:)
1706:,
1702:,
1698:,
1599:)
1583:–
1546:)
1513:—
1490:)
1464:.
1412:,
1408:,
1390:)
1221:)
1197:|
1139:)
1091:)
1054:—
1045:)
1001:—
992:)
960:—
933:—
878:|
833:|
815:)
782:)
761:|
736:)
717:|
700:)
629:|
614:)
596:|
572:)
550:|
533:.
524:.
500:.
476:.
462:.
458:.
441:|
433:?
422:)
410:.
395:.
375:.
360:.
345:.
330:.
306:|
257:|
94:)
74:–
42::
1970:(
1873:(
1837:(
1833:-
1796:(
1781:(
1762:(
1750:)
1746:(
1718:(
1686:)
1678:|
1665:|
1659:|
1651:|
1643:|
1635:|
1630:(
1595:(
1542:(
1527:)
1486:(
1386:(
1353:)
1347:(
1345:)
1338:|
1332:|
1324:|
1316:|
1308:|
1303:(
1271:)
1267:(
1217:(
1193:(
1176:"
1168:C
1166:/
1164:T
1135:(
1087:(
1069:)
1065:(
1041:(
1016:)
1012:(
988:(
975:)
971:(
948:)
944:(
907:)
903:(
874:(
863:)
859:(
829:(
811:(
778:(
757:(
732:(
713:(
696:(
667:(
662:—
625:(
610:(
592:(
568:(
546:(
509:.
496::
480:.
466:.
437:(
416:.
401:.
387:)
381:.
366:.
351:.
336:.
302:(
253:(
181:)
173:|
160:|
154:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
125:(
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.