1724:). Nevertheless, I can understand the more hostile precedent is also influenced from a time when there were far more performers with articles, and there was a desire to cut that down. So whether she qualifies under WP:ENT, or whether the sources are indeed reliable enough to write an article on her, seems rather moot, as the community has reiterated (over many years) its desire to apply a harsher criteria to pornographic performers. I don't see this having more success at AfD, or Momo's argument convincing people. But since there is some debate going on here, and WP:ENT was not raised in depth previously, there could be a discussion to be had. I'm torn between endorse and relist for that reason. Ultimately, I lean towards endorse, as I don't think there is a plausible chance relisting will result in a different consensus; no new evidence presented here and WP:ENT was mentioned in the 2nd AfD (albeit briefly), so I don't see that convincing editors. The sources listed are not at all better than the ones previously tried and failed for Rhoades, and other performers.
500:. No significant contents contribution besides the creator. It was kept in the AfD whose consensus building process was disrupted by Dwaro; and an account that mysteriously came out of nearly a two year hibernation and went right back to hibernation as soon as the AfD was closed. A fair consensus was not achieved, because an input that should not have been taken into account was considered. Article should be deleted as an article created by banned user under a ban evading alternate account, because a SPI that identified a connection at a later time concludes the article was created while the ban was in effect.
1720:. As I noted in my Eva Lovia AfD, I do not necessarily agree with the decisions taken by AfD and DRV over the years to make it near-impossible for many pornographic performers to qualify. It's true that most porno performers will not be featured in The Guardian or CNN, yet I think some of the sources which are available are sufficiently reliable for these purposes (some are considered OK by the WikiProject at
205:. I make closes like that all the time. The big decision that needs to be made at AfD is whether to delete the page, because that's the only option which requires an admin to carry out. Once you've got to the point where you know you're not going to delete it, if it's not clear what to do next, asking the participants to continue the discussion on the talk pages makes a lot of sense. That's exactly what
1641:) already sent it back to deletion discussion (deletion #2) on procedural grounds due to the sources found, but those sources were deemed insufficient. Deletion #3 was on simple "Recreating the article" grounds. The sources provided above by the filer are terrible. Twitter, pornhub, xbiz, avn? I participated in afd #3 for the record.
1692:. The outcome for Lovia was delete. Ultimately, Eva Lovia and Lana Rhoades are of similar notability, in the non-Knowledge (XXG) sense of the word, have the same coverage in reliable sources, the same kinds of awards, etc. The previous AfDs on the issue are clear, and there is no reason to think that Rhoades would survive AfD.
1237:
because it wasn't a good standard. The trouble with comparing them to the Oscars is that the Oscars get massive amounts of coverage in the mainstream media and porn industry awards get little to none. Instagram followers etc do not make someone notable either. Knowledge (XXG) does expect particularly
1786:
unless the recreated version includes a genuinely new legitimate claim of significance (not merely another citation to promotional content). Porn industry sources are notoriously unreliable, recycling whatever material producers, managers, and agents circulate to promote their clients and products.
1595:
PORNBIO was created because normal RS did not cover porn actors (stigma-issues), and therefore major porn industry awards could instead be used. The community decided to depreciate PORNBIO and now require porn actors to generate the same RS as normal actors for notability. I suspect she is getting
1393:
immediately before the most recent deletion.RHaworth did make many questionable deletions and I gave evidence at the arbitration case. But I don't think this is one of them. To the extent we're reviewing the G4 deletion related to AFD3, I endorse that; the new article, while textually unrelated to
1089:
Pornbio was deprecated in great part because these awards have no value in determining notability and including a good source that does not actually mention the subject is a long standing trick used by unscrupulous editors to sway people to the idea that the sources are better then they are. I'm not
225:
There's no consensus to delete. It's a bit frustrating for those who want to merge, but there's no consensus between merging and keeping even though there's a clear consensus not to delete. A merge discussion on the talk page is the next step here, and I don't think DRV can give a specific remedy in
1708:
The third AfD was probably unnecessary. I can't see the deleted article, but I don't believe she gained far more coverage in sources after AfD #2, and the article was probably very similar to the deleted one in that respect, and so I imagine it would've been eligible for speedy under G4 anyway. So,
1445:
says: "Lana
Rhoades is not shielded by BLP. She's not a person, she's a fictional character. (The performer who plays her would be shielded by BLP.)" It appears that the August 2016 Pet of the Month is listed as Lana Rhoades. That would appear to be the name of a human. If this is a fictional
1349:
a reliable source for what seems to be an uncontroversial statement about popular culture. Is it a reliable source for the claim that this young lady's the world's most-searched porn star? I find myself thinking that this gets us over the bar for G4 and into the territory that we should refer to
1333:
was opened and exactly two calendar months before he was desysopped for, and I quote Arbcom exactly, "repeated misuse" of the deletion tool. I would endorse it as a G4, but looking at the logs, that's not actually what RHaworth did. As far as I can see, he wrote "speedy delete" in his closing
1544:- the AFD was only open for less than 24 hours, the only delete comment was from a user whose competence in AFDs is highly questionable and shouldn't hold any weight. And numerous sources have been provided. DRV isn't the forum to be discussing sources - it's AFD, and that didn't happen.
1574:
The "Speedy Delete" close was probably flawed. For this to be a G4, RH needed to confirm that there were no new refs added since the 2nd nomination, which he did not (if new refs had been added since the last AfD, it is not a G4). Doesn't help that the nom,
305:
Ultimately, AFDs can either be closed as delete or not-delete. If an AFD is closed as any of the not-delete outcomes, anyone desirous of changing between that and another not-delete outcome can take forward their suggestions on the article talk page, or just
816:
She meets guideline #1 due to her performances in films created by several of the leading pornographic porn studios, which have led to multiple wins and nominations of the most prestigious awards in pornography, including what has been called the "Oscars of
291:
delete the content, there is no need to keep the AfD open. Further discussion about whether or not to merge can be conducted outside of AfD (and in this case, should probably be expanded to consider the entire series of "152X in
Ireland" articles).
718:
Lana
Rhoades is the #1 most popular/watched pornographic actress according to multiple sources. Several pornographic actors that are less notable than Rhoades have their own articles, so she should also have her own instead of being a redirect.
820:
She meets guideline #2 because she is the most popular porn star on
Pornhub, with over 345 million views on her videos in 2019. Along with her popular videos, Rhoades' large fanbase is also apparent in her following of 10 million users on
1300:
I'm proud of deletion review's role in downgrading PORNBIO, and I've consistently argued for pornstar articles to be deleted, but I think there's a lot of moving parts to this one. Taking the various discussions that we're reviewing in
1584:
In terms of notability, S Marshall's reference is the best I have seen yet, and while the Daily Star is not a good source for most things, for celebrities etc., it's huge distribution gives it some credibility. Similarily, here is
1136:
are also pretty reliable sources that don't focus primarily on the adult industry and have also been used as references on numerous occasions. If by shit, you mean not mainstream media, then I believe you are incorrect because,
964:
I think there's probably enough there to write a new article. I can't tell for sure, but I'm unsure the 3rd discussion should have been closed as a speedy, too. Would allow a draft or refund to anyone who wants to work on it.
178:
209:
did here. BTW, it's strongly recommended that you discuss issues with the closing admin before opening a DRV. My guess is had you done that, she would have explained this basically the same as I've done here. --
1394:
the old ones, was inferior in both content and referencing. The only genuinely new content was the inclusion of a partial filmography (not an improvement) and the actress's real name (probably not a good idea). —
1019:
the Forbes article doesn't mention her in the text and the other sources are either not rs, clickbait or otherwise not suitable to hang a BLP on. The daily Star is a tabloid for those not familiar with UK papers.
176:
I don't think the closer noticed that there was an option to close it as a merge. It could have closed as a merge, but the user claimed it could've been discussed outside of AFD, which I have confusing, because
1361:
intervention for DRV here is to overturn the outcome of AfD#3 to the "redirect" that actually happened. I'd favour doing that and referring the nominator to RSN for a consensus about that Daily Star article.—
1127:
are four of the most reliable sources for information on the adult industry and have been used as references in newspaper articles, books, and research studies on numerous occasions. Along with those sources,
824:
She meets guideline #3 because she has been one of the biggest faces of porn in recent history and has created a large online empire surrounding pornography, among the first in the adult industry to do so.
1411:
the AfD that RHaworth speedily closed based on the sockpuppet, John Pack
Lambert and the one editor whose view I think deserves full weight. Still think the subsequent Daily Star source gets it past G4
1326:
1315:
701:
1353:
Lana
Rhoades is not shielded by BLP. She's not a person, she's a fictional character. (The performer who plays her would be shielded by BLP.) We're not dealing with any kind of presumption to delete
766:, or in draftspace, or in your userspace. DRV is for challenging the process: the prior process of three AfDs and two DRVs looks quite sound. If you want to argue the facts, you need sources, see
1787:
G4 deletion was taised as an option in the AFD discussion, and the closer's defective closing state merits strong criticism, but does not justify reversing of a substantively correct decision.
1144:*I was unable to include the Google Scholar reference for Pornhub because its website is whitelisted on Knowledge (XXG), but just search the website URL on Google Scholar to see the results.
1731:: I'm not sure I would say Rhoades is a "fictional character". Her article would cover her as an individual, and simply be using her stage name as the title, on the basis that it is her
1658:
per
Zaathras. Until and unless some mainstream or broadsheet news coverage is presented, I think this should stay as a redirect. I see a lot of references to PORNBIO, but not so much to
1407:
Oh, I apologise. That's not very transparent from what the logs show me; shows me that he deleted four revisions, restored five revisions, and then protected the page. OK, I suppose I
1385:; the part that's a bit confusing is that he then restored most of the revisions related to the redirect created between AFD1 and DRV1. For admins, the versions you're comparing are
1233:
for a start porn industry awards aren't generally seen as making someone notable. The notability guidelines used to say that they suggested you were likely to be notable but that was
1242:. Tabloid journalism, Twitter etc are not acceptable sources here at all, so you're left with a few profiles on porn industry websites, which I suspect will not go down well at AfD.
1688:
I'm surprised to see this back here, and I think some respondents may lack context. I've looked into her past DRVs and AfDs when I was making my AfD for Eva Lovia a few weeks ago:
497:
526:. The closure of the AFD was appropriate based on the information available at the time. If we are now saying that the article creator was banned, then it should be tagged
1090:
suggesting that this was your plan but hopefully my comment will help you see why that was a bad tactic. As for the rest of the sources? If I may be blunt? They are shit.
1234:
159:
1638:
1311:
1345:. As a Brit myself I'll happily confirm that the Daily Star is not a reliable source for anything that relates to politics, economics, science or medicine. But it's
758:. Deleted by consensus consistent with the usual criteria. If you want to challenge that decision, you need evidence useful for Knowledge (XXG). See the advice at
1709:
regardless of procedural anomalies in the AfD, I see no reason to plausibly think the outcome would've been different. Hence, overturn to keep seems inappropriate.
1330:
1307:
1280:
It has come to my attention that the AFD was closed after less than the requisite 7-day period. This is a process irregularity and therefore the outcome must be
48:
34:
1689:
475:
1175:
1071:, I included the Forbes article to back up the “Oscars of Porn” statement, not to provide any information on Rhoades. How about the rest of the sources?
43:
1208:
1219:
147:
618:
39:
1789:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
979:
240:
1735:. This is how most other articles on pornographic performers are constructed. Calling her a fictional character is equatable to saying
1329:. I'm not overjoyed about that third AfD, being that it was closed as "speedy delete" by RHaworth, exactly one calendar month before
1030:
689:
1766:, and no applicable criteria for speedy deletion are apparent. The notability analysis is for a proper AfD to conduct, not for DRV.
1197:
1186:
1678:
1528:
1475:
1423:
1372:
623:
168:
21:
1792:
1748:
1702:
796:
463:
1762:
and undelete without prejudice to a new AfD. This was improperly closed as "speedy delete" without reference to one of the
536:. If you are desirous of deletion for some other reason, as the AFD was 6 months ago it is appropriate to raise a new AFD.
710:
297:
1807:
898:
639:
574:
413:
368:
97:
17:
1697:
Unless I am mistaken, the nominator and respondents suggesting to overturn seem to miss a key series of events. After
1176:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avn.com%2F%22&btnG=&oq=%22
1138:
1129:
1788:
1744:
1209:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailystar.co.uk%2F%22&btnG=
1666:
is not taken seriously enough to be used as a source much, but IMHO it's even less trustworthy and reputable than
1342:
931:
1504:
1451:
734:
If you want
Knowledge (XXG) to have an article on this person you'll need to come up with evidence she meets the
484:
1606:
1220:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquisitr.com%22&btnG=
865:
613:
1581:, was shown subsequent to the AfD to be a sock. Probably enough for it to be re-listed on technical grounds.
971:
293:
232:
206:
1732:
1698:
1104:
253:. I don't believe that a 'keep' AfD blocks a merge. The important thing is that the page wasn't deleted.
1381:
RHaworth actually did delete a 30-revision recreation here. Nonadmins can see some evidence of that in
1100:
1796:
1778:
1752:
1680:
1650:
1629:
1610:
1553:
1532:
1508:
1479:
1455:
1427:
1398:
1376:
1293:
1275:
1252:
1153:
1094:
1080:
1059:
1037:
1024:
1011:
984:
834:
779:
748:
728:
628:
563:
545:
517:
493:
402:
357:
340:
323:
300:
279:
262:
245:
217:
196:
86:
1676:
1524:
1500:
1471:
1447:
1419:
1368:
353:
117:
1602:
942:
775:
608:
513:
505:
433:
275:
1262:
331:
If it isn't endorsed, it's going to change to non-consensus. Keep doesn't preclude a later merge.
1646:
966:
227:
214:
767:
759:
551:
1198:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22www.xbiz.com%2F%22&btnG=
1187:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22www.iafd.com%2F%22&btnG=
920:
1149:
1076:
1055:
1007:
876:
830:
763:
724:
659:
429:
389:
192:
1721:
1289:
1271:
559:
541:
398:
319:
258:
1763:
1717:
1659:
1239:
1108:
800:
787:
1728:
1671:
1625:
1549:
1518:
1492:
1465:
1442:
1413:
1362:
887:
349:
336:
113:
70:
604:
307:
1769:
909:
771:
530:
509:
501:
271:
270:. Whether or not to merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Use the article talk page. —
77:
953:
854:
735:
1642:
1586:
284:
211:
74:– "Keep" closure endorsed, without prejudice to a further discussion about a merger.
1637:
There is nothing to discuss here that has not already been covered. A prior review (
899:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2017/02/24/oscars-of-porn/#26d68c5d349a
1740:
1713:
1395:
1245:
1145:
1091:
1072:
1068:
1051:
1047:
1034:
1021:
999:
993:
826:
741:
720:
655:
595:
393:– AFD technically endorsed, but underlying article deleted as requested per CSD:G5
184:
809:
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
1029:
Every time a given article comes back to DRV with low quality sources presented,
1285:
1267:
555:
537:
394:
315:
254:
1499:
is a living person. If there is some other argument, I do not understand it.
1334:
statement and then he protected the redirect instead of deleting the title (!).
932:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/love-sex/inside-rise-pornhubs-biggest-star-21767474
287:
has essentially explained my point of view here - once there is a consensus to
1736:
1621:
1545:
1496:
1141:, the mainstream media isn't very likely to publish an article on a porn star.
1124:
332:
1589:, the largest Spanish-language paper in the US with regular coverage on her
1133:
866:
https://www.xbiz.com/news/247572/pornhub-announces-2nd-annual-awards-winners
1590:
1341:
all these events, the Daily Star, which is a
British tabloid, published
1112:
607:
is not applicable in this case and a full 7-day AfD should be heard.
1517:
OK. Was that the only part of my analysis that you disagreed with?—
1327:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (3rd nomination)
1316:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades (2nd nomination)
1577:
1563:
1120:
943:
https://avn.com/business/articles/video/lana-rhoades-854161.html
1116:
1705:, on the basis that the sources did not establish notability.
1592:. It does seem that she currently is a major figure in porn.
496:
who has been banned since Feb 2019 for adverising/promo (see
1446:
character, who is the actress playing her? What the H@!l?
921:
https://www.inquisitr.com/6043616/lana-rhoades-opts-leather/
181:
The consensus asked for a merge, but it was closed as keep.
1325:
Then someone re-created it and there was a third AfD here:
1561:. I would agree with several of the points being made by
877:
http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=lanarhoades/gender=f
1596:
close to "normal notability", but it is still borderline.
1031:
it becomes that much more unlikely it'll ever be restored
1322:
the second close as it was clearly correct at that time.
1390:
1386:
1382:
888:
https://twitter.com/avnawards/status/957505772061184000
806:
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
696:
682:
674:
666:
498:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet_investigations/Dwaro/Archive
470:
456:
448:
440:
154:
140:
132:
124:
1662:, which I consider to be far more important. The UK
1639:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2019 September 1
1312:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2019 September 1
910:
https://www.pornhub.net/insights/2019-year-in-review
1464:
The Star says the performer's name is Amara Maple.—
1099:What makes them shit? They follow all the rules of
954:
https://www.pornhub.net/pornstar/lana-rhoades/about
855:
https://avn.com/porn-stars/lana-rhoades-678205.html
1308:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lana Rhoades
492:Article created 17 September 2019‎ by puppet of
1690:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Eva Lovia
1314:; the relisted AfD was re-closed as delete at
795:Has had significant roles in multiple notable
179:AFD's closed with merging happen all the time.
1701:, the article ended back up at AfD in a week
1601:There is enough here to overturn and relist.
8:
554:I have gone ahead and deleted this article.
803:, stage performances, or other productions.
638:The following is an archived debate of the
412:The following is an archived debate of the
96:The following is an archived debate of the
1107:. They contain enough information so that
1050:for why these sources aren't low quality.
588:
382:
63:
1620:There is enough this should be at AfD.
1567:above. There are a few aspects to this:
1389:immediately before the end of AFD2 and
1168:
847:
790:, the following guidelines must be met:
1310:was restored and relisted after DRV#1
7:
1810:of the page listed in the heading.
577:of the page listed in the heading.
371:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
1716:makes a plausible argument under
762:. You could give the answer at
1806:The above is an archive of the
573:The above is an archive of the
367:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
992:- per abundance of sources by
603:. I see a weak consensus that
1:
1495:- A living person who uses a
1699:a DRV suggesting new sources
1240:biographies of living people
1111:would need to be conducted.
508:) 08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
348:a proper no consensus close
550:On further reflection, per
1833:
1743:are fictional characters.
1712:As for whether to relist,
1797:04:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
1779:15:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
1753:16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
1681:16:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1651:15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1630:23:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1611:12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1554:19:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1533:23:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1509:21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
1480:17:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1456:16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1428:19:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1399:15:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1377:13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1331:the Arbcom case about him
1294:15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
1276:08:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1253:06:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1154:02:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1095:23:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
1081:22:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
1060:03:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1038:21:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
1025:21:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
1012:18:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
985:18:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
835:10:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
780:08:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
749:06:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
729:05:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
629:03:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
564:09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
546:09:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
518:08:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
403:09:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
358:21:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
341:19:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
324:08:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
301:01:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
280:21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
263:18:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
246:18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
218:17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
197:16:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
87:08:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
1813:Please do not modify it.
1387:20:43, 16 September 2019
1306:The "delete" outcome of
645:Please do not modify it.
580:Please do not modify it.
419:Please do not modify it.
374:Please do not modify it.
103:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1727:Finally, as a nitpick,
1284:for a full seven days.
207:User:Premeditated Chaos
1391:04:30, 1 December 2019
1745:ProcrastinatingReader
736:notability guidelines
1703:where it was deleted
1441:What the h&^l?
1109:no original research
310:and get on with it.
1282:overturn and relist
1139:for obvious reasons
642:of the page above.
601:Overturn and relist
416:of the page above.
100:of the page above.
1820:
1819:
1777:
1531:
1478:
1426:
1410:
1375:
1238:good sources for
764:Talk:Lana Rhoades
587:
586:
381:
380:
85:
1824:
1815:
1776:
1774:
1767:
1580:
1566:
1523:
1470:
1418:
1408:
1367:
1248:
1222:
1217:
1211:
1206:
1200:
1195:
1189:
1184:
1178:
1173:
1046:See my reply to
1009:
1005:
1002:
982:
974:
956:
951:
945:
940:
934:
929:
923:
918:
912:
907:
901:
896:
890:
885:
879:
874:
868:
863:
857:
852:
801:television shows
744:
713:
708:
699:
685:
677:
669:
647:
589:
582:
535:
529:
494:User:Elfinshadow
487:
482:
473:
459:
451:
443:
421:
383:
376:
243:
235:
194:
190:
187:
171:
166:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
64:
53:
33:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1811:
1808:deletion review
1770:
1768:
1618:overturn speedy
1576:
1562:
1501:Robert McClenon
1493:User:S Marshall
1448:Robert McClenon
1443:User:S Marshall
1246:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1218:
1214:
1207:
1203:
1196:
1192:
1185:
1181:
1174:
1170:
1003:
1000:
998:
978:
970:
961:
960:
959:
952:
948:
941:
937:
930:
926:
919:
915:
908:
904:
897:
893:
886:
882:
875:
871:
864:
860:
853:
849:
742:
709:
707:
704:
695:
694:
688:
681:
680:
673:
672:
665:
664:
643:
640:deletion review
578:
575:deletion review
533:
527:
483:
481:
478:
469:
468:
462:
455:
454:
447:
446:
439:
438:
417:
414:deletion review
372:
369:deletion review
239:
231:
226:this instance.
188:
185:
183:
167:
165:
162:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
114:1526 in Ireland
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
71:1526 in Ireland
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1830:
1828:
1818:
1817:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1781:
1756:
1755:
1725:
1710:
1706:
1694:
1693:
1683:
1653:
1632:
1614:
1613:
1603:Britishfinance
1599:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1582:
1569:
1568:
1556:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1512:
1511:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1459:
1458:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1402:
1401:
1355:
1351:
1350:RSN to decide.
1347:maybe arguably
1335:
1323:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1255:
1224:
1223:
1212:
1201:
1190:
1179:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1142:
1084:
1083:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1041:
1040:
1027:
1014:
987:
958:
957:
946:
935:
924:
913:
902:
891:
880:
869:
858:
846:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
822:
818:
811:
810:
807:
804:
792:
791:
783:
782:
752:
751:
716:
715:
705:
692:
686:
678:
670:
662:
650:
649:
634:
633:
632:
631:
585:
584:
569:
568:
567:
566:
548:
490:
489:
479:
466:
460:
452:
444:
436:
424:
423:
408:
407:
406:
405:
379:
378:
363:
362:
361:
360:
343:
326:
303:
282:
265:
248:
220:
174:
173:
163:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1829:
1816:
1814:
1809:
1804:
1803:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1775:
1773:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1757:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:WP:COMMONNAME
1730:
1726:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1679:
1677:
1675:
1674:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1654:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1615:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1594:
1591:
1588:
1583:
1579:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1486:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1400:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1221:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:WP:BLPSOURCES
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1006:
995:
991:
988:
986:
983:
981:
975:
973:
968:
967:SportingFlyer
963:
962:
955:
950:
947:
944:
939:
936:
933:
928:
925:
922:
917:
914:
911:
906:
903:
900:
895:
892:
889:
884:
881:
878:
873:
870:
867:
862:
859:
856:
851:
848:
844:
836:
832:
828:
823:
819:
815:
814:
813:
812:
808:
805:
802:
798:
794:
793:
789:
786:According to
785:
784:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
754:
753:
750:
747:
746:
745:
737:
733:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
712:
703:
698:
691:
684:
676:
668:
661:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
648:
646:
641:
636:
635:
630:
627:
626:
622:
621:
617:
616:
612:
611:
606:
602:
598:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
583:
581:
576:
571:
570:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
547:
543:
539:
532:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
486:
477:
472:
465:
458:
450:
442:
435:
431:
428:
427:
426:
425:
422:
420:
415:
410:
409:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
387:
386:
385:
384:
377:
375:
370:
365:
364:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
302:
299:
295:
290:
286:
283:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
264:
260:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
236:
234:
229:
228:SportingFlyer
224:
221:
219:
216:
213:
208:
204:
201:
200:
199:
198:
195:
193:
191:
180:
170:
161:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1812:
1805:
1783:
1771:
1759:
1741:Lana Del Rey
1685:
1672:
1667:
1663:
1655:
1634:
1617:
1558:
1541:
1519:
1488:
1466:
1438:
1414:
1363:
1359:very minimum
1358:
1357:I think the
1346:
1338:
1319:
1281:
1261:and list at
1258:
1257:
1244:
1243:
1230:
1215:
1204:
1193:
1182:
1171:
1163:
1016:
997:
989:
977:
969:
949:
938:
927:
916:
905:
894:
883:
872:
861:
850:
842:
755:
740:
739:
717:
656:Lana Rhoades
644:
637:
624:
619:
614:
609:
600:
596:Lana Rhoades
594:
579:
572:
523:
491:
418:
411:
388:
373:
366:
345:
328:
311:
288:
267:
250:
238:
230:
222:
202:
182:
175:
102:
95:
79:
69:
59:17 June 2020
58:
49:2020 June 18
35:2020 June 16
1101:WP:RELIABLE
524:Wrong venue
1772:Sandstein
1737:The Weeknd
1729:S_Marshall
1673:Ritchie333
1664:Daily Star
1587:La OpiniĂłn
1578:NL19931993
1564:S Marshall
1520:SÂ Marshall
1497:stage name
1467:SÂ Marshall
1415:SÂ Marshall
1364:SÂ Marshall
1164:References
1130:Daily Star
843:References
821:Instagram.
350:Lightburst
80:Sandstein
1263:WP:DEEPER
1134:Inquisitr
772:SmokeyJoe
610:King of ♥
510:Graywalls
502:Graywalls
272:SmokeyJoe
44:2020 June
1760:Overturn
1643:Zaathras
1559:Overturn
1542:Overturn
1439:Question
1412:though.—
1383:the logs
990:Overturn
768:WP:THREE
760:WP:THREE
552:WP:WINAB
430:RevSpace
390:RevSpace
285:RoySmith
212:RoySmith
20: |
1784:Endorse
1722:WP:PORN
1714:Momo824
1686:Endorse
1668:The Sun
1656:Endorse
1635:Endorse
1489:Comment
1409:endorse
1396:Cryptic
1320:endorse
1259:Endorse
1247:Hut 8.5
1235:removed
1231:Endorse
1146:Momo824
1113:Pornhub
1092:Spartaz
1073:Momo824
1069:Spartaz
1052:Momo824
1048:Spartaz
1035:Cryptic
1022:Spartaz
1017:endorse
994:Momo824
827:Momo824
756:Endorse
743:Hut 8.5
721:Momo824
711:restore
675:history
485:restore
449:history
346:Endorse
329:Endorse
312:Endorse
268:Endorse
251:Endorse
223:Endorse
203:Endorse
169:restore
133:history
1764:WP:CSD
1718:WP:ENT
1660:WP:BLP
1337:Then,
1301:order:
1286:Stifle
1268:Stifle
1123:, and
817:Porn".
788:WP:ENT
556:Stifle
538:Stifle
395:Stifle
316:Stifle
298:(talk)
255:pburka
215:(talk)
1622:Hobit
1546:Nfitz
1354:here.
1339:after
1318:. I
797:films
770:. --
697:watch
690:links
605:WP:G4
531:db-g5
471:watch
464:links
333:Nfitz
308:WP:BB
155:watch
148:links
52:: -->
16:<
1793:talk
1749:talk
1647:talk
1626:talk
1607:talk
1550:talk
1505:talk
1452:talk
1343:this
1290:talk
1272:talk
1150:talk
1132:and
1125:XBIZ
1121:IAFD
1103:and
1077:talk
1056:talk
1001:Kori
831:talk
776:talk
725:talk
683:logs
667:edit
660:talk
560:talk
542:talk
514:talk
506:talk
457:logs
441:edit
434:talk
399:talk
354:talk
337:talk
320:talk
276:talk
259:talk
186:Kori
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
1739:or
1491:to
1117:AVN
1033:. —
1004:das
702:XfD
700:) (
476:XfD
474:) (
294:PMC
289:not
189:das
160:XfD
158:) (
22:Log
1795:)
1751:)
1670:.
1649:)
1628:)
1609:)
1552:)
1507:)
1454:)
1292:)
1274:)
1152:)
1119:,
1115:,
1079:)
1058:)
996:.
833:)
799:,
778:)
738:.
727:)
599:–
562:)
544:)
534:}}
528:{{
516:)
401:)
356:)
339:)
322:)
314:.
296:â™
278:)
261:)
42::
1791:(
1747:(
1645:(
1624:(
1605:(
1548:(
1529:C
1527:/
1525:T
1503:(
1476:C
1474:/
1472:T
1450:(
1424:C
1422:/
1420:T
1373:C
1371:/
1369:T
1288:(
1270:(
1265:.
1148:(
1075:(
1054:(
980:C
976:·
972:T
829:(
774:(
723:(
714:)
706:|
693:|
687:|
679:|
671:|
663:|
658:(
625:â™
620:♣
615:♦
558:(
540:(
512:(
504:(
488:)
480:|
467:|
461:|
453:|
445:|
437:|
432:(
397:(
352:(
335:(
318:(
292:â™
274:(
257:(
241:C
237:·
233:T
172:)
164:|
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.