Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (web)/Archive 6

378:

source mention anything about it, then it certainly is notable. But, using the example, ebaum'sworld is certainly notable, because I believe it has outside mentions in various sources. But the forum inside would not fit the criteria, and this is what I find unfair, that it is therefore not notable to be included inside the article. It is important for one reading to know that there is a forum they could join, and maybe provide a little bit of what had happened to the site. AKA, if someone was looking for it, it is notable to provide major details that don't warrent the need to fit these guidelines. Becuase inevitably, what is notable is what people find important when reading something on a site.

1318:

less than hour to find three reliable sources for a topic I have no interest in, so I'm not sure what you're getting at when you write that I'm the first person to note these sources. I doubt that my library is that much better than other libraries, so I'm guessing that the reason these or other reliable sources weren't brought up in your previous conversations is that nobody really bothered to look for them. Or was there actually some serious group attempt made to research Icy Hot Stuntaz and nobody found these or any other reliable sources? --

31: 1600:

policies; it states that a meme is notable if it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. That's the position of the verifiability policy. Perhaps if people could illuminkate me as to how these guidelines fail, I'd change my position, but as yet all I've been told is that these guidelines are too tough. That seems to me to be a misunderstanding of what our policies are.

1605:

evaluation of sources. It's a redundant argument, and one that the people espousing it fail to follow through on. When I have asked what they would consider reliable sources, they fail to provide them. There's no sense that anyone is attempting to communicate on the issue at all, rather we sit on two hilltops firing broadsides.

169:

Only widespread knowledge made the event notable. Thus, with outside events out, copyright and legal disputes are the only things that could get out to the news. The only exceptions are the advice forums, which have appeared multiple times for what they do in the news, which is unfair bias towards other types of forums.

357:

flawed since no mention of the media is made in the guideline which you question, and what you consider to be a primary source may not be a primary source, but it is hard to tell since you don't cite specific sources. To refer to your original posting, basically, the guidelines are what they are: an article on when

645:, and good luck to you. If it is accepted, then no problem. But at the moment it isn't, and I think it's bad form to edit this to fit around your proposal, which is what I think you are doing. My opinion is that we don't need anything more, but if consensus goes against that, that's fine. But the status of 572:, which actually involves what its title suggests. I completely oppose this policy being considered a guideline for anything except websites, as it currently is respected by the wikipedia community only for its purpose in judging the notability of websites. Not to mention that it severely needs a copyedit. 1915:

Notability is already enshrined in policy despite your arguments to the contrary. And I'm not speculating on what might exist, I could cite any number of articles that did exist but were deleted under this criterion. You seem to believe short entires should be deleted. I take it you are aware of the

1893:

Well, I can't prove a negative - there is no article on you, so I can't speak to particulars. Write one, and we'll see, but I would imagine that there is simply not enough information that is actually verifiable to write more than a phone book entry. But, having said that, I don't know you, there may

1851:

Great justice, your view has been proven impractical-- you've essentially admitted that, under your system of bare bones verifiability and npov, a janitor mentioned in a local newspaper could have an article. I think I can easily make the following generalization of that view: the community, for the

1599:

You seem to misunderstand my position, which is that this guideline is enough, and already applies. People should start using this in afd's rather than build more guidelines. If you agree with the three policies then I'm not sure why this guideline fails, since this guideline is based upon the three

1566:

are non-negotiable. No consensus at afd can trump the three policies, and, if we take those three policies as they read, any article which cannot be verified in outside sources should be deleted. Whilst that is not happening all the time, it doesn't mean those aren't the goals, it means that admins

1317:

Depending on your interpretation of "multiple, non-trivial works," you may be interested that Icy Hot Stuntaz was the Financial Times' "Investrend Website of the day" for October 3, 2005, and is also discussed in the East Bay Express' September 1, 2004, article "Take Off All Your Clothes." It took me

314:

Also, primary sources are important, agreed. However, with multiple primary sources, the page becomes less and less POV, and more the general consensus. I just see that asking for a media article on a forum or an award a forum won to be incredibly limiting to the amount of information that should get

168:

In an internet forum, most affairs remain internal. Members may occassionally leave a forum to spam up another one, but it never makes the news. In January of 2006, when YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world, it was the ugliest raid in history. However, the news did not cover the raid.

1621:

You are right that there will never be agreement on this, since notabilty inherently means 'What I Like'. What you like will always be different to what others like. You may get apparent agreement of the people in the room about 'What Slashdot Editors Like', and be able to get that passed a process,

1516:

It's simple. I think all of the rulecruft associated with 'notability' should be deleted. Current policy says that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, and which articles get to be written is also a matter of NPOV. The articles on Democrats and Republicans need to be written from

1366:

No, I haven't, because the problem still persists. I want you to look at the AfDs for thesr types of things, the problem is "nn," and WP:WEB is consistently ignored. I've had plenty of time to think about it, and I still think we require a separate listing, especially for ones that are notable but

330:

So you seem to be arguing from a flawed position. The argument you need to be having is elsewhere. We also seem to be crossing wires on our definitions of primary sources. But at the end of the day, what is questionable about a group of message board members posting to another message board is the

160:

Recently engaged in a dispute, this guideline was refferenced to me. I was taken aback from it, and am in heave dispute about it. I wish to state my opinions, and have some things explained to me. These are all in the aspects of forums being notable, not the other aspects of the web-related content.

650:

expansion was to cover both those things and expand to cover the whole of web-content. Whilst you seem to disagree with that, I would ask you to respect the fact that consensus was sought on the issue through advertising the proposal in various high profile pages and that a consensus was reached.

649:

and discussions there should have no impact on the status of this page. David removed the guideline tag for a whole different issue, and the tag was subsequently restored. And being used for webcomics and websites is a lot more than being used for websites, which was your original assertion. The

377:

Oh, I'm not refferring to something getting it's own article. Just a mention in a related article. Like, YTMND spamming would nto warrent an article, but it would in the ebaum'sworld article, as it is related to it's history. And that is where I have the objection. I mean, if a forum has an outside

310:

I do understand that outside sources are less NPOV, but the issue which I have with the whole notability of forums is that forums do not get much attention in the media to begin with. However, someone may be looking for information on a forum from this encyclopedia, to see if it is a drama place, a

1383:

OK, I think we'll have to agree to disagree then. You haven't managed to convince me that internet memes "that are notable but don't recieve coverage" exist, yet alone in sufficient numbers to warrant their own guideline rather than possibly being a few exceptions to this guideline. And it doesn't

909:

Sorry, I didn't perceive this as "compteition". In fact, I barely knew about it because of its name, which to most rational people suggests "websites". Thats why it was frustrating when I found some stuff on memes hidden in here, despite never being used on AFD's for memes. And I'll continue to

586:

The old version didn't deal with websites, it dealt with webcomics, and has grown organically and been discussed many times. In three months it hasn't really been overly disputed, and is in use across wikipedia. It was advertised at the pump, on cent and at rfc, I think it's poor form to suggest

575:

In conclusion, this entire page has changed too greatly and expanded to greatly from the subject of websites to be considered community consensus. It should be once again considered a proposal(since, after all, the community rarely uses it on anything other than websites and webcomics...i've only

466:

People will resist speedying website articles, and for understandable reasons, I guess. Often website articles can be speedied, but for other reasons. If they consist only of an external link and a short blurb basically restating the title of that link, for example, they fall under A3. But I think

1384:

appear that I'm going to be able to change your mind with any further amount of finding you reliable sources for articles which you believe it is impossible to find reliable sources for. I am also unconvinced that trying to determine notability without reliable sources isn't going to run afoul of

1270:

The "outside sources" is merely one of many ways to glean notability. The problem with WP:WEB in that it fails to note that internet-only information is less likely to be noted in "mainstream" culture. Thus, things that are overly popular on the internet (Icy Hot Stuntaz, The Juggernaut Bitch),

1231:

Let's nip it early - the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it. If people here show some interest in actually dealing with memes, it might be worth it further, but past discussions haven't been

1841:

Well, someone could write an article about you, if there's enough to say to make it more than a phone book entry, and did not consist entirely of local news reports, and if they did, then I don't think there'd be any harm. But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is

1396:

guideline could be easily merged together by simply adding "memes" to this guideline's paragraph on "Web content includes, but is not limited to." I am not going to make this change right away without some people beside you and I weighing in on this discussion, though it does appear that several

1094:

I'm not sure where this idea is coming from. Is there a perceived shortcoming with the current guidelines? Do you feel there are web sites which don't meet the current guidelines that ought to be included? Or do you feel that there are web sites which meet the current guidelines that ought to be

716:

The guideline template (which was applied to this guideline after proper procedure and sufficient consensus, I can confirm Hiding on that point) says: " please use the discussion page to propose major changes"... downgrading from "guideline" to "proposal" is a major change. Urthogie's one-person

454:

to delete, the most logical progression seems to me to be some kind of speedy deletion criteria for patent non-notability of websites (something akin to {db-bio} or {db-band}, maybe {db-site} or {db-web} i would have thought). are there any plans to introduce a criteria of this type? or does one

1861:

No, it hasn't. One: 'The community' agrees with me enough that every time 'notability' has been voted on as proposed policy it has been rejected - obviously, on a page working on more of it, there are more people in favor. Two: my view has not been 'proven' anything. Everytime I show you common

1604:

states that if an article topic cannot be verified in third party, reputable sources it shouldn't exist. A primary source is not enough to write an article from. Now people have attempted to argue that this is a bias against online sources, but I fail to see that since this guidance offers no

356:

Basically, if you want to post details of youth club members a going to youth club b in its own article, then you're giving the event undue weight. Similarly, if forum members a post to form b, you're giving it undue weight placing it in its own article. Your arguments regarding the media are

1121:

Changing the notability guidelines won't stem the tide of articles on non-notable subjects. It's not the case that people are creating these articles because they think they do meet our notability guidelines, but rather they're not even aware the guidelines exist. We don't need to change the

1106:

Sorry for the confusion. I started the discussion somewhere else and was told that it was not the appropriate page for this so I copied the thing here. No reply to myself yet. I wasn't suggesting this guideline for only websites that display webcomics. I feel the current rules creates too many

1736:

because it's too inclusive and allows secondary-source commentary on a primary source published only on the internet. I also want to make my ideas clear so that when someone quotes policy at me in the future and declares it to be "consensus" I can say that I disagreed when I had the chance.

1517:

a neutral point of view, but you must also not exclude articles based on your pov. You can't not have an article on the democrats just because you don't like them or are not interested in them. Ergo, a guideline that enshrines a small groups POV as inclusion policy is in breach of

285:

happening without a secondary source. So in the above example you can state "members of YTMND and many other forums posted to eBaum's world". you can't quantify it as anything else without another source. Therefore, you can't write an encyclopedic article on the topic. Please see

556:

Most wikipedians don't stick to the current version of this guideline. It's become more and more broad as time has gone by, and has had an increasingly smaller following. The old version, dealing solely with websites (as was intended by the name) has consensus. But not this.

1456:

This is a fundamental issue with the concept of notability. Because what it really means is 'I don't like it', there is no way to codifiy it. Better would be to use verifiability - the memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are verifiable.

1052:

I think the threshold of notability for web comics that would serve Knowledge (XXG) best is that the author makes money out of it (other than a few token from online advertising). Otherwise, we run the risk of having a flurry of vanity articles from anybody who

1754:

Which further explains why we need a policy. You're on the far end of exclusionism, I'm on the far end of inclusionism. So what do we do to reach a middle ground that makes sense. I don't know if I've seen you over at WP:MEMES yet to give your two cents.

1095:

excluded? This sounds like a bad idea to me, not only because of difficulty with verification, but also because notability has little to do with profitability. A completely free web site covered by The New York Times and Washington Post is still notable. --

1261:, and I don't see much difference between the two guidelines -- WP:WEB's "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms," is extremely similar to WP:MEMES's "The meme has been mentioned in a reliable source outside of Internet culture." -- 685:. Clearly, there is a problem with this guideline's way of addressing memes-- thats why its rarely invoked in AFD discussions of memes. I think its fair to say that while most of this guideline has consensus, the part on memes doesnt, as evidenced by: 365:; the event has been imbued with too much emphasis by being given an article. These guidelines merely reflect that policy by asking for multiple mentions in third party sources; this ensures no event or topic is given undue weight. Hope that helps. 761:

I'm simply pointing out that there's a better policy required for memes. Many people have requested this, not just me. Ignoring it isn't just isolating a couple of people-- its bad for the project. Also, please note that consensus is not a static

1631:

So you say. Actually I think it's a rough and ready guide to whether there is likely to be enough independent interest to ensure that we can verify that the subject is being covered neutrally. Too many people think that notability relates only to

1731:

because it's made news, but I find most of them to be juvenile, stupid, far from funny, and a waste of brain space. I'd like to see them barred outright from Knowledge (XXG), but I suspect that won't happen. I don't like the current proposal at

560:

Also, it has clearly overstepped its bounds. Its Notability (websites). It's cheesy to take advantage of that guideline tag to make it apply to all web content-- something it was not intended to do, and for which there actually is no consensus.

1821:, my photo has appeared in another local paper, my birth date, marriage date and addresses are matters of public record, my blog is a reliable source for content about myself, the schools I attended can be referenced online, where's my article? 627:

Ok. Well I'm yet to find it being used for anything other than webcomics and websites. I'm unaware of it having consensus for memes, as you said on the notability proposal for memes. So that's why I, and Gerard earlier, removed the

1351:

don't have "a shot in hell of ever reaching the absurd standards of the guideline here." I then pointed out sources for them like The Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, and MSNBC's Countdown. Now it's May, and you had written that

1356:

has "little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper," after which I pointed out sources in three newspapers. So, have I managed to change your view that reliable sources for notable internet memes cannot be found? --

894:

proposal independent of the merits of the "website" notability guideline. If that is not possible, and if the primary "merit" of the meme proposal would be that it tries to push away the "website" guideline out of some misguided

1470:

should be merged here, since these guidelines aver that any web related content which has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is notable. The memes that make it into articles in the Herald Trib, for example, are notable.

775:

I happen to notice you're involved with webcomics on wikipedia. That's great, and I'm sure this policy has helped very much with that. I'm just trying to establish a better policy on memes-- something which is requested and

1954:

to its pages because although they may be very notable on the internet and in internet culture, is an image that quite a few people visited for a few months about god killing kittens when you masturbate encyclopedia content?

1862:

sense, you bring out more and more bizarre examples. I show you why you're wrong about you being able to have an article, you bring out a mythical janitor that doesn't have an article. Please. Let's stick to the facts.

1144:

Since this guideline simply restates the three key policies, I'm not sure how it blows. As the three key policies have the consensus of the community, I'm not sure how you state there is no consensus to apply them.

1291:

Does your idea that Icy Hot Stuntaz has little chance of being noted in a newspaper take into account articles like "Are the Icy Hot Stuntaz real, or just a stunt?" from the July 20, 2002, Dallas Morning News? --

450:, most of the articles we are getting through these days are about non-notable websites. Where they are hard and futile to wikify, and where they are seemingly not worth the trouble of AfDing, since the result is 1041: 564:

Also, notice how the guideline tag was propped up because there wasnt editing for a week(according to the edit summary). Huh? How about informing the community, perhaps asking for a poll to gauge consensus?

1590:

You seem to misunderstand our aims. We don't want to ignore verifiability, no original research, and a neutral point of view. We wan't to add new requirements for notability, not subtract old policies.--

1194:

It's a bad faith assumption to assume that that was a bad faith assumption! Notability goes far beyond verifiability, and introduces the idea that what one person thinks is unimportant should be deleted.

1549:

It is worth remembering these guidelines are just that, and that if consensus at afd doesn't agree with them, that is unimportant, as they are only here as guidelines on whether to start an article or

1775:

actions will take care of some of that. I've publicly shamed people in writing as a newspaper reporter, because I had to do it to get paid. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it for free.

1771:

Yeah, I was over there too. I was trying to get across the point that pages on meanspirited internet fads like Brian Peppers should be excluded. Of course, I'm in the minority on that, but perhaps

1879:

I'm not even going to let you off that easy. You say "But from what you said, it looks like there's not enough material that is allowable under existing policy." Prove it. Cite me the policies.

311:

spammy place, or a mentorship place. To be notable, someone reading it would have to care about something. Notabiltiy guidelines are set to impose a guideline of what a reader may be looking for.

161:

According to the content, for something to be notable on the web, it needs multiple outside articles which mention it, or it needs to have won a well known award. Here are the issues with that:

1554:

That these guidelines aren't used at afd is not wholly important. That they exist and people can be pointed to them is. Many afd's are not closed properly by admins, who seem to forget that

1894:

be a lot of verfiable information, and a great article to be written - if it bothers you - write it and we'll see. One of the problems is that all you are doing is speculating on cases that

195:(which is basically WP:WEB for everything); For any given topic, sources must exist. For forums, the only sources you have are first-hand accounts of its various members, and those aren't 1567:

get it wrong, or that good faith in the project is extended, or that afd is broken. Eventually, all articles that exist now will be of the standard detailed in those three policies, but

165:

There are no awards for Internet Forums which are well known. There is no Oscar for "Best Overall Forum", or an internet award. Thus, Internet Forums have no real chance to qualify here.

1790:

The middle ground that makes sense is to dump 'notability' for the problematic POV that it is. Get back to the basics of verifiable, well sourced articles, and these issues disapear.

1301:

You'd be the first person to note that it's been there since I've been trotting it out as an example. Even then, one article isn't "multiple, non-trivial works.," unfortunately. --

1500:

The first sentence makes no sense to me. The second is an oxymoron. If current policy did oppose institutionalization of POV, that would represent an institutional point of view.

1571:, and also, there will just be newer ones that don't. That these guidelines are currently ignored for memes isn't a reason why they don't apply to memes, it just means that they 801:

has redirected here since the 30th October with no great concern. That's a nod here. There's more consensus invested in this proposal than any other regarding memes at present.

945: 523: 1045: 1676:. I don't think this would actually take much work; simply adding "memes" to the list of things which "Web content includes, but is not limited to," would probably do it. -- 1951: 1343:

Has your position on this at all changed? Scrolling up above, I see that back in March we had a similar conversation where you had written that memes on the web such as

744:

No, we're discussing consensus. And despite the numerous citations of WP:WEB on AfD, I can count the number of objectors on one hand. That sounds like consensus to me.

637:

David didn't make it a proposal, and the tag has been restored since then. And it's got consensus for web content. As to the meme discussion, read the section above,

1271:

have little chance of being noted in, say, your local newspaper. WP:MEMES attempts to seek a balance for that, while WP:WEB is there to set a guideline that's got web

434:

Well for my money any forum which has been going more than fifty years and has in excess of seventy million members posting daily is notable. The rest are not... ;-)

1414:

That's fine, and I don't think one of us could convince the other. I do, however, implore you to read the prior discussions at WP:MEMES as well as in my userspace (

1545:'s assertion that the reason an alternative criteria has been discussed is because WP:WEB fails to deal with it, and has shown minimal interest in dealing with it. 1491:

My opinion is that all 'notability' material be deleted as 'not notable'. I reject the concept as institutionalization of POV, which is against current policy.

859:

IMHO it's no "merit" to try to discredit an operational guideline, out of some sort of jealousy because it is perceived as "competition" to a new idea (the

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1568: 1108: 277:

You can use primary sources to document what happened, you need an outside source to verify that the happening was of encyclopedic worth. You describe

144: 1344: 1174:

That's a bald bad faith assumption. Perhaps you can show me where it does that. It simply states that articles require third party sources, per

638: 870: 576:

once or twice seen it used on a meme, out of all those hundreds of opinions in AFD's). I have marked it this way to reflect it. Thanks, --

1135:

Actually it's because the guidelines blow, and there is no concensus to apply them except within the rulecruft fandom pages like this one.

682:

The concern that this guideline inadequately addresses memes is perfectly illustrated by the previous discussion of memes on this talk page

347:

Alright, I think I am getting a bit confused on this. I didn't comprehend that last message at all. Sorry. Could you please re-explain it?

949: 938: 934: 539: 527: 508: 130: 47: 17: 137: 1913:

An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

1327:

Well, I've been hunting for months, and hadn't seen them, and no one else has noted them. So that's a plus. Bully for them. --

328:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.

1761: 1424: 1373: 1333: 1307: 1281: 1238: 798: 569: 910:

try to get consensus independent of this. If consensus fails so be it. If not, we'll harmonize the two articles. Peace, --

1987:

I sugest that the proposed guideline be deleted, and that we all get back to the business of editing and writing articles.

990: 903: 725: 711: 601:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG)%3ANotability_%28websites%29&diff=40875093&oldid=40663958.--

580: 471:, which is now policy. No need to clutter up AfD, and these things are usually uncontroversial. It's pretty painless. -- 703:

The fact that this is never used for meme AFD's, and that meme AFD's continue to be evil exercizes in voting/democracy.

248: 215: 255:

I have no idea why this was replied to at my talk page, all this refers to is the ability to use primary sources at

208:

Nifboy for president! Free sex!! The beer is on the house!!! Err... I mean, I support fully the statement above.

2122:

AFD decisions should be grounded in policy (not random rulecruft), but should also take into account common sense.

38: 1175: 1213: 927: 1415: 265: 239: 228: 2123: 2092: 2021: 2002: 1968: 1937: 1903: 1863: 1843: 1809: 1791: 1686:

I think this is worth considering, but first we should wait and see the results of the Notability proposal.--

1650: 1623: 1522: 1492: 1458: 1196: 1165:". It's bogus, and should be dropped before it does more damage to the principle of a neutral point of view. 411:

Thank you. That is what I was arguing about, and it seems that I was arguing for something already in place.

1998: 1161:

If it simply restated them then there would be no need for it. It does not - it introduces the concept of "

1776: 1746: 1738: 1701: 1988: 1756: 1542: 1419: 1368: 1328: 1302: 1276: 1233: 1166: 1136: 933:(included in several notability-related pages), the link to this Websites notability guideline now reads 331:

encyclopedic value, not the sources. One must consider if the event is being given undue weight, as per

260: 223: 177:

With these, all internet forums are subject to notability issues. Does anyone have any opinion on this?

1727:

Okay. Really, I don't want to see any internet fads in Knowledge (XXG). I tolerate a few of them like

973: 900: 722: 543: 412: 379: 348: 316: 178: 1950:

is too easy going, so to speak. I don't think that Knowledge (XXG) should really be adding things like

731:

Rejecting something means nothing if you don't give a reason. We're discussing merits, not bullying.--

103: 1217: 1353: 1348: 243: 210: 2126: 2113: 2095: 2074: 2042: 2024: 2005: 1991: 1971: 1959: 1940: 1925: 1906: 1888: 1866: 1856: 1846: 1830: 1812: 1803: 1799:

To quote andy warhol, in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes. Let's not make it 16.--

1794: 1779: 1766: 1749: 1718: 1704: 1690: 1680: 1653: 1644: 1626: 1614: 1594: 1584: 1525: 1509: 1495: 1480: 1461: 1429: 1405: 1378: 1361: 1338: 1322: 1312: 1296: 1286: 1265: 1243: 1220: 1199: 1187: 1169: 1154: 1139: 1126: 1115: 1099: 1087: 1071: 1061: 1023: 997: 976: 914: 833: 808: 780: 748: 735: 657: 632: 622: 606: 594: 546: 484: 475: 459: 415: 406: 382: 372: 351: 342: 319: 305: 270: 250: 233: 217: 203: 181: 683: 2063:

Verifiability alone is not enough. People are written up in verifiable local papers all the time.

1772: 568:

This is especially frustrating because I have been working on a notability guideline for memes at

472: 1466:

Actually, that's just your point of view as to what it means. Your opinion suggests you believe

1947: 1733: 1669: 1467: 1393: 1254: 880: 170: 2054: 1563: 1518: 646: 642: 468: 392: 362: 332: 291: 188: 124:

This guideline covers several related areas. Please see discussions on website sub-types at:

1921: 1884: 1826: 1677: 1610: 1580: 1505: 1476: 1402: 1358: 1319: 1293: 1262: 1183: 1150: 1096: 1019: 805: 654: 619: 591: 587:

any underhand motives here, and especially to accuse anyone of not informing the community.

403: 369: 339: 302: 2084: 1967:

You don't like it, neither do I, but thankfully that will never be criteria for inclusion!

1711: 1697: 1673: 1633: 1534: 1398: 1389: 1258: 1250: 1067:

Sounds good enough for me- except that it might be difficult to verify who's making money.

516: 447: 396: 295: 1911:

Okay, I'll do it for you. It's a speedy deletion criterion, namely article criterion #7,

1084: 964:

proposal: a (future) meme notability guideline might be more suitable for being used in a

599:

It actually has been disputed, as can be seen by this, which was only about 10 edits ago:

501: 1559: 256: 196: 1936:?How do you know if it should be deleted if you havn't written it?! That's just silly. 1209: 1068: 1601: 1555: 1385: 388: 287: 192: 2110: 2071: 2039: 1956: 1853: 1800: 1715: 1687: 1637: 1591: 1541:

I discovered something I wrote in the archives of this talk page which is germane to

1123: 1112: 1058: 994: 911: 830: 777: 732: 708: 629: 603: 577: 542:

either), etc... (see vote commentaries when following the link above to the vote). --

481: 456: 281:

as happening with a primary source, but you can't quantify it as anything other than

259:. Why people continually ignore/forget/aren't aware of that, I may never know. -- 1999:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability#Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability

1622:

but it does not represent 'What Islamic Historians Like'. It's enshrining a POV.

1122:

guidelines. We need to figure out a way to let the newbies know what they are. –

948:- I still think a CSD template for websites and web content based on the present 399:. Information which satisfies those three policies can be added to any article. 1917: 1880: 1822: 1606: 1576: 1501: 1472: 1253:"fails to deal with" internet memes? The memes cited as examples throughout the 1179: 1146: 1015: 802: 745: 651: 616: 588: 400: 366: 336: 299: 200: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

941:(so, that might better attract attention to the full content of this guideline) 191:, sourced article about a topic that has no sources? That's the essense of the 1081: 1745:

to be like Encyclopedia Dramatica. There. I'm done, so thanks for reading.

1208:

Sorry, but I disagree. If that were the standard then notable webcomics like

1842:

allowable under existing policy. Again, no problem, no need for rulecruft!

1048:) and I think we could use some sort of rule. Here's my humble suggestion: 968:

approach. Might it be a good idea to keep that in mind when developing the

899:

idea, then I suppose it would be better to dunk the meme proposal ASAP. --

946:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web

524:

Knowledge (XXG):Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_15#Template:Db-web

1668:

I suggest that the proposed guideline being discussed and worked on at

639:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (websites)#Guideline for internet memes

615:. So you'll find what I said was true, contrary to your edit summary. 1042:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Professional Thievery (webcomic)

515:

delete criterion for web content (appended rather inappropriately to

2031:

The core wikipedia policies cannot be nullified by any new policies.

829:

I haven't seen used. Could you perhaps help me make a better one?--

534:

deletion scheme, and while the template rather focusses on Alexa as

326:

The current page makes no mention of media in its guidance, to wit:

717:

proposal in this sense is, as far as I can see, not accepted (aka

886:

on an operational, accredited guideline is *bullying*. So, don't.

2102:

The AFD should treat articles consistenly with regard to policy.

1649:

No, it's just enshrining one groups' view of what is important.

989:

Sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we should move this page to

1728: 641:. At the moment it's all there is. NBow you want to propose 282: 278: 25: 2087:

deals with news reports. Existing policy is enough if people

1700:

applies. Adding that one sentence would take care of memes.

1080:

I'm confused, did you just reply to yourself? What happened?

956:

a good idea (while this guideline is not really written in a

1257:

proposal and its discussion generally seem to be covered by

797:

There isn't yet a better policy for memes, and I'd add that

315:

out, and also creates prejudice towards mentorship forums.

187:

I suppose the proper response would be: How do you write a

173:

is an example, as it has been mentioned in the news before.

1980:

Suggestion that Knowledge (XXG):Notability be merged into

1946:

Worth considering, however I think that the guidelines in

1397:

people stated their opinions two months ago up above that

2016:

Vote support or oppose if you agree with the following:

1040:

I've been seeing a few web comics deletion nominations (

700:

The community wide interest in a better policy on memes.

2053:

notability' has to go. It is blatantly in violation of

1710:

That wouldn't solve the issue, I think. People ignore

1046:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of webcomics

600: 111: 1741:, and shouldn't aspire to be. In fact, it should try 497:

Nonetheless someone else has had the idea to create

359:

YTMND and many other forums spammed up eBaum's world

960:aproach). That might be a possible merit of the 1664:Suggestion that WP:MEMES be merged into WP:WEB 1392:. I still believe that this guideline and the 1952:Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten 145:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Early Web History 8: 1902:people acted in ways they never usually do. 1817:I've been mentioned in match reports in the 972:notability proposal? (just an invitation) -- 387:In that case the pages you need to read are 522:That template is now up for deletetion at 119: 1345:The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny 847:Above, Urthogie suggested to talk about 1997:I, for one, agree - it should go - see 552:this guideline isn't really a guideline 890:Please see the possible merits of the 507:halfway bypassing the real content of 156:Forums in the Notability Guidelines... 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1569:Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress 1401:adequately covers internet memes. -- 1249:Could you go into more detail on how 950:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (websites) 131:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Webcomics 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (web) 7: 1982:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense 526:. I voted for delete, while I think 138:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Blogging 1852:most part, doesn't agree with it.-- 799:Knowledge (XXG):Internet phenomena 570:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (memes) 551: 361:fails the undue weight section of 298:, which should be taken together. 24: 1898:exist at some time in the future 1107:useless articles that have to be 1636:(indiscriminate). It doesn't. 1057:Tell me what you think of this. 991:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web) 923:tx. Note that I already adapted 538:criterion (which is not OK with 29: 540:wikipedia:Notability (websites) 530:doesn't fit all that well in a 528:wikipedia:Notability (websites) 509:wikipedia:Notability (websites) 1714:because its too overarching.-- 1696:I agree with Dragonfiend that 467:it's a better bet to just use 1: 1176:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1036:Tentative rule for notability 1014:Good idea, and have done so. 944:Also, above I made a link to 222:You use primary sources. -- 2051:Of course not - that's why 2012:lets make some things clear 1672:be merged into this one at 1216:would suddenly be invalid. 2145: 1367:don't recieve coverage. -- 1275:and not memes in mind. -- 1127:20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1116:20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1100:18:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1088:18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1072:04:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1062:03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 1024:09:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 998:10:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 977:10:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 915:10:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 904:10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 871:wikipedia subcat guideline 834:09:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC) 809:21:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 781:21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 749:21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 736:21:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 726:21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 712:20:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 658:20:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 633:19:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 623:19:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 607:19:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 595:19:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 581:19:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 547:21:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 485:16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 476:15:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 460:15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 416:21:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 407:21:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 383:20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 373:09:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 352:03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 343:11:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 320:21:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 306:13:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 271:12:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 251:12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 234:11:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 218:07:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 204:06:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 182:04:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 101: 1214:Powerpuff Girls Doujinshi 611:Hence my use of the word 2127:15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2114:10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2096:15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2075:10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2043:10:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2025:15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 2006:03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1972:15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1960:14:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1941:21:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1926:20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1907:15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1889:13:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1867:15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1857:10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1847:00:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1831:21:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1813:21:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1804:21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1795:17:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1780:04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1654:16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1645:15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1627:15:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1615:13:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1595:10:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1585:21:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1537:failing at afd for memes 1526:21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 1510:20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1496:20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1481:19:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1462:16:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1416:User:Badlydrawnjeff/Meme 1221:04:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1200:15:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 937:, instead of previously 935:Websites and web content 240:User talk:Badlydrawnjeff 1992:05:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1767:22:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 1750:22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 1719:09:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 1705:20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC) 1691:06:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1681:02:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1430:17:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1406:16:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1379:12:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1362:09:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1339:16:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1323:15:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1313:12:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1297:05:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1287:02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1266:02:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1244:02:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1188:13:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1170:05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1155:16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 1140:15:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 455:already exist? Thanks. 1739:Encyclopedia Dramatica 1737:Knowledge (XXG) isn't 1575:be applied to memes. 480:OK, will do, cheers. 42:of past discussions. 1349:Badger Badger Badger 193:verifiability policy 2020:Please note that . 1184:The wikipedian meme 1151:The wikipedian meme 1020:The wikipedian meme 2124:For great justice. 2093:For great justice. 2022:For great justice. 2003:For great justice. 1969:For great justice. 1938:For great justice. 1904:For great justice. 1864:For great justice. 1844:For great justice. 1819:South London Press 1810:For great justice. 1792:For great justice. 1651:For great justice. 1624:For great justice. 1523:For great justice. 1493:For great justice. 1459:For great justice. 1197:For great justice. 1924: 1887: 1829: 1777:Brian G. Crawford 1765: 1747:Brian G. Crawford 1702:Brian G. Crawford 1613: 1583: 1508: 1479: 1428: 1377: 1337: 1311: 1285: 1242: 1186: 1153: 1022: 269: 232: 150: 149: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2136: 1920: 1883: 1825: 1759: 1641: 1609: 1579: 1504: 1475: 1422: 1371: 1331: 1305: 1279: 1236: 1182: 1149: 1018: 974:Francis Schonken 932: 926: 901:Francis Schonken 885: 879: 875: 869: 723:Francis Schonken 544:Francis Schonken 506: 500: 263: 246: 226: 213: 120: 114: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2014: 1985: 1666: 1639: 1539: 1354:Icy Hot Stuntaz 1229: 1038: 930: 928:Notabilityguide 924: 883: 877: 873: 867: 554: 504: 498: 495: 443: 244: 211: 158: 118: 117: 110: 106: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2142: 2140: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2117: 2116: 2104: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2078: 2077: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2046: 2045: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2027: 2013: 2010: 2009: 2008: 1989:165.254.38.126 1984: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1944: 1943: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1916:stub concept. 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1757:badlydrawnjeff 1722: 1721: 1694: 1693: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1552: 1551: 1543:badlydrawnjeff 1538: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1420:badlydrawnjeff 1369:badlydrawnjeff 1329:badlydrawnjeff 1303:badlydrawnjeff 1277:badlydrawnjeff 1234:badlydrawnjeff 1228: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1210:Bob and George 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1167:165.254.38.126 1159: 1158: 1157: 1137:165.254.38.126 1130: 1129: 1105: 1103: 1102: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1075: 1074: 1055: 1054: 1037: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 982: 981: 980: 979: 942: 918: 917: 888: 887: 864: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 754: 753: 752: 751: 739: 738: 705: 704: 701: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 553: 550: 494: 491: 490: 489: 488: 487: 463: 462: 442: 439: 438: 437: 436: 435: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 345: 312: 308: 275: 274: 273: 261:badlydrawnjeff 224:badlydrawnjeff 220: 209: 175: 174: 166: 157: 154: 152: 148: 147: 141: 140: 134: 133: 127: 126: 116: 115: 107: 102: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2141: 2128: 2125: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2056: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2011: 2007: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1990: 1983: 1979: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1958: 1953: 1949: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1868: 1865: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1840: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1811: 1808:Your point?! 1807: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1703: 1699: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1663: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1635: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1625: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1544: 1536: 1533: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1494: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1460: 1455: 1431: 1426: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1355: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1335: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1304: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1235: 1227:Merge Request 1226: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1206: 1201: 1198: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1110: 1101: 1098: 1093: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1047: 1043: 1035: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 999: 996: 992: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 978: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 940: 936: 929: 922: 921: 920: 919: 916: 913: 908: 907: 906: 905: 902: 898: 893: 882: 872: 865: 862: 858: 857: 856: 854: 850: 835: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 810: 807: 804: 800: 796: 795: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 782: 779: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 750: 747: 743: 742: 741: 740: 737: 734: 730: 729: 728: 727: 724: 720: 714: 713: 710: 702: 699: 698: 684: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 659: 656: 653: 648: 644: 640: 636: 635: 634: 631: 626: 625: 624: 621: 618: 614: 610: 609: 608: 605: 602: 598: 597: 596: 593: 590: 585: 584: 583: 582: 579: 573: 571: 566: 562: 558: 549: 548: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 520: 518: 514: 510: 503: 492: 486: 483: 479: 478: 477: 474: 470: 465: 464: 461: 458: 453: 449: 445: 444: 440: 433: 417: 414: 413:68.192.25.106 410: 409: 408: 405: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 381: 380:68.192.25.106 376: 375: 374: 371: 368: 364: 360: 355: 354: 353: 350: 349:68.192.25.106 346: 344: 341: 338: 334: 329: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 318: 317:68.192.25.106 313: 309: 307: 304: 301: 297: 293: 289: 284: 280: 276: 272: 267: 262: 258: 254: 253: 252: 249: 247: 241: 237: 236: 235: 230: 225: 221: 219: 216: 214: 207: 206: 205: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 185: 184: 183: 180: 179:68.192.25.106 172: 167: 164: 163: 162: 155: 153: 146: 143: 142: 139: 136: 135: 132: 129: 128: 125: 122: 121: 113: 109: 108: 105: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2107: 2088: 2068: 2052: 2036: 2015: 1986: 1981: 1945: 1912: 1899: 1895: 1818: 1742: 1695: 1667: 1572: 1553: 1540: 1272: 1232:fruitful. -- 1230: 1162: 1124:Abe Dashiell 1104: 1056: 1039: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 896: 891: 889: 860: 852: 848: 846: 718: 715: 706: 612: 574: 567: 563: 559: 555: 535: 531: 521: 512: 496: 451: 358: 327: 176: 159: 151: 123: 78: 43: 37: 1678:Dragonfiend 1403:Dragonfiend 1359:Dragonfiend 1320:Dragonfiend 1294:Dragonfiend 1263:Dragonfiend 1218:Pata Hikari 1163:what I like 1097:Dragonfiend 993:, though?-- 897:competition 238:Replied on 36:This is an 866:Replacing 863:proposal); 536:notability 511:to make a 452:invariably 2083:Comment: 1773:WP:OFFICE 1762:WP:MEMES? 1642:you know? 1638:Just zis 1425:WP:MEMES? 1374:WP:MEMES? 1334:WP:MEMES? 1308:WP:MEMES? 1282:WP:MEMES? 1239:WP:MEMES? 1069:Borisblue 776:needed.-- 517:WP:CSD#A7 245:brenneman 212:brenneman 95:Archive 9 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 2111:Urthogie 2108:Support. 2072:Urthogie 2069:Support. 2040:Urthogie 2037:Support. 1957:Beno1000 1948:WP:MEMES 1854:Urthogie 1801:Urthogie 1734:WP:MEMES 1716:Urthogie 1688:Urthogie 1670:WP:MEMES 1592:Urthogie 1468:WP:MEMES 1394:WP:MEMES 1255:WP:MEMES 995:Urthogie 939:Websites 912:Urthogie 881:proposed 853:bullying 831:Urthogie 778:Urthogie 733:Urthogie 719:rejected 709:Urthogie 630:Urthogie 604:Urthogie 578:Urthogie 482:Jdcooper 457:Jdcooper 446:Over at 266:WP:MEME? 229:WP:MEME? 197:reliable 171:Teenhelp 104:Shortcut 2089:read it 2055:WP:NPOV 1564:WP:NPOV 1519:WP:NPOV 1109:deleted 647:WP:MEME 643:WP:MEME 493:Speedy! 473:W.marsh 469:WP:PROD 441:Speedy? 393:WP:NPOV 363:WP:NPOV 333:WP:NPOV 292:WP:NPOV 39:archive 2085:WP:NOT 1918:Hiding 1881:Hiding 1823:Hiding 1712:WP:WEB 1698:WP:WEB 1674:WP:WEB 1634:WP:NOT 1607:Hiding 1577:Hiding 1573:should 1535:WP:WEB 1502:Hiding 1473:Hiding 1399:WP:WEB 1390:WP:NOR 1259:WP:WEB 1251:WP:WEB 1180:Hiding 1147:Hiding 1053:draws. 1016:Hiding 958:speedy 851:, not 849:merits 803:Hiding 762:thing. 746:Nifboy 652:Hiding 628:tag.-- 617:Hiding 613:overly 589:Hiding 532:speedy 513:speedy 502:Db-web 448:WP:DEP 401:Hiding 397:WP:NOR 367:Hiding 337:Hiding 300:Hiding 296:WP:NOR 201:Nifboy 112:WT:WEB 1896:might 1560:WP:OR 1273:sites 1082:ericg 721:). -- 257:WP:OR 16:< 1922:Talk 1885:Talk 1827:Talk 1611:Talk 1602:WP:V 1581:Talk 1562:and 1556:WP:V 1550:not. 1506:Talk 1477:Talk 1418:. -- 1388:and 1386:WP:V 1347:and 1212:and 1113:Tony 1059:Tony 970:meme 962:meme 892:meme 861:meme 806:talk 655:talk 620:talk 592:talk 404:talk 395:and 389:WP:V 370:talk 340:talk 303:talk 294:and 288:WP:V 242:. - 189:NPOV 1743:not 1729:AYB 1640:Guy 1044:or 966:CSD 954:not 952:is 876:by 335:. 283:foo 279:foo 2091:. 2001:. 1900:if 1755:-- 1558:, 1521:. 1178:. 1111:. 931:}} 925:{{ 884:}} 878:{{ 874:}} 868:{{ 855:: 707:-- 519:) 505:}} 499:{{ 391:, 290:, 199:. 64:← 2057:. 1764:) 1760:( 1427:) 1423:( 1376:) 1372:( 1336:) 1332:( 1310:) 1306:( 1284:) 1280:( 1241:) 1237:( 1085:✈ 268:) 264:( 231:) 227:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Notability (web)/Archive 6 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index