Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)

7713:

counting sentences, Nina Chonin's article devoted 31 out of 47 sentences (by my count) to a notorious incident that happened on ED. Her extended discussion of a scandal that enveloped the site is non-trivial coverage however you cut it. The Nine News site's 15 sentences are not short - they range from 11 to 39 words, longer than normal. One would be hard pressed to call even 2-3 sentences about a subject "trivial". Newspapers are far more anti-trivia than Knowledge, and their compact stories don't go off on 2 sentence tangents. Content sites are publishers. What makes a publisher notable? Their effect on the world is the reach and scope of what they publish at least as much as the organization itself. Just as the measure of a scholar, newspaper, or artist is their works, not their actions, the same with a publisher like ED. We don't cover the building that houses the server, or the rudimentary Mediawiki software, or even the founders and investors. Instead we cover the content and how it affects people. It's not obvious whether Norton is arguing for or against notability of ED - the list of observations could fall on either side, but I detect some hostility to ED so I assume there is a personal opinion against. I think it's obvious that by the formal notability guidelines WP:N and WP:WEB (which has its problems) ED is notable, hardly open to serious question unless one would wikilawyer the guidelines to the point where they describe something that certainly is not how Knowledge works. We can and often do look beyond the strict rules to answer the basic question - does this material belong in the encyclopedia? Does it help Knowledge present an encyclopedic treatment of the world? That's not overturning or ignoring the guidelines, that's interpreting the matter in light of the guidelines. This question cuts both ways. On the one hand, ED has engaged a lot of people and is obviously a substantial, successful, money-making website (see who advertises there). On the other the content is mostly fluff. Good or bad, funny or not, hateful or refreshing, it's not going to win a Pulitzer Prize anytime soon. Possibly a Webby, which would put this issue to bed. Personally I would say that the encyclopedic purpose of covering the state of the Web and Internet culture favors including this site. I don't know the statistics but I would guess the vast majority of the top 5,000 Alexa sites are covered here. Omission of a major site becomes a gap, not a matter of careful pruning.

7956:

weight to notability. Not enough standing alone, but something that adds to the argument. I interpret "trivial" to mean exactly that, trivial. It's strain of the language to call five sentences in a newspaper article trivial. Newspapers don't waste words. They rarely spend more than a sentence to say someone died, or founded a company, or is somebody's father. If a newspaper goes out of its way to explain something, and that's the sole point or one of only a few points in the article, that is not a trivial mention. The "brief summary of the content" example is in a sentence that doesn't even parse, but it's apparently meant to discourage web directories. It's not an edict that content is less important than other things. Nowhere do these guidelines say that to be non-trivial is to address "the subject directly and in detail." That's not what non-trivial means, and it would impose a higher standard. If you look at WP:WEB it is not a precise instrument. You just have to read what it says and go with it. We don't get anywhere wikilawyering the Knowledge guidelines by positing that they redefine common words. Examples in Knowledge guidelines are haphazard - the people who write (and often edit war) over the examples are not trying to establish an analytical framework for each example to have a zone of influence, with the outcome judged by which example it is closest to. That's only one of many ways to understand examples, not a rule. The guidelines are not written by lawyers and just don't stand up to that kind of scrutiny. Overall, when an Internet site has articles written about it in several major publications, as with this one, it would be quite a stretch of logic to say that does not fit the language of the notability guideline.

2078:

Knowledge's editors strongly dislikes the subject in question is completely unacceptable and makes a mockery out of this project's goals. I'd like to point out that Knowledge projects in other languages have no problems whatsoever with keeping an article about Encyclopedia Dramatica, there are never any "trolls" disrupting the article. In fact, most of the "disruptions" this article suffers from consist of clear wikigaming (removing sources, starting disputes over trivial matters, etc) from people who, for some reason, can't sleep at night as long as we keep a completely innocuous article on some website popular among some Internet subculutures. Please, grow up. Knowledge is not a MMORPG, you don't win experience points every time you get an article you hate deleted. On another note, I'd also like to point out that this isn't the 2nd nomination for this article, it's the 5th.

9448:. The closing admin will make a judgment call about how much to discount various !votes, someone will inevitably dispute that call and take it back to WP:DRV where it will be hashed out every which way, and then a closing admin there will make a judgment call. If that second closing admin is a knucklehead, we'll get a knucklehead decision. If the closing admin is as wise as Solomon, we'll get a wise decision that a lot of people will call a knucklehead decision. If we make good arguments all along the way and the closing admins listen to them, then we can weight the dice in this crapshoot towards a better decision with fewer people muttering, "Knucklehead!" Which doesn't stop it from being a crapshoot. But nobody promised us a great decision-making method when we got our user names. 3966:

doesn't meet the WP:N presumption of notability, it is notable. Here, that argument might be "We have one in depth source and many, many other sources with coverage that borders on trivial. Culmultaively, the amount of attention from third party sources is comparable to having two in depth articles." I haven't decided what I really think about this article's notability (it's borderline, for sure), but I think that there are reasonable arguments that can be made in favor of it. The fact that it's spelled out in WP:ORG just goes to show that it is a reasonable argument. Don't get trapped in the specific wording of the various notability policies - that's not what Knowledge is about. It's much more important to follow the spirit, not the letter, of the policy/guideline. -

854:, actually, one of those "free speech nutcases" that believes people have the right to say what they will without religious fanatics like yourself telling me I'm a hateful sinner for not believing in Jesus and behaving like a "good Christian." What the hell kind of argument was that, anyway? And quite frankly, the articles on some of the admin are healthy to have. Sure, they're crude, rude, and lewd. But you know, I like knowing that some admin are the scariest power-mongers to ever grace the internet. Keeps me from running afoul of them, and I can keep contributing to Knowledge in peace. Plus, it's funny. If you don't think it's funny, don't read it, for the love of Ducks. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean we can't have it. This article is a 2495:, notability is not clearly established, and on top of that it's a attack site devoted to trolling Wikipedians. Even though our internet culture coverage is relatively well-developed, there's innumerable things people interested in that stuff could be working on that wouldn't involve giving more attention and visibility to this vicious little website. Why all the energy expended on this one topic, then? It seems likely that the primary drive behind this is coming from ED members, who of course would be doing so purely with the intent of trolling us, to stir up "drama". Delete this and then let's forbid anyone from bringing this up again for at least five years, by which time ED will hopefully be gone and forgotten. 4321:. Look, anybody arguing that ED is not notable is making a nonsense argument, it has been mentioned in mainstream press. I think those among us who cannot laugh at our own ED pages (assuming we have them) have forgotten that life isn't always a serious endeavor. If somebody were to create a page for me saying something along the lines of "Node_ue is a faggot Wikipedo who is too obsessed with things he knows nothing about, such as Moldova or languages", I wouldn't be upset. That is because I understand the true intention of ED, which is lulz, not being mean and attacking people. It is intended for humor, even if it's a bit mean-spirited. If we can't laugh at ourselves, then we are already dead inside. -- 8944:, nor do I have the experience or tools to be sure it isn't notable. However, the sources given there certainly don't confirm notability and I could not find any better ones after a few minutes looking. So my quick guess is that the main participants there are the more avid among both inclusionists and deletionists (forgive me for using those simplistic terms, I don't mean that as anything but a shorthand), and in that case the deletionists have the better argument. "Policy on their side", one might say. That could be at play here. You might have to disregard half or more of all the sentiments voiced on this page to get to the good arguments, and those arguments have been repeated many times. 778:

reads ED anymore because they have realised that doing so aligns them with cyberterrorists. Does that make you feel good? Aiding and abetting sexual humiliation and cyber stalking? Or are you under the impression that a 💕 just builds itself, regardless of whether or not we have editors? I am part of the silent majority and our voice will be heard. If that offends you in some way, I suggest you take a deep look into your soul and find out if you have any empathy for another living, breathing human being. Are you one of these "free speech" nutcases that thinks it is ok to deface the Virgin Mary with excrement or something? Because that is what Encyclopedia Dramatica amounts to.

2738:

verified by poor sources. If Knowledge is truly to be an encyclopedia, it cannot simply skip over a subject simply because it is unpleasant, insulting, or just plain dumb. Yes, I've read ED, I lurk there quite a bit as I find lots of their articles quite entertaining. I think the article on Wiki is perfectly sensible - it states very plainly that ED is a shock-wiki - and that this AfD is simply a knee-jerk reaction due to some bad blood in the past between the two sites. Knowledge should take an NPOV and remember that, even if ED doesn't look favorably on Wiki, NPOV states that Wiki should take an objective standpoint and not get into an AfD pissing match. My two cents...

6706:(whose only source leads to a 404 error), then why can't we have an article on ED? Honestly, this bad blood most wikipedos have towards ED is ridiculous. I spend a lot of time reading and editing BOTH ED and Knowledge. After reading the articles on ED about Knowledge's dark, disgusting, and rather shady depths, I became quite disillusioned and decided to avoid dealing with anything major on Knowledge beyond simple spelling fixes and the like, but it's things like this AfD nomination that make me crawl out of hiding and wield my logichammer. In rebuttal to the lack of sources (the only valid delete argument I see here), I direct everyone to that 943:. Articles ought not to be nominated for deletion while they are fully protected. First, that lets administrators game the system to have the upper hand. The only way to nominate for deletion while under protection is to use the administrative privilege of editing protected articles, so that's using admin tools in a content dispute. Second, the normal process of an article up for deletion is that if there are deficiencies in sourcing, notability, relevance, etc., they can be fixed through the editing process before a decision is made. That can't happen here, so the legitimacy of any result to delete would be in question. 3933:

significant amount. Different interpretations of those sources amount to "jury nullification" -- simply refusing to acknowledge that they're insufficient is not good enough. There is certainly enough support here to make a common-sense argument that we should make an exception here, but you need the argument as well, and ultimately you need endorsement of that argument by the closing admin of the DRV that will inevitably follow this discussion. How likely is it that that admin will agree to flout the guideline for the good of Knowledge and its readers, considering all the drama that an ED article will bring?

9881:. Yes it serves as a hub for cads and blackguards but turning away from it won't make it go away. The sheer over-excitement it seems to be causing here suggests that it as at least notable within this community. I looked around and memes from 4chan, anime, and bizarre jokes my students made that I never understood before suddenly became clear. Their interactions with the Church of Scientology have resulted in a few news mentions. Wasn't there a Fox News story on them a while back about blowing up vans? First time to ever vote in one of these. Sorry if I rambled and missed the point. 9564:, particularly seeing as how well sourced it is now. This is one of those wiki-things that drives me up a wall. Like WR (the full Lovecraftian name of which must not even be uttered!), most of ED seems like a pack of idiot hyenas to me, but whenever this article gets deleted (for largely politic reasons, it's always seemed to me), and there's something I want to know about it, Knowledge has ... nothing. So I have to go over to the site myself to figure it out (and then I remember, oh yeah, these idiots again). Forcing me to go to ED to find stuff out = WIKIPEDIA FAIL. 7941:

short", it's the obvious brevity that we all can see when we click on the link. There's a gray area somewhere. I think it comes with something a bit more substantial than the MSN Nine News source. I don't think you can call any five sentences anything more than a brief mention, because if Knowledge standards were that low, we wouldn't really need standards at all. People who are not straining to keep or straining to delete this article would, I think, tend to think five sentences doesn't cut it. I don't think it's a reasonable interpretation to call it "non-trivial".

2686:

notability, but nothing really concrete. While I disagree with Everyking's argument that the website's attack agenda against Knowledge should cause us to delete the article, I think that discriminating between real informational websites and satircal websites is fair. If this were a real informational website, an article based on smatterings of information might be useful enough to justify inclusion since coverage of real informational websites is helpful to academia, but for a satirical website I don't think smatterings is a strong enough basis for an article.

9286:...has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself... except... edia re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site... rivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. 7218:

to Knowledge. These people are spending literally hundreds of hours between them splitting hairs over this. I have never vandalized Knowledge or trolled its talk pages, however I know some people associated with Encyclopedia Dramatica and the GNAA. They are euphoric and hysteric over processes like this, for 2 reasons: People on both sides of the debate are spending huge amounts of time fighting each other instead of improving the encyclopedia. If you don't like this article, try and live with it; if you do want to keep it, try and live with its absence.

6858:, Knowledge would be doing a great service to the people harassed by ED and the world at large. It would provide an unbiased and accurate description of ED, based not on someone's personal opinion or on the website itself but rather on secondary sources, and it would serve to counterbalance the confusion and misguidance that arises from reading ED's description of itself. In short, if it is possible to have a good article, then it is useful to have a good article, so the "never!" argument which is not based in Knowledge's policies should be discounted. 10456:

stop trying to delete this page. The more we fight over this, the more of a drama magnet it becomes. The scientology thing is a clear indicator of their relevance. We really can't keep out a website that affects major real world events, especially if wikipedia is going to continue to host all sorts of obscure in-universe trivia from games and cartoons. I mean, there are pages here that give us detailed biographies of minor comic book villains. If that sort of crap (which I fully support keeping) makes the cut for notability, pretty much anything does.

5452:. Passing mentions do not make it notable, and it has a local illusion of notability only because we, especially our editors, are its primary target. That it is one of the most nauseating, despicable, and utterly loathsome sites ever to pollute the internet, should not affect our !votes, but it does baffle me that even though this stinking excrement has been flushed multiple times, there is still a movement to retrieve the turd from the septic tank, without considering that its notability is a local phenomenon only. 7815:

at least the "acceptable") arguments on both sides (and discounting others, as per what's cited in Fact 18), then paying attention to facts about the sourcing, facts about policy and facts about what Knowledge says is an acceptable argument should get us into a more constructive discussion. Reasonable people can differ, but the more facts they can mutually agree on will probably narrow their differences and sharpen their logic. Arguments for notability need to be either explicitly spelled out or easily inferred.

3659:: "Encyclopedia Dramatica () really cuts to the chase with a long, blunt, vulgar essay on MySpace that is pretty much on target. Drama, they assert, is what fuels the interaction of teens and drama, obviously, transfers to any online venture that teens make themselves part of." There follows a one-sentence quote from the ED article about MySpace. Two sentences and a quote. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's the definition of "trivial coverage", Neil. And that's $ 2.95 I'll never get to spend again. 7796:

people can (and do) differ in opinion on this point. Second, even if it does not meet the criteria, as I've said before, that is not an automatic categorization of non-notability. It merely means that the arguments for notability for this article are not explicity spelled out. Presenting those arguments is not asking for an "exception" but rather just an alternate way to demonstrate notability. I think it's disingenous to present that conclusory statement as the only possible conclusion from these facts. -

8880:. It's inevitable that there will be articles out there that don't meet our notability criteria and haven't been brought up for AfD yet. Given the system we have, it's inevitable that outcomes will be based, to an extent, on the chance of which editors happen to participate and which closing admins happen to close. The best way of making the process fair and more uniform is by sticking to policies, guidelines, the facts and logic as much as possible. Otherwise cynicism results. 133: 5129:. In fact, the very strength of the opposition to having an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and the fact that an AfD is filled every time someone tries to add an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica is in and of itself proof of the significance of Encyclopedia Dramatica. All deleting the article accomplishes is giving the folks at Encyclopedia Dramatica more ammunition to claim that we are biased against them, and that we are letting that bias subvert our values.— 4004:

example, let's say that there was a book that was the top selling book in the U.S. for 4 months running, but we only had one in depth source about it. Now, being a best selling book is not listed as one of the criteria that indicates notablity. That doesn't mean that it doesn't indicate notability, though, just that it hasn't been specifically singled out as one. The criteria listed are not the only ways to show notability. I think that's clear in all of them. -

1115:. Sources mention ED only in passing - cobbling together lots of trivial mentions does not create the level of sourcing needed for an article. Not having an article does not mean pretending that ED doesn't exist, it just reflects that the site doesn't have the depth of third party coverage necessary to meet our inclusion criteria. Needs more extensive coverage before we should have an article about it - not more sources, just one or two more that are actually 2336:. There are articles that discuss it, in depth. The entire news9 MSN article is devoted to ED. It doesn't make sense to hold ED to a tougher notability standard than every other article simply because we don't like the site itself. Despite what the nom and delete votes say, if we have numerous incidental coverage in addition to at least one FULL RELIABLE SOURCE ARTICLE devoted to site it question, notability really should be considered established. 169: 8671:"Unless I'm missing something" actually, yes, I think you are. An established print newspaper using, or one might even say "noting," ED as a reference would constitute notability. It was noted. Clearly it has also been noted by a number of people who have visited this very page. ED may be offensive, but it is apparently notable, by the Guardian and by Wikipedians who are offended by it and seek to deny its verifiable and notable existance. 993:(edit conflict x2), as the one who cleaned up the sources earlier today, almost every source there only mentions Dramatica in passing. Two just define it. I don't think Fortuny's use of the site automatically conveys notability on it, only on himself. If he'd done the same on his personal blog, we wouldn't be allowing an article on that blog. Unless someone can produce some true, significant coverage, I just don't see how this site meets 4223: 4637:. I already added my !vote above, but I wanted to add another point. While I think we can reach a good decision based on the existence of multiple nontrivial sources (and I think both the ninemsn and gawker articles count as such), I think that sort of beancounting misses the point. There are two things we should be thinking about that our guidelines and policies are intended to address: is it possible to write a nontrivial and 1788:

disgust with the factionalism and political alliances that distort objective records of people and events on this "collective" project that we find objection to. We do not represent ourselves to be anything short of ridiculous, your pretentious masquerade as some sort of objective collective of 'all human knowledge' is both laughable and sad at the same time considering your current structure and often idiotic bickering. - DLB

1924:

exchange, longevity or membership size of an organization, and so on, an indication that something is worth knowing about. It is an argument one can weigh and approve or disapprove, even ignore, but it is certainly not an invalid argument. Deciding on notability is not a rote weighing of article mentions (a standard by which the subject would be clearly notable, with multiple substantial mentions in major news sources)

48:. Since this isn't your average AfD, I'll explain this close somewhat in depth. Firstly, going by counting votes (which one of course should never do at AfD), the overwhelming majority want this article kept. However, since this is not a vote count, that is only a contributing factor to the result. Going through the delete votes, there is a clear idea that Encyclopedia Dramatica does not pass two notability guidelines, 6074:

amount of "hazing" we give our active members). This bias that Knowledge so blatantly holds against ED is hypocritical, drama-inducing, and goes completely against the Knowledge's goals of NPOV and complete reliable coverage. (I ask you to pardon the logical fallacy of my argument, in light of the fact that the same fallacies are being used in arguments pro-deletion of this article.) -- Finney 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

10116:. Surely, no one here is seriously going to argue that screenshots (assuming those were even of the ED, nothing was displayed on the screen to indicate they were) are prime examples of "non-trivial coverage" in the mainstream media, when the ED was never even the subject of these stories. Better to focus the arguments on sources that at least discuss the ED. But in any case, I do appreciate finally learning why 9973:. If the admin here abide by their own arbitrary rules, this article passes the notability litmus and should be kept. As a matter of principle, if Knowledge wants any respect whatsoever as an objective source of information, the article must be kept and must be cleaned up for NPOV (the first paragraph of the article makes it quite clear what the writer thinks of ED—Opinion = Bias). Show you're better than ED by 8985:. I'm a project participant with four years under my belt. I'm editing from a proxy for fear of retribution. This whole ED vs Knowledge thing has become so ridiculous, those in favor of keeping will soon get an article in a national newspaper as per this (see ED:Knowledge Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica) for if this exclusionist nonsense keeps playing out. Get over your biases everyone. -- 1947:: Just because some Knowledge Editors find the content offensive does not mean it does not exist. I can type in any bizzare unheard of term and bring up an article on Knowledge, but an incredibly popular human website deserves to be deleted because it 'offends'? How about GodHatesFags.com? I demand Westboro Baptist Church articles be deleted because they OFFEND me! Way to go, you tools. - Anonymous 6920:

mission to educate. If someone who would be truly offended by their content is wondering what ED is, I think it's good that they can look it up on Knowledge, and make an informed decision that they do, or do not, want to go there. I think that's better than having them Google ED, go straight to it, and be presented with a featured article or picture about something they really didn't want to see.

891:(To "The voice of your heart") You have to be kidding me. Unquestioning loyalty to admins is a terrible stance to take. We are all human, and we all make mistakes. People who are ostensibly entrusted with a common public good like wikipedia should be expected to live up to high standards. Are you seriously going to start defending Erik Möller and how it's ok to advocate for pedophilia now? - DLB 7113:

just an administrative action (close deletion debates, delete recreated content, block editors that keep adding it, etc). But deciding whether content should be deleted from the article is much more difficult. This site is simply not notable enough today for an article and should be deleted on that grounds. It's particular penchant for creating drama means that it should be salted as well. --

7050:

and visitors after it was banned because due to human nature about things being banned. There was a psychologist who wrote a book about it and I read it, though I don't remember either the psychologist or the book except it might have been slightly related to NLP. If ED hadn't been banned here and everyone arguing about it which has gone on for years, the site would have been less known.

7267:. In each and every case deleting this article would meet delete consensus, this consensus would then apply to a major share of the websites that i have allowed to excist either on the fact that they may or seem to be notable, or because there is not enough reason to press a delete. Also, a lot of the DELETE editors seem to take personal offence from the website, which makes it slightly an 2073:, anyone saying otherwise is not fooling anyone. Please stop gaming the system by making absurd claims and try to back them up by throwing around links to WP:EPTBOP (Essay Pretending To Be Official Policy); it's rather annoying as I have to follow all the links only to find out it's an essay (not policy, not even a recommendation) that is only loosely related to the subject at hand. 5733:. The sheer volume of bile spewed about this article says a lot about its notability in itself. Yes, the sources are in some cases quite trivial but there are rather a lot of them, including at least one that's strongly notability-demonstrating. I really don't think Knowledge's aims are fulfilled by deleting this, even though it is by its own admission a pretty stupid website. ~ 2632:, (edit conflict) and I'd like to note that not a single Delete vote has even begun to approach valid deletion criteria. We've had "It's just not notable", "I don't like it", "It offends me"... only argument that has even been valid has been that none of the sources discuss ED in great detail, and that argument was countered by the sheer number of sources that mention ED. 10651:. Sufficient references in mainstream sources over a period of several years to support notability. The site also has fairly little to do with Knowledge and the vast majority of its content is unrelated comedic content (whether funny or not is another matter, but not really the point here), contrary to the assertions in this deletion nomination. -- 10326:

arguments for the most part while those who want to delete it seem to have a personal stake of simply not liking the content of this website. That is not a valid reason to delete and amounts to censorship. I've seen too much deletion efforts based on "I dont like it" and censorship attempts at WP, and this makes me want to come here to say keep.

10421:; even if it still could be somewhat better, it's still better than it was before. "May attack Wikipedians" argument is utter rubbish, as seen so many times before; Knowledge's goal is neutrality, and I'd say that if the idea is to cover topics neutrally without opinionated comments, the other side of the coin would be to not limit 4207:-- notable, controversial, needs its story told with a NPOV. If individual editors have had problems being harassed, libelled, etc., that's a job for the police; suppressing valid content is not the appropriate way of "fighting back". You wouldn't suppress an article on the Mob because they were after some editor, would you? 9601:"? You mean, "Knowledge Review"? Is it really fair to suggest that the attitudes of maybe two or three Wikipedians represent some overall political climate? If you want to defuse the drama around a situation, ironically referring to is as "that which must not be named" seems counterproductive to that end, don't you think? - 8200:

winning or losing a battle with "ED trolls" (not your words, but I've heard the phrase used), it's a matter of doing what's right based on our guidelines. I've been proud to say that when I edit here I check my opinions at the door and try my damnedest to look at everything from a NPOV, and this article is no exception.

10398:

of the admins here have a personal vendetta because of the humiliation they have recieved from ED users who "did it for the lulz". If you guys delete this, you basically break your own rules. But then again, it's not like that hasn't happened before on Knowledge, so that last argument probably doesn't count for much.

10108:. The MSNBC story is clearly about Craigs List and a prank. The ED is briefly mentioned for literally a second. In the case of CNN's stories on the 9/11 Jewish conspiracy theory, it's worse: the ED is actually not mentioned at all. Screenshots? I've read and re-read the guidelines. Screenshots are not covered by 9350:...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. 5582:, a different dimension that we are to consider. The NY Time can still carry a story that is either very short (such as many of the business listings) or one where the topic is mentioned only tangentially. Such coverage would be trivial even though the paper and maybe even that particular story are not. 997:, and why we should have an article on a site that's blacklisted from even having its URL posted anywhere. And, as a side note, I have no idea if ED is an attack site or not, never go to it and have never really heard of it before today. So I'm basing my comments purely on the article and its sources. 6554:. Like you, I'm primarily concerned about writing a reliably sourced article: what can we use and verify? MSNBC is interesting because it's a television channel. Suppose I'm interested in watching the broadcast, how am I supposed to do this based on the information insufficiently cited? As it happens, 10455:

It's a well written article about a website that many journalistic authorities consider important enough to report about. I know that many wikipedia admins/mods hate the ED people because they stalked them or stoled their megahertz or whatever, but I think it is long past time to move beyond that and

9637:

I don't think it's entirely fair to suggest that anybody arguing for deletion is doing so out of a knee-jerk reaction. I think there are some pretty thoughtful arguments being made on both sides. Is it not possible to think that ED doesn't meet WP:WEB without having it be due to personal aversion for

7940:

was put into the notability pages for a reason, right? Does the five-sentence source come closer to fitting the description of a "brief summary" or "brief mention" than it does to a source that addresses "the subject directly and in detail"? It isn't the five sentences, which is shorthand for "really

7230:

that this is because their trolling has managed to anger and offend. This is the reason trolls get up in the morning. If noone tried to do things like remove this article and the GNAA one, they wouldn't receive positive confirmation that vandalism and trouble-making is still so successful, day in and

7102:

I don't think that, "delete and salt and stop having deletion debates," an option. If we delete it, it will keep coming back. The site's notability is increasing, not decreasing. It is not necessary that the article become a troll magnet. Let's show that we can be neutral and accurate, even about ED.

7064:

It's the other way around. The WP article draws EDers here. It brings the drama here as they try to decide what ED content is worth mentioning, etc, etc. I don't really care how much traffic they get but until it's notable and encyclopedic, it's just another non-notable wannabe meme that is simply

7049:

I don't care whether the article is kept or not, but for those that don't want an article because it would draw attention to the site, the drama over if it should be banned from Knowledge has drawn more attention to it than when it had an article. ED got tons of press coverage and a lot more traffic

6984:

post has flared up the WikiDrama a lot. The more WikiDrama we have, the more that editors from both Uncyclopedia and ED are going to make more mean, satrical jokes about us. Period. Probably editors at ED are partying write now because of this debate, and Uncyclopedia is probably too. Look at it this

6443:

That just proves that the search was faulty - it missed major reliable sources that are already cited in the article. Search engine hits don't prove notability (this subject has about 150,000 of them), and a lack of search engine hits certainly doesn't prove lack of notability. If we wanted to base

5334:

thing covered in the article, which means it is beyond non-trivial. I agree that not all sources have equal merit...obviously, local sources don't bear as much weight as national, but the argument that a national source doesn't establish notability because the article is standard length as opposed to

5308:

Indeed, and if you will take my comment out of context and say I'm enforcing a word limit for sources, it will look stupid. It's also completely pointless. My point was that each source should be considered on its merits, and that not all articles are of equal merit by any stretch of the imagination.

5215:

The Knowledge of obscure Internet memes, particularly those on the sites that follow. ED is run like Knowledge, but its style is the opposite; most of its information is biased and opinionated, not to mention racist, homophobic and spiteful, but on the upside its snide attitude makes it spot-on about

3725:

television network and it's used widely as a reference elsewhere on Knowledge. Personally, I think this 297-word article, combined with the other passing references, put the subject just under our threshold of notability, however I suspect others may look at it and decide it's just enough. If another

2513:

You are obviously projecting your (ill informed) bias onto this article. ED is not 'devoted to trolling wikipedians' despite what you may think. Only the ones who abuse their influence and power. You can go ahead and go on and on about how 'vulgur' or 'vicious' ED is, but all you are doing in the end

1549:

This is a fallacious argument. The reason that the article does not have the best sources available is because it was undeleted yesterday and is protected so noone can improve it. SheffieldSteel should argue on the basis of the reliable sources which can be found to demonstrate the notability of this

1062:

to pretend it doesn't exist, and despite the hassles we've had with it, we cover much worse. I don't believe in the "borderline notability means we get to toss neutrality out the window and decide on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT" style arguments for deleting it, and I don't believe that its notability is

10397:

Encyclopædia Dramatica, like it or not, is a website with a significant amount of users. It's been mentioned in several news programs, referenced in the local rags (at least here in australia where they gained notoriety for their "Project Chanology"), and thus can be considered notable, even if some

10325:

Its notability derives from WP's notability, ironically. Because its well-sourced from RS's, makes me think this is notable enough for its own article, even though I don't know too much about the site. I also tend to favor keep due to the reasons articulated above. The keep people have made rational

10305:

I do not understand the reasons for this article being nominated for deletion. This does seem to be a relevant website, much to my own chagrin. Their article on ED referencing these constant AfDs makes some pretty strong points in favour of it. I think Knowledge's better, and has higher standards as

8182:

The "lulz" is what the ED denizens are getting by having their article up here finally. No comment on the keep voters; I'm sure your reasonings are just fine. I personally feel that the two sources that this is being hung on are insufficient, but it's bluntly obvious that I'm in the minority, so why

7900:

There is nothing in any Knowledge guideline or policy that requires a non-trivial source to have a minimum number of words or sentences. So, given all that you've added, why should we ignore the guidelines merely because of the size of the sources. The ninemsn article and the News Review article are

7795:

The list starts well, being entirely fact based, but the conclusory statement (why should Knowledge make an exception to its notability guidelines for this article?) doesn't accurately represent the argument. First of all, it's open to debate whether or not the article meets the criteria. Reasonable

5828:

stick-bundling. The ED is the largest site devoted to both underwater stick-bundling and basket-weaving. While drunk. ...wait, that's Uncyclopedia. Never mind. Er, besides, weren't size count concerns excised from WP:WEB like aeons ago? (God I need more coffee, but my tummy can't take it. If you see

5769:

Large focus? According to their own category page, the two specific-to-Wiki categories contain 402 pages. The 4chan category contains 518. DeviantART has 419. Furries has 508. Memes 563. There are 2192 pages in the People category, some of which may be about Knowledge editors, but definitely not all

4003:

Here's the thing, though. The criteria listed in WP:N and other notability guidelines are not requirements. They are guidelines to help us to determine what is notable and what is not. It's not some sort of firm line where everything on one side is notable and everything on the other is not. For

3593:

Although I thought it should go when it was up for Deletion Review, I have to grudgingly admit that the current article looks like a proper article, with refs. Even if there are not many articles discussing ED in depth, it gets quite a number of trivial mentions, which add up to some good sourcing.

3540:

ED frequently has "articles" that are used only for harassment and feature nonpublic personal information, such as resumes, street addresses and other contact information, unauthorized DMCA infringing pictures, etc all in a context of libel. And ED "support" tacitly endorses these illegal activities

1593:

It is very likely that these are the only sources that exist, given that large numbers of people help to improve articles related to Knowledge (for obvious reasons) and so there will have been a much bigger effort to find sources for this article. Yes it was undeleted yesterday, but people have been

9506:

notable. Right now, we disagree on what sources are necessary to pass WP:N, too. I think that the wording of the general notability guideline allows for multiple sources with less-than-optimal coverage to establish significance together where that significance couldn't be established if the sources

8924:

To the extent that guidelines can be interpreted reasonably, again, you're going to get differences based on who shows up. You can only hope that people are honest about it and that editors and closing admins are consistent in deciding the same way. The Wikinfo AfD is going much worse for that page

7935:

Looking at that definition isn't in the language of WP:WEB itself, but it seems to get us to the spirit of the guideline, and WP:N has influence in this, too. Can you tell me with a straight face that a two-sentence mention in any source is not "trivial"? A three-sentence mention? Five sentences? I

7814:

Good point about the final question in my post, but it's an actual, sincere question, not a rhetorical one. If my facts are solid, then I think that question should be answered in order to get the best Keep argument. Since this discussion is supposed to be closed by an admin looking to the best (or

7236:

I know that people will respond to this post reasoning and debating the ins and outs of this post. My point is, don't. You are infinitely more likely to have any positive effect if you click 'Random page' on the left, learn about something new and try to improve its grammar/syntax. Or just stand up

7217:

There is not any question of the notability of this site, nor of the need to put a link to the site on its page. This AfD and the discussion on the article's talk page are saddening for a much more important reason however: The majority of the people participating are serious, positive contributors

6458:

Actually, I disagree. I believe you're referring to a plain vanilla "google" search, correct? That doesn't have anything to do with the pool of independent, third-party reliable sources that I mentioned. Google searches can generate anything from spam to unregistered blogs to personal websites with

5353:

non trivial sources (for fairly obvious reasons - lots of completely non notable things have news articles about them every day of the week). For what it's worth, I've just done a passing survey of articles in my newspaper today, and 300 is definitely small, but as I said before, my point wasn't in

5273:

Yes, I would contend both are completely relevant factors when assessing the notability of something. The idea that a small (and yes, 300 words is small) article being used as filler is equivalent to a large and well planned feature when considering something like notability is silly. WP:N mentions

5021:

Precisely. It would be viewed as preposterous to request an unsourced article on a country to be deleted but we have more stringent standards for topics that offend the ruling clique. That's what makes this place retarded. Oh, and there are those that do miss you though we understand why asking you

2737:

I may not have a million and a half edits on Knowledge, but I still think that this kind of censorship is very un-Wiki-like. Go on all you may regarding lack of definitive sources, but truthfully I've seen stubs (using the "random article") that are ten times worse and are completely unverified or

2203:

Article meets criteria for inclusion, notability has been established, and the subject is covered in reliable sources. When that is the case, we don't get to exclude something simply because we don't like it. ED exists, and a version of the article has been authored that meets Knowledge's criteria.

1622:

that devotes only half of its 898 word length to the article subject (calling its treatment of two different events a "roundup"), dismisses three sources as trivial without examining them because they're not online (actually, at least one is - it's just a pay site and the story leads with a mention

1570:

Please note that the above comment does not express an opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. Also, I have made numerous edits to WP, and am anonymous here for the sole reason that expressing an opinion on a page like this one means that a certain subset of editors will label

81:

Fourthly, while many of the websites shown are trivial mentions to some, to others the opinion clearly differs as to what is trivial and what isn't. This is perhaps an issue that should be discussed further on the relevant guideline pages. Additionally, there are going to be more mentions of it out

9378:

As you can see, I haven't been able to assess all of the sources. Whether I would choose to keep or delete the article depends on the coverage by those sources for which there is no link and that I have not seen. If someone else can indicate that the coverage by at least one of those sources would

9333:

The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for rivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds,

7506:

No matter how many editors state the contrary, facts are not up for election. No matter how many editors repeat the opposite, these remain facts -- not opinions, interpretations, suggestions, analysis -- just the facts that nobody gets to choose. So to advance the process, it might be best to keep

6919:

I think Knowledge is a little bit better with an ED article than without one, at the present time, and here's why: A Knowledge article can be kept neutral and accurate, and can enable Internet users to make their own decisions about whether they want to visit ED. In other words, we can fulfill our

6510:

Thanks for the info on that search - that will be very useful for my usual business of writing articles! But when I referred to faulty methodology, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that it seems to have missed the two of the three most significant sources, both major mainstream news sources that

3965:

Well, the wiggle room is still there. WP:N basically says that if a subject satisfies the criteria laid out, it is presumed notable. But it doesn't say that a subject that fails to meet them is automatically not notable. You simply need to present a reasonable argument why, even though the subject

1923:

Distinct from notability, yes. But also related to. Fame, importance, and popularity all tend to make things more notable. A high Alexa rank (meaning a huge audience) is, like a high population for a city or a large size or scope of distribution for a product, a listing for a company on a stock

8083:

That's the weakest argument in the entire AFD. Even when we did use Alexa as a criteria for inclusion of websites, which was years ago, any site under 5,000 was easilly within what would "justify or connote notability". I'm pretty sure I remember Carlossuarez voting to keep articles on sites with

7774:

Thx for the response, levity, and even-handed approach. I think the discussion is rather constructive and remarkably civil, more so than quite a few AfDs I could point to on uncontroversial subjects. There's that saying "easy cases make bad law". Here, a hard case potentially raises awareness,

7112:

Why do you think we can somehow stop it from being a troll magnet when it's an article when we obviously couldn't control it when it was deleted? we don't have the resources (or desire) to fight the amount of trolling that would will occur with an article. It's much easier to fight it when it's

6428:

Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, I'm responding to the request from the anon IP (86.31.102.215). The above search results are the total pool of independent, third-party reliable sources from commonly accepted search engines used for Knowledge good article creation. It would nice if there were

5904:

Ignorant and utterly wrong all in one day, how about that? Over 400 categorized pages, and over 700 text matches, including an article on this debate about deleting ED's article from Knowledge. I'm sticking with my previous statement. If it helps, when I say 'large focus' I'm not talking about

5430:

specifically states that articles shouldn't be deleted simply because it's been decided that nobody likes it. ED is notable, it's been featured in news articles, and it's got more than enough sources compared to many other articles on Knowledge. I don't mean to sound Uncivil here, but if we start

4028:

a common sense reason to keep. We have kept articles on a lot less...a whole lot less. In fact, if pretty much any other article came to AfD with this much sourcing, it would probably be a snow keep. But because there's all kinds of wikidrama behind this one, it's being held to a higher standard.

1260:

press coverage. It's a bunch of trivial mentions, mostly from other wikis. But that article isn't constantly being put up for deletion. Sometimes notability falls outside the "reliable sources" realm, especially when we have statistics from places like Alexa that show it is a significant site.

777:

Must I explain to you exactly how this site sexually humiliates our editors? I did not want to post here with the terrorist sympathizers, but you forced my hand. Many of their latest articles attack our admin corp. I won't link to it because as of right now it is lesser known, since no one really

9616:

I was kidding (mostly). As someone who's been targeted by WR in the past, I sympathize with those who feel threatened by sites like them and ED, but I also think the loudly-singing-with-fingers-in-one's-ears approach to this sort of thing is absolutely for the birds. We're an encyclopedia. We

7875:

AfD discussions that I've seen, especially the more contested ones, always revolve around what you can explicitly prove meets the standards, or whether your reasonable interpretation of the standards has a consensus. Other arguments can be made, but in a contentious AfD, closing admins look more

7856:

notability, and requires only a reasonable argument as to why it is notable (within existing guidelines). The other fundamental dispute in this discussion is about what constitutes a non-trivial mention. I will submit that simply counting sentences is a poor way to measure this, as it makes no

6863:

There are now additional sources which both demonstrate ED's notability and certify the NPOV status of the recreated article. Thus, without reservation I submit this opinion and I hope this article will be an excellent example of Knowledge's time-tested policies and goals producing their desired

5329:

I don't know what exactly was out of context. Your argument in a nutshell seems to be that the article is not feature length and you believe it was a slow news day. Neither of which have any validity on the article. 300 words is a standard news article. It is on a legitimate, reliable news site.

5294:

There is no requirement anywhere that a source has to be a 5,000 word feature article. A 300 word article is a standard article. "Non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources" doesn't mean "non-trivial coverage reliable secondary sources read by X number of people containing a minimum of X

4996:

articles (yes thats right I Godwinned this bitch). Trivial coverage in one source ok i'd buy that argument if that was the only source... but trivial coverage in 15 sources, and an in depth article or two from a few is more than sufficient bar to pass for notability purposes. Find me non trivial

3096: 2588:

No one is trying to disrupt the project. This whole recent incarnation of the ED article was brought about from agitation within the wikipedia ranks, not ED. It has notable 3rd party sources now, and has had to jump through more hoops than most articles due to its controversial nature. Give it a

1189:

For goodness sakes, that's not debatable! It's an article in a major national news outlet devoted entirely to the subject. That "brief summary" thing is meant to discourage using guides to prove notability, not to knock out feature articles because they're written entirely about a website. If

10429:

neo-Nazism, because it happens to cover a topic that may promote hate toward a group of people. If we delete arguments based on that alone, where would you draw a line? Let's let go of the tiresome drama and let's quit trying to kill this article because of politics. The bottom line is this, no

8199:

So ED finally has an article on Knowledge, and? Not to be rude Tony, and I know you mean everything in good faith, but why does it matter if the site has an article. The sources give the site just enough notability to be included her and honestly if they are, good for them. It's not a matter of

7955:

I've participated in a number of deletion discussions on various topics with an open mind, and I would nearly always consider a five-sentence article about a subject in a major publication, or five substantive sentences on the thing in a longer source, to be a non-trivial mention that would add

7712:

Okay, that's a five sentences article in a reliable but small circulation paper devoted entirely to ED, obvioulsy not trivial. If you look at the context it's not a content summary style web guide, but rather an effort to bring something to the readers' attention - hey, note this. While we're

6073:

As an administrator of Encyclopedia Dramatica, I would just like to state that we, unlike Knowledge, do not automatically ban users of websites we dislike, simply on the basis of that membership. Wikipedians are free to participate on ED without harassment (although they will receive the normal

3980:

You're right about the spirit and the letter, but looking closely at the letter doesn't prevent following the spirit, and sometimes it helps. The only problem with following the letter can be contradicting the spirit, and I don't think anyone can say that's going on here. I don't think the word

3654:

source, "non-trivial", and I said to myself, "I'm actually going to spend money to buy this article and confirm that there is another source of non-trivial coverage of ED. It's the least I can do to advance civilization." And so I committed $ 2.95 of my hoarded wealth to buying this non-trivial

85:

Fifthly, many of the delete votes do not provide sufficient reasoning for their opinion, e.g. "hate site" is not a reason to delete something. Nor is "attracts drama". Yes, there are similar keep votes, but there are substantially more of people wanting to keep this overall, and in any case the

4650:

heard of it? And the Alexa ranks are meaningful for answering this sort of question, too, I think. So I think counting sources and carefully assessing which are trivial and which are nontrivial amounts to wikilawyering when a step back and a look at the bigger picture makes the decision clear.

4042:

Believe what you will. Asserting it doesn't make it so. (Unless you're the closing admin of the DRV ...) If you want the closing admin to make an exception to the relevant guidelines, then it's got to be done for the good of Knowledge, and in that situation, everything will have bearing on the

1787:

This is a common misconception. ED does not hate TOW, we just have issues with some of the hypocrisies shown by members who have been entrusted with sysop status (re: Sceptre, MONGO). Quite a few ED sysops and users (myself included) constructively add things to the wikipedia project. It's the

9633:

What I was clumsily trying to express is that the most extreme, "site-which-must-not-be-named"-style position is limited to two or three Wikipedians. Many more of the community take a more sober and measured position than that. It was the exaggeration that put you in the 2-3 Wikipedian realm.

7212:

This is an abusive process. Everyone participating in it knows that. I am not expecting you to recognise it here but if you have thought about this for even a second, you know that this page would never have been protected or be up for deletion if a) Encyclopedia Dramatica did not attack some

2685:

as I said I would opine when closing the DRV for this. (I closed as "recreate" since that was what the consensus was for, but I did disagree with the outcome.) Basically, I agree with WJBscribe's analysis of the sources here, I think the mentions here and there illustrate some smatterings of

2077:

for anyone, no matter how offensive the subject might be for you and me. Deleting Encyclopedia Dramatica's article won't magically remove ED from the Internet. Knowledge is supposed to be an encyclopedia with the sum of all human knowledge; removing content just because the large majority of

5348:

Well, to keep it simple, do I believe that anything that gets a single article on ninemsn is necessarily notable? No. I agree the mention of it wasn't passing, but whether or not the article is trivial is up for debate. Quite apart from all this of course, there's the simple issue that WP:N

3932:

doesn't have it either. While you can interpret the MSN/Nine source as one of "multiple" sources giving a significant amount of coverage (a consensus interpretation of something like that is just what a discussion like this is for), you can't interpret any of the other sources as offering a

3382:

Although I think it could probably use a bit of a rewrite as I'm not sure about it being completely Neutral POV and the language seems "off" to me (don't ask me to explain that cause even I'm not 100% sure what I mean). Maybe turn it into a more neutral stub and work on making it a properly

924:

The article is hardly an advertisement - it's a standard attempt to describe a web service that happens to be antagonistic towards Knowledge. Refusing to print an article about something just because it upsets Wikipedians is somewhere between sour grapes and censorship. If you're going to

5154:, notable, if only just. I do not find any of the arguments to delete to be based upon anything other than the fact that they don't like it (with, in many cases, very good reason.) This is an invalid AfD- articles should not be nominated while they are fully protected. As such, I support a 4536:

No it doesn't, and no admin powers (on my part) were used. Other impartial administrators blocked this sock. No reason to mischaracterize that fact, to seem somehow unreasonable or improper, when it isn't. I'll AGF in you comment as the note is missing a comma, which may make it confusing.

10460:

As an aside, I really dont understand the point of being so strict with notability. It isn't like there is really a size limit to how big wikipedia can get so I don't see what we gain by arbitrarily deleting some articles while keeping others. Yeah, I get that wikipedia isn't a "star trek

10015:

I don't really know what I can say that hasn't already been said. This debate is tedious: The abundance of references establish notability and the article looks nice. A fair amount of people in the Knowledge community just want this article gone because ED ridicules Knowledge. That's all.

7828:

so far before an interpretation looks ridiculous, and the faster we can stop wasting time on counter-factual arguments and unconvincing interpretations, the better. One side's going to lose this, and the more facts we agree on, the less bitter the pill that the losing side has to swallow.

6916:. We've got multiple non-trivial sources, but only one is reliable. We've got multiple reliable sources, but only one is non-trivial. Of course, IAR says, "the letter of the rule is interesting and useful, but always consider: what's the best thing to do, to make the encyclopedia better?" 6487:, by definition, limits itself to books. All of these sources comply with editorial oversight and fact-checking whereas a simple google search does not. In fact, it's useful--not because of the hits--but because it helps us to find future material for the article's use that complies with 9749:, article demonstrates notability through citations better than more than half the articles in a random sample of 10 non-stub articles. I also find convincing the argument that it will continue to get more notable over time, so it's not a matter of if we keep this article but when. — 2700:

This strikes me an awful lot like saying that articles about websites we like have one standard to meet and articles about websites that we don't have a different standard. The content of the site shouldn't be a factor indetermining notability. To do so would seem to run counter to

10632:. Personally, I remain unconvinced that the sources offered are anything but "trivial coverage". I understand that some disagree, but I suspect that we will be forced to revisit the wording of the notability guidelines to avoid this kind of disagreement in the future. In good faith, 9146:: Could you please rephrase the question? My understanding is that editing Knowledge is based on a consensus formed around commonly accepted policies and guidelines. Without them, chaos ensues. Why would we want to ignore policies and guidelines in an AfD? Incidentally, I agree with 4641:

article about the subject, and is the subject one of sufficient prominence that it's worth our while devoting space to it? Clearly, it is possible to write a decent article — I haven't seen anyone here arguing, as often happens at other AfDs, that the article is full of unsourceable

3909:

I think that if you have one really in-depth source and dozens of trivial mentions from highly notable sources, a reasonable argument can be made that notability is established. And that's all WP:WEB is, really: a guideline to help figure out whether or not an article is notable.

7775:

strong good faith arguments on both sides by experienced, passionate Wikipedians. That lets us stress test the notability guidelines and what they mean, how to use them. Lessons learned are applicable when we question whether a new book, or local celebrity, etc., should be here.

2874:

to stop this knee-jerk reactionism to do so. That means no more covering it up and hiding it, which is against everything we're for. The selfish actions of a few notable editors who happen to have pages on ED should NOT be able to be fuel for keep its recreation from happening.

5172:

wait until ED is demanding money from you to remove libelous content (baseless accusations of pedophilia and worse) alongside your RESUME with your phone number and street address. You would be singing a different tune, had you gone through what I have in the last three years.

5081:

It's not canvassing. It's an expectation I'll wave the banner and fight the fight. Anything about Æ on Knowledge becomes a war of double standards, hypocrisy and trolling from both sides. Anyone presenting a modicum of rationality is attacked so it's best not to participate.

7331:. Sufficient sources exist. Knowledge covers distasteful subjects if others already have. There's not much to say though. The current version could use some trimming. Several of the references contribute nothing, being non-reputable (blogs) that don't actually say anythig 6944:. Based on the current form of the article, I'm seeing references to the non-trivial third-party sources that WP:WEB and WP:N demands. Once I saw The Observer, that was enough, never mind MSNBC, Global, the Chicago Tribune, etc. I could care less about the content of the site. 875:(To "The voice of your heart") I'm sorry to say this, but people like you shouldn't really be editing Knowledge. You make it blatantly obvious that your only interest in voting "delete" is to further your own personal agenda against that site, not to improve the encyclopedia.-- 9766:: It's the best documentation of the *chan subculture, which is quite relevant to the Internet (I'm not making an argument from WP policy—the rest of you can take care of that quite well), even if it is written in the highly... non-encyclopedic fashion of said subculture. — 2569:

What about bringing this issue back up repeatedly in spite of past consensus and with complete insensitivity to the feelings of other Wikipedians? That isn't disruption, I suppose? In my opinion, it's easier to argue disruption when the people whose actions are in question

7442:

seems to be the best and it's really not all that much. I think this article deserves a chance though... there are genuine sources about ED now, let's see how the article looks once people can actually edit it for a while (as opposed to during this AFD, where they can't).

5755:- judging by the sources currently available, while it's a long list it's a very shallow one. I don't feel the current selection of sources is enough to establish notability, and the large focus ED has on Knowledge makes it seem too much like naval-gazing on our part. -- 2555:. The subjects notability is established by multiple reliable sources and most of the "delete" votes are just rants about how ED is a "vile attack site" and "trolls". Continuously resending something you don't like for AFD is, in my perhaps irrelevant opinion, disruption. 10041:

To be fair, ED attacks several individuals, not merely Knowledge in its entirety. But that is still not an argument to delete, at least not at AfD. Those who prefer what imho is a somewhat high-handed hush-up approach should pursue this at a more appropriate venue, e.g.

6252:. The other sources listed are questionable, as most of them only mention ED in passing. However, ED is a notorious website with wide recognition across the internet, and I'm sure at some point down the road it will receive more coverage in reliable sources. WP is not a 9019:

per the Australian news article about ED and the great number of mentions elsewhere in reliable sources. I notice some references were removed and the page protected so that they couldn't be re-added; perhaps this was done by those with an agenda to get the ED article

6545:

argument. Surely, those articles should probably be reconsidered, too. What really concerns me here is that -- with the exception of one, reliable, third-party verifiable source -- we're talking about trivial mentions in articles devoted to other topics, not about the

4399:

Anyone who can find a source can add it right here, and that works just as well. There is no requirement to actually add it to the article mainspace. The closing admin is required to discount all delete votes based on notability if their notability objections are met.

3981:"presumed" in WP:N is something like a "get-out-of-jail-free" card from Monopoly, but more like an acknowledgement that there are ways around the requirements -- ways that are referred to specifically on that page and its links to other guidelines. It's either that or 4808:

I was willing to change my mind somewhat, and the FIBS article's sourcing did improve through the AfD. But I still think the sourcing on that article, whose AfD ended with overwhelming consensus to keep, is far less than ED's on a subject that is far less noteworthy.

100:

Finally, whilst I have no doubt in my mind I have closed this fairly, I am very sure this will be taken to deletion review. That's fine with me, I know that whichever way this was closed someone would be unhappy. In all, I hope I've done the right thing here. Thanks,

6990:

Face it, if you were to delete every article just because it is based on the harassment of Wikipedians, you would probably delete Myspace, Facebook, Uncyclopedia etc. There is no point in deleting notable websites based on harrassment from vandals and ED editors per

9617:

report on reportable things. I also think it's deeply disingenuous to say that the kneejerk against WR and ED is confined to "two or three Wikipedians". The fact that we're even here, having this conversation, in section ... five now? ... is a testament to that.

6848:

I am sympathetic with the second argument, but only in light of the first. If ED is non-notable it would indeed be hurtful to people to have an article for it on Knowledge. It would lend legitimacy to a website which self-admittedly is not interested in telling the

8606:. 4chan's article has over sixty citations (some of which are to archived posts, but those that are not to the 4chanarchive or 4chan's rules are not all just passing mentions. The last reference goes into detail about the site, moreso than any of the references on 10528:- once upon a time, and the first times this was an entry, it was not notable. Now, especially with Project Chanology in the news and a current event, the sarcastic encyclopedia of internet culture is notable. It's not pretty, but then we don't have to like it. 9804:

source provided that provides what could be called 'significant' coverage of ED. I have no prejudice against having an article on them, but despite all the 'sources' listed here, they just don't seem to have received enough attention from the media to justify it.

4371:. As mentioned pretty much all over the place above, the fact that this page is fully protected is pretty much going to make any delete get overturned at DRV. So the page should either be dropped to a semi-protect or this AfD should be closed as out of process. -- 6562:, so I was hoping to read the transcript. Nothing registered. That's unfortunate because I now have to take the word of whichever editor provided the reference without ever knowing which program it was on, what time of day, the title of the show, and whether the 5354:

relation to any kind of minimal size. Anyway, I have better ways to spend my time than to continue to argue this point when our opinions are clearly quite polarised on this issue, but safe to say, I still strongly hold my original opinion that it is non notable.

2314:

Even aside from this article easily meeting policy requirements, it's really bad form to keep renomming an article over and over and over in hopes that one of the AFDs will actually stick. Knowledge isn't censored, and if the website offends you, don't go there!

4590:

Again, as stated above, it was specifically mentioned in the DRV close that this could be taken to AfD. The only reason I made the "less than a day" comment above is that I've seen mentioned more than once that the page had been up for a week. Minor annoyance.

7847:

I prefer to think of it as we all win (with an improved encyclopedia), just not in the way we expected. I seem to read the notability criteria in a completely different way from you. You seem to think that anything that doesn't meet the criteria laid out is

7262:

While my personal opinion on this particular website is that it could just as well be blasted to kingdom come (I would not mind to be the one to pull the trigger), it doesnt change the fact that it seems to have received sufficient media coverage to comply to

10478:

Dude, it's because some wikipedia editors have their panties in a twist over the site. They are being juvenile and petty, that's all. They hate being mocked and are full of themselves. You think they would go through all this trouble for any other entry?

8846:

the inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic for a Knowledge article. "source", as used in Knowledge, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect this.

6491:. As for the other sources mentioned in the article, frankly, they were neither "major" nor devoted to the subject. Knowledge guidelines require a demonstration of notability based on articles written entirely or mostly about the subject. Unfortunately, the 2429:

because it seems that a lot of this is just a general sense of hurt being translated into a decidedly biased AFD. There are various terms which could be used to describe this move, but I will say that the reaction more or less verifies claims to notability.

10591:

can justify an article on Knowledge thanks to the sheer amount of coverage in reliable third-party sources. Regardless of what's in the Uncyclopedia article now (and, to be fair, there are a few third-party sources but editors need to add more citations),

10430:

matter how you bake the cake: we set the bar somewhere and this thing narrowly leaps above it. If this thing gets deleted, I see it as a victory for evil wikilawyering of most foul kind, not as a victory for interpreting Knowledge's content guidelines. --

4428:. Yes, ED attacks Knowledge , but that doesn't mean that it should be denied an article. The article is well sourced, with mentions in mainstream media. Can we please come to at least a semblance of a conclusion on this for the sake of everyone's sanity! 8875:

It's typical that articles up for deletion discussions get more scrutiny and therefore, in effect, get held to higher standards; it's typical that the more controversial the topic, the more scrutiny the articles get. Your point sounds like a version of

9203:

Well, first I'd like to say good luck to the brave soul who closes this AfD and is thrust immediately into another DRV (because, really, we know it's coming, right?). Anyhoo, I'm checking to see of the nominator's rationale is valid. Xe says it fails

8703:

No, mention or use of something as a reference does not make it notable. If that were the case every time a minor expert were quoted on a topic by a newspaper the expert would immediately become notable. Your notion of notability is not connected to

1550:

topic currently, and not the ones which are currently on a write-protected article. The whole point of wikis is that the community can improve badly written or sourced articles, it is fundamentally unfair to judge this article while it is protected.

8504:

Such is the atmosphere of fear and loathing that surrounds any reference to ED around here that people do develop paranoia, sometimes to great extremes, about doing anything even vaguely related to it in fear of getting retaliated against somehow.

7756:, as an expert on what Noroton is arguing, I can tell you that I'm arguing, in that post, for constructive discussion & adherence to WP standards, and I said in my "delete" post that I'd withdraw my opposition if adequate sourcing is found; 661:. The article isn't an advert in any way, refering to the site as "coarse, offensive, and frequently obscene" (something which would never be allowed in many articles) And by the way, the fact that the site attacks Wikipedians is irrelevant, as 5555:

I think you're confusing the use of the word "trivial". It refers to the prestige of the source used, not how they mention the subject. For example, someone's minor leauge blog would be trivial while the NY Times would be a non-trivial source.

1190:

triviality is the threshold there are a dozen articles already cited that are not trivial mentions (unless you wish to reinvent what the term "trivial" means). They describe newsworthy events that happened involving ED and got a lot of press.

9535:

is going to be ignored, and people are going to let their own prejudices get in the way of completing the encyclopedia. As many others said, this is why a good deal of people left the project in the first place, and I hate to agree, but I do.

6607:

are guidelines, not stuff set in stone. Please stop the insanity. Also, there is an inevitability argument. You know if this is deleted today, this article is going to be here eventually, so might as well be now. What difference does it make?

5905:

some mathematical ratio of Knowledge mentions to fart jokes (16 matches). I'm simply talking about the inordinate amount of time ED seems to spend poking at Knowledge, and the obsessive reaction it provokes in Wikipedians. It's not healthy,

8406:

It says "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". What constitutes "multiple" and "non-trivial" is entirely a matter of subjective debate, and my two cents worth is two is trivial and multiple means in the hundreds.

4284:

probably deserves an article, what with the uproar it has caused in the online community, but I'm not sure if we should have an article about something that dedicates its time to slagging us off. I, personally, don't think ED should even

448:

Of course, Wikipedians would never come over to ED and use it to attack 'fellow' project memebers they have beef with would they? Of course not. You're too good for petty squabbles like that over here aren't you? You're all pure as driven

6570:, doesn't it? Again, it's not about the google hits for me. It's about finding material that complies with policies and guidelines. And it's a shame, really. Personally, I'd like very much to vote "keep" for this article. In good faith, 8449:- to inform everyone, I write about it also here - I made another copy of the article to my userspace, so WP editors can edit the article (and making it better) instead of just talking about it. (just look how long this discussion is) - 8120:

If you really can't be bothered to argue your point, then posting an opinion which is the exact opposite of what you actually believe is a little silly. It's also a little unfair to say everybody voting keep is doing it "For the lulz".

5239:

tiny article on an internet news site having a slow news day. In fact, the only reason it even got a mention there was almost certainly because of all the drama on Knowledge over it. Delete it and stop giving them the free advertising.

1063:

as borderline as proponents of that argument make out. And as we've just hashed all this out at DRV I don't see what is to be accomplished from doing it all again so soon, so I'm tempted to advocate not just a keep but a speedy keep. —

8765:

Don't be ridiculous, users are perfectly able to make whatever decision they want whether or not ED has attacked or threatened them. I for example am voting for keeping despite there being an ED article on me that's borderline libel.

9410:

It's pretty obvious at this point that the result is going to be keep, and at a current !vote of more than 2:1 (about 100/40), and this being one of the most discussed AfD's of all time, I don't think a DelRev would be appropriate.

7529:. Any article about a website that either meets WP:WEB or WP:N notability standards should not be deleted for a notability reason. Any article that does not meet those standards is supposed to have a damn good reason for being kept. 4521:

I hope you realize that it looks really bad when you use your admin powers to strike out people's arguments who disagree with you. If you really think that it is the right thing to do, you should get another neutral admin to do so.

478:. At some points in the development of the current version of the article, the reference list was actually nearly as long, or maybe longer, than the article itself. Its attacks on Knowledge and Wikipedians are utterly irrelevant; 8939:

Perhaps the arguments at the wikinfo AfD are weak because some of the more reserved wikipedians are sitting that one out. For what it's worth, I have not participated in the wikinfo AfD because I think the nomination was a little

3130:, especially footnote 2. A trivial amount of coverage is what these sources gave to ED (except for MSN/Nine News, and while that's not trivial, it only borders on being "substantial"). See my comment below for what I found in your 9480:, then you should conclude that it is notable. WP:WEB is an alternate way of meeting notability rather than an exclusive standard. I don't think an article can pass the WP:N standard without multiple sources that are non-trivial. 6923:

The reason to delete an article for non-notability would be that we can't obtain enough reliable information to maintain an encyclopedia article. I don't think that's true in this case; we have enough to maintain a healthy stub.

9158:, etc.) rather than focusing on legitimate points within the guidelines. Currently, the only real disagreement (as far as I can tell) on the table is the differing interpretations of the word "non-trivial" and "trivial" in the 2183:

And to clarify my point; The article was restored yes, after there was more agreement to do so (opposed to leave it deleted). The chances of this discussion actually resulting in delete are very slim, if at all existent. -

9180:

Is the question basically, "How would deleting the article improve the encyclopedia?"? That seems to be a fair one, seeing as our policies and guidelines exist to document successful ways of improving the encyclopedia. Per

8733:, Dragondragon. There's an article about you in ED namespace. You should've abstained. Same goes for anyone who's voted here who has an article on ED namespace, because we all know why you want no one to know of that site. 8183:

argue it? It's going to be at the least a no consensus. *shrugs* I'm expressing my opinion. I don't feel we need this article, but if were opening up our definition of "non-trivial" through it, then we're going to have it.

4149:

the website. And about other sites, too, but its coverage of ED seems nontrivial to me — it's not just a passing mention in an article about some other subject, it's a whole paragraph specifically devoted to describing ED.

7926:

The way to judge whether something is trivial or non-trivial for WP notability purposes is to consider whether it resembles these two descriptions or whether it more resembles this definiition of a "significant source" at

7819:

That depends on the details. Some things are open to interpretation (see my next point), but either the standards in WP:WEB or WP:N are met or they're not, if they're not and you still want to keep, you want an exception.

9994:- seriously, I just walked in on this article and saw this total baaawwwfest. I've seen a lot more insignificant and outright irrelevant crap keep a steady article - per countless numbers of people listed, this stinks of 395: 9948:

If it weren't notable, would so many people on here really care one way or the other? There are also countless examples of things much less notable (MUCH less) that have pages. How many times must we have this debate?

7974:

isn't about close reading and details, which is inevitable whenever something is hotly contested and guidelines and policies are involved. Nothing wrong with it if you don't lose track of what the guidelines are about.

8925:

in terms of proportion of delete !votes, and the delete side has the overwhelming lead in arguments based on policy. A larger number of editors here have made policy-based arguments, which is what's supposed to count.

6282:. A user above (86.31.102.215) requested a more comprehensive database search based on “reliable sources which can be found to demonstrate the notability of this topic.” I believe that is a fair and reasonable request. 8069:

That's a false argument a) because we aren't even supposed to take the Alexa rank into consideration and b) because if we did, a high Alexa rank (2,250 out of over 100 million) would seem to do the exact opposite.

7192:. We are not in the business of deciding what might or might not interest Knowledge's readers nor should we delete it because it will be an article that'll cause a "huge headache". It's as notable as the all those 5811:

So this is a hobbyist website concerning the making of stick bundles? I confess that through my keep arguments, I've never been to the site...but I do like stick bundles...perhaps after work I shall take a gander.

1163:

It's debatable whether even that source, which provides more detail than any other we have links to, actually meets the requirement of substantial coverage. You could easily describe this source as providing only

7242:

As pointed out above, I have a reasonably large list of (positive) edits, however I am posting anonymously because I dont want to be tarred with the brush of someone who tried to speak reasonably on this issue.

5945:(again). While there is slightly more coverage than the last time this came up, the coverage is trivial. Human interest stories on a slow news day. Not enough on which to base a proper encyclopedia article. 1704:

Additional comment: Seven sentences plus examples. That's all the Nine News article has. And they're short sentences. I'd call that approaching substantial, but if that's the best there is, there isn't enough.

4424:- this article just passed DRV with a fairly strong consensus to recreate. AfDing it within a week of this occurring simply creates 'drahmaz!!!111'; some of the 'delete' arguments have a definite whiff of 4169:. Multiple sources show a breadth, if not depth, of coverage that indicate but not conclusively demonstrate the subject is notable. Procedurally, I'm disturbed by an AfD on a protected article, preventing 9367:

pass this test. With WP:N, there isn't the restriction that each source must itself be non-trivial, where trivial includes a brief summary etc., and these sources can snowball into significant coverage.

6179:

The headache will be there either way. Either in maintaining the article, or the fact that next month, when the next article gets written that talks about ED we'll all be back at DRV, then AFD one more

3894:

No, they require common sense if you want to make an occasional exception. I'm open to common-sense exceptions for the good of the 'pedia, but I haven't seen a good common-sense-exception argument here.

3680:

since it was created (edit wars and the discussions in this nom, for instance). Also, I'm very sure this article is just going to attract more ED trolls, and I can already see quite a few in this page.

2564: 7876:

closely at what can be linked to criteria. But I haven't participated in AfDs that much recently, and I don't participate in all areas. As for sentence count, see my response to Smashville just below.

7175:. I don't know where people got the idea that a supposedly reliable encyclopedia can delete articles because they don't like the subject. If this were anything else, there'd be practically no debate. - 7079:

To be fair, we don't know whether drama over deletion debates brings more attention to the site than a simple article would do. As long as we're simply guessing about that, we might as well admit it. -

6904:

Close call, this one. The amount of source material that seems to exist is hovering right at the (gray) border between notable and non-notable. Applying the notability criterion to the letter, we need

8138:

I'm not !voting Keep for the "lulz" as you said, but I'm looking at this article objectively and from a NPOV and surprising the soucres offer enough about ED to give it notability. The hell with the

5717: 4854: 6626:

The difference is that it doesn't currently meet the requirements for inclusion. You may well be right, but we have inclusion requirements for a reason; why should this article be exempt from them?

5260:

So the source doesn't count because you deem it to be a slow news day? A 300 word article is not "tiny". It's a normal sized news article. But seriously...are we going to start word counting now? --

4057:

Again, a guideline is just a guideline. There is nothing to be "enforced". Requiring that an arbitrary number of sources equals notability (when at least one has been provided) is simply asinine. --

2111:. Thank you for reading between the lines and trying to be objective. Honestly this whole situation has gotten rather ridiculous with the petty vendettas many editors have blatently flaunted. -DLB 2091: 1733: 290: 5928:

I think the debate has come about only because this is ED. If not for the whole drama surrounding ED, it would have been kept. Wouldnt want to colour my own WP understanding based on my POV of ED.

5113: 5076: 2583: 838: 2999: 2816: 2380: 812: 10461:

wiki"/"warhammer wiki"/"spider man wiki" but I don't see what really gets broken by letting those topics exist within wikipedia. It isn't like they exclude other articles by virtue of existing.

3055: 1760: 1542: 7924:

The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial.

2798: 1559: 787: 10194:

The WP-ED saga would be great material for a meta-Knowledge but not so much for Knowledge itself. Either way, the results of this will end up on ED itself. Now, whether the WP admins decide to

9938: 9631:

I'm much more apt to mean something that I didn't express well than to speak disingenuously. I have pretty much no desire to do that, ever; if I weren't going to be ingenuous, I'd kill myself.

9626: 8163:. Honestly never been to the site (I understand there's a good chance of genitalia popping up on my work computer...not something I want to risk at work), so I'm definitely not coming from the 7321: 7088:

Then Delete and salt and stop having deletion debates. Certainly having an article isn't going to eliminate the drama, in fact it will become a troll magnet. Or improve the encyclopedia. --

5764: 4599: 4508: 4190:- notable enough. HOWEVER, the article really needs to be kept focused on the website and it's notoriety NOT the actual content (which I find mostly stupid, and occasionally really awful). -- 2005: 1580: 339: 334: 329: 324: 319: 10129: 9958: 9718: 5459: 5167: 4979: 2986:

Many of the sources are weak, but the Craigslist ad controversy, the ninemsn link, and the passing reference in a Knowledge-themed NY Times article seem to squeak it (barely) into notability.

2858: 2397: 2218: 8209: 6779: 5666: 5649: 5182: 4950: 4818: 4802: 4781: 4766: 4159: 3072: 2747: 2460: 2161: 71:." Clearly, people have differing views on what an article requires to pass this guideline. And yes, it is just a guideline, not a policy. It does not have to be strictly followed, like, say 10672: 10553: 10536: 10494: 9704: 9645: 6702:- I've found plenty of articles on topics that I'd imagine 70+% of the human population wouldn't even care about, and most of them can be found via Random Article. If we have an article on 6256:, so it might be better to wait for more sourcing before creating this article again. On the other side of the coin, I have to cry foul at nominating a fully-protected article for deletion. 5698: 5591: 5565: 5515: 5227: 5031: 5015: 4794:

Above, you said ED had "much better coverage". Now you're implying the coverage is equivalent. Just be sure what you're arguing, rather than flinging dirt at people who disagree with you. --

4619: 2978: 2729: 2695: 2604: 2541: 2504: 1594:

trying to get it undeleted for months and have performed a near-exhaustive search for sources in that time. If you know of any other sources then list them here - this page isn't protected.

8818: 8379: 7298: 6800: 6746: 6215: 6189: 5146: 3038: 2906: 2883: 2833: 2677: 2324: 2292: 1022: 10407: 9605: 8721: 8698: 7369: 7074: 7059: 6232: 5747: 2781: 2439: 2347: 2178: 2126: 2103: 2061: 1699: 1310: 906: 736:

ED has a series of pages which contain vulgar mocking of several WP editors, and the site is generally highly critical of WP. Thus many editors get up in arms whenever the subject arises.

710: 10641: 10276: 9838: 9727: 9531:: I feel at this point ED could have entire articles dedicated to it on CNN, and be one of the most popular websites of all time, and the decision will still be to delete it just because 8041: 8023: 7722: 6438: 5255: 4920: 4888: 4750: 4577: 4562: 4531: 2764: 2714: 2641: 2235: 1877: 1865: 1674: 10692: 10600:. Here are a few example titles by mainstream newspapers: "The Uncyclopedia on Harry Potter", "War of words over Ulster 'Uncyclopedia'", "Satirical Website Criticized by Tourist Board." 10520: 10055: 9191: 7769: 7707: 7252: 6661: 6639: 5937: 5472: 5444: 4359: 3320: 2487: 1782: 1602: 93:

Sixthly, I'll make it clear I do not endorse the content on Encyclopedia Dramatica, particularly its coverage of Knowledge and its editors. As an encyclopedia however, we need to keep a

10660: 9272:

is an essay. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, and if it needs to cover websites where trolls and vandals gather to advance that goal, it will. Whether it denies recognition is irrelevant.

9029: 8416: 8401: 8192: 7885: 7866: 7838: 7805: 7136: 6579: 6528: 6504: 6453: 6064: 5918: 5779: 5620: 4199: 4013: 3998: 3975: 3942: 3919: 2371:

This is the worst possible timing of an AfD I have ever seen. The consensus on DRV was very strong and the only thing you are going to achieve here is another strong consensus to keep.

1988: 1852: 1808: 1072: 783: 769: 10575:

struggles to meet our notability guidelines. It's worth pointing out the similarities and differences here for the editors who keep thinking incorrectly that this AfD is somehow about

8934: 8919: 8889: 8298: 8285: 7950: 7202: 7122: 7107: 7097: 7083: 6813: 6417: 5844: 5497: 4182: 4065: 4052: 4037: 3904: 3889: 3826: 2421: 2306: 1231: 1107: 594: 466: 10335: 9175: 7344: 5899: 4717: 4379: 4342: 4137: 3804: 3498:

If Knowledge removes this article they should remove all of the other articles that upset different segments of the population. They should also admit to being biased in that case.

2947: 2931: 2019: 1387: 1378: 1364: 1355: 1339: 1184: 1006: 952: 578: 8953: 8804: 8775: 8760: 8742: 8370:-notability. If something is notable it will have hundreds if not thousands of articles about it in mainstream media sources, not just blogs and not just brief mentions in passing. 7984: 7965: 7784: 7491: 7452: 7279: 5954: 5549: 5536: 4391: 3583: 2755:

for obvious aforementioned reasons. This Web site is certainly notable. Just because it offends certain Knowledge sysops does _not_ mean that it needs to be excluded from Knowledge.

1638: 1199: 979: 965: 867: 10620:(Toronto, Canada)--all alert their readers to Uncyclopedia as the website to read. As far as I know, they don't (yet) alert their readers to the Encyclopedia Dramatica. Heck, even 10370: 10251: 9105: 8870: 8856: 8666: 8648: 8514: 8151: 8062: 7689: 7390: 7356:, but surprisingly the article is well-sourced, and states WHY the site is notable. ED might slam Knowledge, and honestly I really don't care one way or another if it does, but per 7184: 5820: 5402: 5382: 5369: 5343: 5324: 5303: 5289: 5268: 4905: 4660: 4489: 4476: 4309: 4248: 4232: 3989:

to explain that. In practice, closing admins have a lot of leeway, but taking the WP:ORG argument for a WP:WEB subject is something that grief-averse closing admins tend not to do.

3960: 3951:

allows for just that kind of exception you mention, Chunky Rice. That's where it is ("Primary criterion" section), but that guideline doesn't apply to Web sites. WP:WEB takes over.

3863: 3845: 3513: 3434: 3356: 3223: 2361: 2193: 2048:. Can we please go at least a month or two without having to slog through this tired old discussion? At a certain point, constantly AFDing or DRVing the same article become blatant 1933: 1722: 680: 537: 10445: 8994: 8499: 8484: 8441: 8327: 7431: 7414: 5235:. Utterly unworthy of an encyclopedic article. Completely non notable outside of the bounds of Knowledge itself - nothing more than a few very passing mentions in newspapers and a 4409: 4330: 4216: 1409: 1270: 1130: 556: 482:

requires that we cover those who hate us, and/or that we hate, in an evenhanded manner regardless. Opposition to this article seems based more on fear and loathing than on logic.

10385: 10315: 10211: 9986: 9521: 9489: 9457: 7474: 6881:

not only for lulz but its cool to point sh*t to and keep it far from mainspace. Sick of lolcat reminding me that we can't link to external ED, so please keep it in mainspace. --

6727: 6035: 5806: 5793: 934: 637: 10295: 8361: 8345: 6170: 5977: 4772:

The "book references" are at most one sentence or one paragraph in a particular book about backgammon. Exactly the reasons mentioned here that the sources for ED are not vailid.

4685: 4098: 3531: 3163: 3143: 2033: 1423: 1292: 1248: 745: 731: 612: 516: 491: 10355: 9545: 9011: 8837: 8267: 8175: 8078: 7909: 6694: 6400: 4458: 4269: 3759: 3609: 3400: 2271: 2257: 2024:

And passed at least one. The "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again" strategy has been constantly used by whichever side doesn't get the upper hand at any given time.

1918: 1900: 1090: 970:

On the wikigaming front I'll also note that this passed a deletion nomination less than two months ago. What has changed since then or is this just a second spin of the wheel?

10088: 9439: 9420: 6972: 6935: 6617: 6137: 3261: 9917: 9573: 9065: 9046: 9025: 8113: 8093: 7040: 7022: 6953: 6274: 5879: 4546: 3550: 3181: 2963:? Fails criteria 2 (no awards for either the site or its content), Fails criteria 3 (it's not carried independently by a respected medium) and , Fails the remaining criteria. 779: 9792: 8627: 8541: 8463: 8232: 8130: 7657: 7166: 5996: 3668: 3469: 3417: 3334: 3197: 2226:

wasn't there something on the talk page saying to wait at least a month before trying to AfD this? Keeping my opinions to myself until such a time that a valid AfD comes up.

10007: 9890: 9590: 9134: 8009: 6895: 3786: 3638: 3490: 9405: 3732: 3374: 10470: 10242:- While certainly not a liked article by many users on this site, it is the subject of secondary sources and passes our inclusion standards (with the exception of IAR). -- 9998:

and there are a good lot of people (not naming names, though a majority of them ARE deleters) that should just be ashamed of themselves for the immaturity displayed here.

8977: 7103:

If we don't act dramatic about it, then it won't be a drama magnet. Let's show that we can deal with trolling attempts in a measured, professional, de-escalatory manner. -

6871: 5713: 5561: 5511: 5506:

states nothing about how comprehensive these sources have to be. One fully devoted article and casual mention in several other non-trivial sources should be satisfactory.

5027: 4916: 4850: 4814: 4777: 4713: 4573: 4504: 3698: 3114: 1682:

as per nom, Collectonian and Sheffield Steel. Looking over the sourcing, only the Nine News source gives anything close to "substantial" coverage, and you need more under

1239:- Fully protecting an article going through AFD defeats part of the purpose of AFD - to allow improvements to the article to demonstrate why it should be kept. Unprotect. 3245: 2518:. This has ceased to be a discussion, and has devolved into people airing their dirty laundry, and wanking about how ED is the internet incarnation of Beelzebub. - DLB 10165: 9814: 3928:, but now when I look at WP:N, I find it doesn't give me room to say that. I think that guideline has been edited to leave that part out, but I can't find the edit, and 2967:

has shown that the media mentions are almost entirely trivial and/or peripheral. Beyond trivial mentions of them simply existing I cannot see that the required multiple

10032: 9873: 7000:

To the point, we should keep this article because it has meet the standards of notability (third-party resources) and it has been mentioned numerous times on the news.

6291:

for a keyword search on “Encyclopedia Dramatica” – a newspaper database that has over 20,000 sources of authoritative news, company, financial and market research data:

2940:

in making our judgement here? Who wrote that it is "exactly" what wikipedia needs? Who agreed to that? Anyone can edit those guidelines and they are not set in stone.

439: 400: 10266: 10233: 10186: 9775: 8685: 3443: 3430: 2895:

should not have been kept apply hear. A mention in the NEWS does not make a subject, person or thing notable. No doubt wikipedia will see this kept and the return of

2447:: notable, higher alexa rank than other websites that have wikipedia articles. dont let past problems between wikipedia and encyclopedia dramatica stand in the way of 2169:: I don't care to actually say "keep" nor "delete" right now. This nomination was very inappropriate, IMHO. Consensus for this article was just reached a day ago. - 10150: 9758: 5637:

function is as a wiki for the chans. They just happen to be amused by the drama-centered debates like this one that occur here, so that gets covered as well. It is

4841:

I should point out that most of the people !voting delete either are the subject of an article on ED or are affiliated with someone who does. This would be a serious

9788: 9021: 2793: 1103: 586:

The most recent DRV closed with recreation allowed, AFD optional. It hasn't actually been discussed on AFD in ages, only in DRV terms (i.e. ready for recreation). --

2242:

Regarding listing this on AFD, I don't see a clear consensus here that this needs to be done immediately, but nor is there a consensus that AFD should not be used.

2083: 1732:

Not quite notable enough yet. I said to allow relisting at DRV, and now it is. If it had another 1-2 sources like the MSN, I would say keep. Also, more AFDs are at

285: 10051: 9834: 9586: 7634: 7248: 6100: 6085: 5274:

significant coverage, and assessing each article on its merits is essential to judge whether this is achieved. And in this instance, I contend it certainly isn't.

1576: 1283:

the article is unprotected. How are editors to improve the article, use the ediprotected tag? This will surely slow things down for this timed debate. Regards,

9822:

We've also been on CNN twice. Once (fleetingly) on a Jews Did 9/11 special on Paula Zahn Now and once cited on their show 'It's News To Me' for our definition of

2806:

That the site "co-ordinates vandalism and attacks Wikipedians" is largely irrelevant. The sources seem sufficient to me. Also, AfD is not a battle of attrition.

2087: 297: 3103:

and Gawker articles are all non-trivial, at the very least. Please don't speedy close this AFD, allow the discussion to runs its course so nobody can complain.

1627: 2372: 314: 8532:

at this point. In order to be a neutral encyclopedia we cannot remove articles simply because they involve topics we don't like or are difficult to maintain.

4338:

Actually I would have thought we wantt o delete it because they have info about people we do like (most of it false) not about people we do not like. Thanks,

1835:

which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Content that

8694: 6652:

was created. Deleting this would be nonsense since it is going to exist at some point. It has a good start and with special attention, it will get better. --

3439: 3426: 3091:, namely criteria 1 ("The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"). The 2521: 524:- ED has a page "ED in the news" with many sources, that proves ED's notablility a little bit more. The site is banned to link, so copy + paste + add the dot 9810: 8949: 7961: 7780: 7718: 6524: 6449: 4244: 2790: 1929: 1634: 1195: 1151: 1039: 975: 948: 930: 825: 176: 9088:. In other words, based on the sources shown, it is possible to write an encyclopaedic article about this subject; that does not necessarily mean that we 7162: 6096: 6081: 2896: 2892: 2079: 1737: 795:

You just explained why the article should remain on Knowledge. It is certainly notable if it inspired this sort of response. This is not up for dispute.

305: 8894:

I'm talking about articles on AfD, which I've seen a lot of. All guidelines get interpreted, and they should get interpreted consistently whether it's

7852:

non-notable and therefore requiring an exception (outside of existing guideliens). Whereas I read it as anything that doesn't meet the criteria is of

6519:(related to MSN). That's not a good hit rate. Better to adjust the test to accurately measure the facts than to deny facts that don't fit the test. 5641:

a local phenomenon. Multiple trivial coverage plus two in-depth articles on the subject would lead to a snowball keep if this was any other subject.

3023:, but nuking articles in direct response to misconduct doesn't deny recognition -- it affords it, while simultaneously setting a very bad precedent. — 1950: 10684:

be able to write a NPOV article on it despite the ongoing drama. ED does clearly personally attack Wikipedians, but that's not a factor in deletion.

8638:- I made a typo writing that into the article (the link in the article has 6207602 in the end). its fully protected so I cannot directly rewrite it -- 8602:

Unless I'm missing something from the other sources that can't be viewed, none of these constitute notability. Compare with the similar (sorta) site,

5001:

oh wait you cant do that either... Seriously way to ruin any potential historical use of this site in 50 years. This is the shit that made me leave.

3210:

article has two sentences mentioning ED and meets the WP:N definition (in footnote 2) of "trivial coverage". You need better sourcing to meet WP:N or

2789:

It passes the criteria for notability, and I think it would be good to realize how the naysayers are basically putting bullseyes all over themselves.

415:. Nothing more than an advert for a site which co-ordinates vandalism and attacks Wikipedians and adds little if any encyclopedic value to wikipedia, 78:

Thirdly, the article was fully protected until 2 days ago, so not allowing any changes to the article could possibly have skewed the debate somewhat.

10104:

and the other major online newspaper databases did not pick up the MSNBC and CNN stories. In all three cases, the broadcasts are in no way about the

116: 10604:(London) considers Uncyclopedia to be among "The 101 most useful websites" on the internet. They don't think that about the Encyclopedia Dramatica. 8690: 8672: 7630: 3985:, essentially. "Presumed" also refers to rejecting topics that even meet the notability guidelines for articles, in fact, the word has an entry in 688:

The place has been covered quite a bit by international news, and I'm sure I can dig up some stuff right now that'll clarify importance even more.

139: 9691:(one of the tougher wiki-tenets) but it's difficult not to form the impression that the article is being held to a higher standard for reasons of 8747:

There is no conflict of interest. I'm not saying this should be deleted because I've got a page there, I'm saying that the sourcing here is poor.—

9806: 8945: 7957: 7776: 7714: 7001: 6520: 6445: 6124:. If the site disappeared tomorrow I would care less, but I honestly believe the repetitive coverage this website has received rises well above 5187: 5174: 4670: 4240: 3555: 3542: 1925: 1630: 1191: 1147: 1035: 971: 944: 926: 921:. Notable, rather notorious website. Reliable sources demonstrate notability - here's one that devotes an entire article to profiling the site. 9185:, the power of rules is conditioned on their success in guiding us to improve the project. When they don't do that, they aren't really binding. 6756: 8392:

yes? They say nothing about "If something is notable it will have hundreds if not thousands of articles about it in mainstream media sources".

7158: 1481:—Couldn't find online. One of four sources used to cite the assertion that ED has been described as "coarse, offensive and frequently obscene". 1415: 1393: 1370: 1347: 1318: 1302: 7594:"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. 5431:

censoring just because we don't like ED, then we're going to have to start censoring a lot of other things that editors do not like. Also see

2849:", so it doesn't really pass it, and the re-creation was premature. ED needs a bit more coverture before satisfying notability requirement. -- 2772:- Notable project and well sourced article about it. Fact that some people from English Knowledge hate ED is not valid reason for deletion. -- 1475:—Is Gawker.com a reliable source? In response to a reader query, this piece gives a brief into to four different websites, of which ED is one. 4738: 3831:

This is ridiculous, we are arguing like little children about triviality and non-triviality again and again... yes, there is for example the

1515:

Dibbel, Julian (18 January 2008). Mutilated Furries, Flying Phalluses: Put the Blame on Griefers, the Sociopaths of the Virtual World. Wired.

9092:

do so. Questions of who does / doesn't like the site, or want the article deleted, serve only to distract from the question of notability.

9071: 7497: 6115: 4415: 3078: 10142: 9383:. If someone else can indicate that the coverage by at least one of those sources would not pass WP:WEB criterion 1, the article should be 1301:. ED has been mentioned in a wide variety of news stories and meets notability guidelines, even if they are mean to people on the Internet. 9848:. It passes the core notability guideline. It's difficult for me to see the deletion-drama around this article as unrelated to... well... 1824:

and suggesting that such articles be kept regardless of those facts damages the credibility and future success of Knowledge. Unfortunatly

1505:— Trivial mention in an article about anti-Scientology protests; for perspective, www.whyaretheydead.net and www.xenu.net are also linked. 1011:

Your "blacklisted URL" argument only suggests that the URL should be removed from the blacklist, not that the article should be deleted.--

755:

The scope of the sources looks just fine to me. Not all of them are directly about ED, but there is enough here to indicate that it meets

63:

Secondly, there are many votes that simply conflict each other without any proof or evidence of what they are saying, e.g. "Does not pass

4758:

First Internet Backgammon Server has two book sources, which is two more than this article has. It's not a good example of your point. --

846:

Sorry, you're calling people who write for that site TERRORISTS? If you present a reasonable rationale for the removal of an article, ED

6220:

Indefinite protection might be a possibility, given the attention-attracting nature (and not always positive attention) of the subject.

3621:

for online sites. The content on the site aside, this would be a no brainer, and objectionable content does not equate to "no article."

1529:

After all that, I can't see a demonstration of notability. Only one source really writes about ED, and that piece really is very short.

9537: 8100:

Don't personally feel the sources stand up to scrutiny, but arguing the point isn't worth the trouble, from the looks of it. Disgusted

6828: 5436: 367: 362: 9113:. And with this, I issue a challenge: Without using any Knowledge policies to back you up, explain why the article should be deleted. 8561: 7157:. The subject is interesting, notable and sourced. Let's not be offended by criticisms. Such sites only increase the popularity of WP. 6467:, in contrast, limit themselves to newspapers, magazines, and registered blogs--the former two focusing entirely on our requirements. 5125:. Now, the first two would be worth debate if they were occurring on their own, but they are both only occurring in combination with 1369:

Fair enough, though you have highlighted one of the reasons I usually edit from IP only, and don't get involved in matters like this.

957:

Non-admins can nominate for deletion by placing the AFD notice on the talk page. That is considered sufficient given page protection.

10628:, so we can't really claim that this AfD is about censorship of things we don't like. It's about fundamental disagreements about the 10261:- Because you don't keep anything else that ED has, at least keep ED as it's an important resource for al things internet and funny. 10141:

ED most certainly is notable and the article has independent sources. Don't delete the article just because you don't like the site!

9578:

The feeling's mutual. I had to come over here once for an "All Your Base" gif since ED was getting DDoSd. I felt dirty afterwards. --

9311:

brief summary. Again, I could only check the sources with online links, but I was only able to see that ED was the subject of one...

7317: 6710:

stub, which has only ONE source link which is broken. If ED goes, then so should that stub and others like it. Fucking ridiculous.

5633:

I don't know why you people are so self-centered to think that criticizing Knowledge is the primary function of ED. It isn't. It's

4110:

the website, there are certainly a lot of other sources that discuss it somewhat, and I think that's quite sufficient. In any case,

371: 10067:

For many of the reasons that have already been stated. It is notable as an Internet Phenomenon, and has received news coverage: see

9856:

ians. Sorry, but it's notable and the article has no significant problems, let alone unfixable problems necessitating deletion. <

8552: 8159:. Also not voting keep for the "lulz" (I'm guessing that's a variation on LOLs...). Voting because the article is sourced and meets 5528:

Which, as any reader can see, it has. Multiple trivial mentions, a few more in-depth ones and a full feature is more than enough.

1620: 4118:

is the real policy, and there is certainly enough reliable material here to maintain an article, even if it would be a short one.

4024:

The fact that the article would bring drama should have no bearing on the discussion. Trivial mentions plus one non-trivial source

2469: 500: 8614:. As mentioned above by an IP, two articles are "dedicated" to the topic, and these two articles are less than 10 sentences long.— 8610:. I cannot understand how some people view the trivial mentions as reliable sources for the article, allowing the article to pass 4737:, the first revision of Encyclopedia Dramatica was 10 December 2004, and has been deleted several time including failing a recent 1626:) on theory that everything else is trivial so these must be too, and dismisses a two minute long story on a national news network 8973:. Notable website. All sources may not be exclusively dedicated to the topic but there's enough coverage to indicate notability. 354: 9964: 9555: 7641:

Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

4879:

redirect to point to Encyclopedia Dramatica?. Perhaps you should recuse yourself. Do you you perceive your biases as neutral?.--

1172:

1 (3). And you need not one but at least two sources that provide "non-trivial" amounts of coverage. WP:WEB demands coverage in

9800:. For such an apparently notable website, I was surprised by the lack of coverage from reliable sources - essentially, there's 7534:

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

1840: 665:

isn't policy, and doesn't preclude Knowledge's goal to be an embodiment of all human knowledge. We don't delete the article on

7398:, per, oh, everyone. Have we not had enough drama yet this week? Either way it rather clearly meets the notability threshold. 6047:. The current references are not enough to demonstrate notability; several are passing mentions or are from sources that fail 4317:. This is obviously all about wanting to delete a page because we don't like the people it's about. Well, guess what? We have 2841:

on the DRV I voted to relist because there was one source treating ED by itself. However, reading WP:WEB, I see that it says "

8790: 5216:

most Internet memes it covers. However net-savvy you are, ED is edgier, and it will perform 2 girls 1 cup on you to prove it.

2995: 2813: 8910:

on a daily basis should be applied to this AfD, even if one can apply exegesis to interpret the guidelines in another way.--

8432:

Gee, the evidence tells me I should vote keep, but I somehow just can't bring myself to do it. I'm off for a round of golf.

2472:? As it stands, the site is notable, even if the sources are trivial, the number of sources is enough to make it notable. -- 10262: 9909: 8681: 7611:(I'm editing this to add the following:) According to this, ignoring a "rule" is to be done only for this specific purpose. 6773: 5770:

of them. So your argument of how ED's "large focus" on Knowledge equating to "navel-gazing" is ignorant and utterly wrong.

3505: 3447: 3047: 2610: 2596: 2529: 2132: 2118: 1754: 9977:—by which I mean, function on logic and principles of consistency as opposed to functioning on bias and personal opinion. 8787:

Just because it is trolling doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. Plus, it is better sourced than some FAs... I'm an

4845:

and these people should recuse themselves from the discussion. In the least these people's comments should be discounted.

3767:

Most of the mentions given are not very specific to ED, mostly just concerning web culture with a trivial mention of ED.

1768:

Sweet fuck! I'd say keep! It brings the drama to the internets... The war between TOW and ED is still going on... TL:DR --

10545: 10486: 10417:

Sufficiently sourced, and appears to have non-trivial coverage in the so-called Real World - In my opinion, it satisfies

9784: 8986: 8450: 8319: 7127:

We have much worse articles for trolling; can we just salt the whole Middle East section of the encyclopedia? (Please?)--

1551: 1099: 898: 458: 8489:

It was, after one of last AfD, but you are certainly not going to be banned. In worst case, the page will be deleted. --

7928: 5309:

Various factors can be indicative in relation to that - and size and reasoning behind the article are two such factors.

3986: 1624: 10047: 9999: 9930: 9882: 9830: 9582: 9358: 9305: 8573: 8336:. Knowledge is not a web directory. This should go the way of GNAA. No notability whatsoever outside of Knowledge. 7817:

Presenting those arguments is not asking for an "exception" but rather just an alternate way to demonstrate notability.

7699: 7639:

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).

7244: 6719: 6104: 6089: 1572: 10100:: Thanks for posting these links. Possible copyright infringement issues aside, these three cases finally explain why 6985:

way, editors here are leaving Knowledge right now because of this senseless WikiDrama, so please close this case ASAP.

6149:

makes the answer obvious. This article will have very little benefit to our readers, but will cause a huge headache.

4608:

Concur: I'm for keeping this, but the DRV explicitly did not rule out an AfD. There's nothing pointy going on here. --

4553:

Not even remotely close to WP:POINT nor is it in the same universe as forum shopping, read the closing DRV comments.--

3425:: I mean, this IS an online encyclopedia, right? Not a private, "we-only-post-about-people-who-agree-with-us" site. -- 3175:. Insignificant website. Doesn't meet notability standards -passing mentions in tandem with Knowledge don't cut it. - 2388:

This article is relevant wiki content - I even knew about this popular site long before reading the said wiki article.

722:

guidelines, seems to have the potential to moreso. Well put-together and cited, what's all the up-in-arms about? —

9929:. Wow - a few minutes on Google was instructive. Surely you can't be hated by this many people and not be notable. 8433: 8353: 6206: 6161: 5121:

There seem to be only three types of argument against this article; noteworthiness, a perceived lack of sources, and

4893:

Uh... I don't get how that's a COI. He violated a guideline by having a consistent opinion on an editorial issue...?

4441: 2725:. This is a horrible website that I would love to see die in a sea of fire, but it passes our inclusion criteria. -- 1958: 185: 10173:

Is this the longest AfD evar? Also, I think it (and the history of ED's AFDs) is notable enough for its own article.

8828:; it's amazing how much detail the notability standards can require when we don't like the subject of the article.-- 7532:

You need more than just a bunch of sources to meet the notability standards for either guideline. Both require that

6902:(ec with Shii above, agreeing with every word - the only reason I'm posting is because I already typed all of this) 1098:

It's a good site. Just because some people do not agree with what is being said, doesn't mean it should be removed.

376: 6108: 5578:"Trivial" has more to do with the depth of coverage. The prestige of the author goes toward whether the source is 5199: 4701: 4130: 3567: 3451: 3278: 2618: 2533: 2140: 1962: 1397: 1330: 604:

Still fails notability test in my mind, mostly trival mentions, no direct coverage. Really a wiki-only phenomenon.

215: 8595: 174:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

10513: 9896:

Wasn't there a Fox News story on them a while back about blowing up vans? HAXXORS ON STEROIDS PWNS J00 WITH VANS

9498:

I understand your position, but I haven't seen anything to affirm it. Actually, articles that pass WP:N are only

7901:

very, very clearly non-trivial. Unless you can show me the focus of those articles is something other than ED. --

7584:

Notability guidelines are not absolutes. For instance, the phrase "presumed to be notable" is used at the top of

6968: 3274: 2560: 1836: 1346:

Is your personal dislike of the subject matter so great that you must now reduce your rebuttal to IDON'TKNOWYOU?

552: 17: 9387:. If no one can say what's in those sources, then that information is not verifiable, and the article should be 10706:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

7015: 6723: 6269: 5195: 3655:

source for the wealth of knowledge it will bring me about Encyclopedia Dramatica. The entire coverage from the

3563: 3033: 2672: 1155: 1043: 388: 121: 56:. There is general agreement however, that there is at least one reference that asserts notability, that being 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

10216:

LOL. Someone's doing one: encyclopediadramatica(dot)com/Wikipedia_Articles_for_deletion/Encyclopedia_Dramatica

9255:

The article seems pretty neutral in its coverage, does not have the tone of an advertisement, and is sourced.

1449:

Neva, Chonin. "Sex and the City", San Francisco Chronicle, Hearst Communications, 17 September 2006, pp. p.20.

10441: 9869: 7313: 6210: 6165: 5840: 3311: 3015:

to reasonable standard, and in a broader sense notability is fairly obvious (considering traffic statistics,

1326: 147: 9709:

Last time I checked, all sources but ninemsn were "trivial coverage", which doesn't assert notability.... --

9320:

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.

9307:

provide a only brief summary of the nature of the content. The others only mention the subject or provide a

6409:

Sorry but there are more mentions that that, as evinced in the references ssection of the article itself...

5209:

Various editors have made this claim. Here's the entire three sentences. Somehow I don't think this is what

9982: 9425:

Oh, I don't know. I think someone will put it up for DRV no matter what happens. I just have that feeling.

9124: 6566:

was the actual topic of the broadcast, let alone whether the program even existed. It conflicts a bit with

3782: 3631: 1826:

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

1668: 421:

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

155: 8032:

of the pros and cons, that it is not notable. Or don't you feel that I am entitled to my own opinion? --

7603:

according to the standard box at the top of the WP:N page. The words "occasional exception" are linked to

7289:

Yes, the site slams Knowledge mercilessly. That is no reason to pretend that it does not exist, however.

4911:

I missed that the page was a disamb page and Encyclopedia Dramatica was already listed there. My mistake.

9655:, but the article as it stands (and as it stood when it was nominated) is currently more well cited than 9187:

That might not be the question that Nwwaew meant, but I think it's one that's worth asking nonetheless. -

1461:

Dee, Jonathan (1 July 2007). All the News That's Fit to Print Out. Magazine p. 5, 34. The New York Times.

705: 358: 201: 7196:

so I don't see how we can claim to be a NEUTRAL encyclopaedia when this article keeps getting deleted.--

6382:

make no mention of the subject at all. The bottom-line is that there isn't really anything to work with.

5657:

I will note that if this is deleted, we can no doubt expect this fracas to start all over again at DRV.

3706:

per Sheffield Steel's excellent analysis above. The only reliable, non-trivial coverage based on my own

10608:

considers Uncyclopedia to be "the Onion of wiki sites." They don't mention the Encyclopedia Dramatica.

10381: 10351: 10306:

an encyclopedia, but for a force for good, evil, or lulz, ED is definately in the very least, notable.

9652: 9182: 8903: 8877: 7627:

Both sides have made the argument that Knowledge would be better off if their preference were followed.

7604: 6011: 2556: 1210:

As much as I dislike the subject, there was a clear consensus to recreate at DRV. There is sourcing.

7970:

Well, we're at a point where we disagree on what "trivial" is in this context. I'll leave it at that.

4696:

For frak's sake! This article was only just created and it's already at AfD?!? Several citations with

3127: 10707: 10403: 10084: 8796: 8028:

I don't know what you expect me to say in response to that, but yes, it is clear to me after reading

7294: 3851: 2991: 2810: 2376: 1629:

that describes a notorious incident on the site as trivial because "I wasn't watching TV that day".

384: 36: 7525:

defines what the notability standard is for articles about websites, giving alternative criteria to

5104:

inclusion guidelines by extensive coverage through multiple and reliable third party publications.

1485:

Mitchell, John. "Megabits and Pieces: The latest teen hangout", North Adams Transcript, 20 May 2006.

1473:

Douglas, Nick (18 January 2008). What The Hell Are 4chan, ED, Something Awful, And 'b'?. Gawker.com.

620:- Encyclopedia Dramatica is a notable website among internet users. The article is well sourced. If 10625: 9913: 9700: 9622: 9569: 9217: 9128: 8579: 8205: 8147: 8058: 8019: 7365: 7309: 6767: 5109: 5087: 5072: 5054: 4656: 4155: 3509: 3305: 3289:; "it attacks our editors" (not intentionally quoting anyone) is not a justification for deletion. 3051: 2614: 2600: 2525: 2136: 2122: 1748: 1288: 1068: 10587:

and its editors. Both promote misinformation and disinformation. The important difference is that

6961:. The subject had no claim for notability. The site itself was encouraging vandals for Knowledge. 10669: 10549: 10533: 10490: 9978: 8990: 8323: 7427: 7055: 6007: 5705: 1820:. per my nom. Sadly, those arguing for the value of material that is substandard, inadequate and 1800: 1555: 1223: 902: 462: 380: 6374:

offers two hits, both of which appear to be trivial mentions as well as likely false positives.

3726:

news article like it pops up, then I say give this subject an article but until then, delete. --

3122:. No, Neil, it's not the nature of the source organization that has to be non-trivial, it's the 10568: 10003: 9934: 9886: 9445: 8895: 8607: 8255:

for being non-trivial. And since two (2) is "multiple" - this article meets criteria #1 of the

7703: 6715: 6229: 4902: 4195: 3481:

is no reason to delete, especially when the exercise of free speech is what people don't like.

3189:

basically per Neil - Wired and Ninemsn in particular are most definitely significant coverage.

2001: 1002: 689: 350: 247: 122: 9002:

because it still hasn't made a page about me, despite my best attempts to be controversial --

7422:. Consensus was established at the DRV and another AFD nomination is just fanning the flames. 4872: 3744:. Not need for non trivial mentions in reliable printed sources. Unless more come up, delete. 2866:. Has more than trivial coverage in most of the sources, and is the subject of one of them. 1166:

a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

10576: 10571:

for the purpose of this AfD? Uncyclopedia.org is a classic example of WP notability, whereas

9995: 9954: 9714: 9692: 9155: 8437: 8412: 8375: 8357: 8341: 7862: 7801: 7543:

is one of the standards that sources have to meet. WP:WEB defines trivial coverage partly as

7510: 7353: 6992: 6534: 6202: 6185: 6157: 6146: 6019: 5982: 5933: 5709: 5557: 5507: 5126: 5122: 5023: 4963: 4912: 4846: 4810: 4773: 4709: 4681: 4569: 4500: 4435: 4425: 4178: 4009: 3971: 3915: 3527: 3478: 3383:

encyclopedic article. Stuff like when it was started, name changes, etc. using articles like

2867: 2854: 2710: 2649: 2468:

Why are we having this deletion discussion just a week after consensus was established here:

2393: 2213: 1954: 1619:

What's fallacious about the argument is that it labels as "trivial" a major newspaper article

10425:

to Knowledge based on opinions, either; otherwise we'd have to start deleting articles like

9641:

I say all of this as someone who has already express a preference for keeping the article. -

7914:

Paying attention to the guidelines means not calling a source "non-trivial" if it resembles

7213:

wikipedia editors and b) People associated with the site did not sometimes troll this wiki.

6648:, then we can have one about ED. I will also point out that this is definitely a reason why 4568:

Why bring it to AfD within days of re-creation if not to have everyone chasing thier tails?

3536:

DELETE : ED is a vehicle for criminal harassment and actual monetary extortion! see here:

2262:

I meant on the talk page. Seriously, kicking up a dirt storm won't help affairs at all. :(

1084:. Anything Knowledge-related tends to receive enhanced attention in Knowledge discussions. 82:

there. Just because they aren't immediately available to you doesn't mean they don't exist.

10637: 10482: 10466: 10399: 10331: 10272: 10125: 10080: 9905: 9221: 9205: 9171: 9007: 8915: 8866: 8833: 8793: 8677: 8315: 8296: 8290:

See my response. You're just arguing semantics now. The ninemsn article even has quotes. --

8265: 8173: 8076: 7971: 7907: 7758:

by the formal notability guidelines WP:N and WP:WEB (which has its problems) ED is notable,

7748:

mentioned ED once as the place where the prankster she was writing about happened to post;

7290: 7132: 6927:

In every previous discussion I've recommended we delete the article. This time I recommend

6796: 6741: 6690: 6635: 6575: 6542: 6500: 6434: 6396: 6388: 6077: 6060: 5914: 5818: 5760: 5618: 5470: 5380: 5341: 5301: 5266: 4597: 4487: 4456: 4377: 4357: 4063: 4035: 3887: 3802: 3770: 3757: 3602: 3501: 3396: 3068: 2987: 2807: 2743: 2592: 2537: 2456: 2157: 2114: 1143: 1031: 1017: 894: 881: 675: 646: 453:

I know for a fact that Wikipedians use ED to attack admins and users here they don't like.

408: 231: 205: 1791:

The "articles" on Phaedriel and Sceptre would tend not to support your characterization.

1467:

Davies, Shaun (8 May 2008). Critics point finger at satirical website. National Nine News.

1257: 8: 10689: 9696: 9656: 9618: 9565: 9147: 9093: 8223:

AfD about the article that is locked for all users except admins is not the best idea. --

8201: 8143: 8054: 8015: 8014:

So clear that the previous dozen people who have commented completely reject your view?

7378: 7361: 7340: 6965: 6761: 6657: 6613: 6133: 5456: 5163: 5105: 5083: 5068: 5050: 4975: 4938:

Gee, so if ED makes enough articles on editors, nobody gets to vote? That isn't what our

4652: 4151: 3367: 3270: 2975: 2964: 2690: 2579: 2500: 1891:

is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". This is not a valid rationale. --

1742: 1530: 1479:"2 Do: Monday, December 26", RedEye Edition, Chicago Tribune, 16 December 2005, pp. p. 2. 1284: 1266: 1126: 1064: 760: 565: 548: 190: 151: 9723:

I believe I address that issue in my opinion above, in section 3 (search for "02:17"). -

6841:

ED carries several hateful, defamatory, and inaccurate articles about Knowledge editors.

2891:

just too trivial with no real importance outside wikipedia itself. All the reasons that

628:

can have a page I don't see why Encyclopedia Dramatica should be left out of the group.

10656: 10529: 10368: 10247: 10162: 9827: 9664: 9579: 9166:. Everything else is just unhelpful noise for a closing admin, in my opinion. Regards, 9060: 9042: 8738: 8188: 8109: 8089: 7487: 7448: 7308:

The site clearly has many non-trivial mentions in the media, as well as major traffic.

7118: 7093: 7070: 7051: 7036: 7008: 6949: 6516: 6266: 5897: 5875: 5804: 5775: 5662: 5647: 5534: 5218:

That's all she wrote. Now tell me with a straight face that it's a significant amount.

5191: 5178: 4947: 4799: 4763: 4304: 4126:

less important than some would like, there just isn't a compelling case to delete it.

3835:

article - but you are immediately going to reply "HA! That's not non-trivial enough!"--

3559: 3546: 2944: 2929: 2903: 2881: 2829: 2668: 2320: 2288: 1793: 1216: 863: 633: 591: 454: 237: 158:

exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

143: 111: 3063:- Very well referenced article, and the notability does not appear to be in question. 3046:- Article is protected from editing, Deletion review is inappropriate at this time. -- 2574:—do you think it's disruption to oppose people who are trying to disrupt the website? 10437: 10028: 9864: 9532: 9485: 9453: 9355: 9302: 9290:

Please note that I could check only the sources with online links. This is the best:

9151: 9150:

point (above) that too much time was spent on expressing personal preferences (i.e.,

8930: 8885: 8814: 8771: 8754: 8717: 8660: 8635: 8621: 8537: 8510: 8397: 8281: 8248: 8228: 8164: 8126: 7980: 7946: 7881: 7834: 7824:

but the criteria aren't open to a whole lot of debate because you can only interpret

7765: 7695: 7685: 7676: 7668:

why should Knowledge make an exception to its notability guidelines for this article?

7653: 7516: 7386: 7268: 7180: 6809: 6711: 6538: 6413: 6253: 5950: 5891:

more than just Knowledge. Have a look at it before you start making such judgements.

5836: 5694: 5685: 5587: 5427: 5223: 5064: 5009: 4405: 4347:

That isn't even remotely a reason for deletion. They say stuff about people we like?

4326: 4212: 4191: 4048: 3994: 3956: 3938: 3900: 3859: 3822: 3664: 3579: 3413: 3352: 3219: 3193: 3139: 2777: 2435: 2357: 2189: 2174: 2099: 2057: 2029: 1997: 1996:

Per Corvus Cornix. It passed a DRV. There was consensus to recreate. It has sources.

1977: 1718: 1695: 1523:—This isn't actually a reference so much as a hint that one might exist. See also #1. 1419: 1374: 1351: 1322: 1306: 1244: 1180: 998: 487: 168: 9361: 9291: 8567: 8245: 7440: 3714: 1973: 1136: 922: 504: 57: 10311: 10229: 10207: 10182: 9950: 9771: 9710: 9120: 8480: 8408: 8371: 8337: 8037: 8005: 7858: 7797: 7519:

is an argument that the same essay recommends we don't use in deletion discussions.

7407: 6891: 6788: 6707: 6703: 6195: 6181: 6150: 5929: 5909:. ED can go talk about Knowledge, 4Chan, Furries or Republicans all they want. -- 5432: 5142: 5134: 4677: 4430: 4174: 4119: 4005: 3967: 3911: 3817:

very, very clearly require more than one non-trivial source. Wheres the other one?

3778: 3627: 3574:

An anonymous comment on Live Journal is hardly a good source to cite for anything.

3523: 3486: 3295: 2850: 2760: 2706: 2637: 2389: 2267: 2231: 2205: 1914: 1873: 1662: 808: 800: 625: 503:- there is a lot of secondary sources, last being the feature article in ninemsn - 90:

result for these is keep – it's up to the delete voters to prove it isn't notable.

60:

article. So we have proof that it is somewhat notable, if not in multiple sources.

10505:- References appear to assert notability. I see nothing wrong with this article. 8590: 7933:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail " 6194:

I doubt it will be comparable to having a live article that anyone can edit 24-7.

2824:

I believe the coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability.

10633: 10462: 10327: 10291: 10146: 10121: 9754: 9680: 9167: 9162:

and how it relates to the current list of potential sources in the pool of known

9003: 8941: 8911: 8862: 8829: 8291: 8260: 8168: 8139: 8071: 7902: 7377:

Sourced, lots of Google hits, well written article and although I hate to invoke

7360:

this article passes those criteria and quite frankly, that's all I'm looking at.

7197: 7128: 6838:

ED does not have a sufficient number of sources to guarantee an unbiased article.

6792: 6686: 6628: 6571: 6496: 6430: 6392: 6221: 6053: 6023: 5910: 5813: 5756: 5613: 5465: 5375: 5336: 5296: 5261: 4894: 4592: 4496: 4482: 4451: 4372: 4352: 4318: 4127: 4094: 4058: 4030: 3882: 3797: 3752: 3677: 3595: 3392: 3064: 2739: 2657: 2485: 2452: 2153: 2049: 1497:

Cassel, David (8 March 2007). John Edwards' Virtual Attackers Unmasked. AlterNet.

1012: 876: 670: 200:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

10563:: Since you raise the subject, may I mention the fundamental difference between 7031:

Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worth all the drama. Delete and be gone. --

4239:

Does "omgbbqdramaz" mean "keep", "delete", or does it just mean "omgbbqdramaz"?

2010:

No bias against an AFD at the DRV. Additionaly this has failed multiple AFD's.--

10685: 10506: 10377: 10347: 9724: 9668: 9642: 9602: 9416: 9269: 9213: 9188: 8852: 8799: 7617:

There are a large number of Wikipedians here who want to keep ED as an article.

7614:

Consensus from a large number of Wikipedians created the notability guidelines.

7596:

So "presumed" isn't a back door for getting out of the notability requirements.

7336: 7104: 7080: 6962: 6932: 6868: 6653: 6609: 6472: 6379: 6129: 6031: 5991: 5789: 5453: 5388: 5355: 5310: 5275: 5241: 5159: 4971: 4884: 4746: 4558: 4542: 4527: 4472: 4388: 4339: 4264: 3691: 3537: 3266: 3258: 3158: 3109: 3020: 2972: 2726: 2702: 2687: 2575: 2496: 2448: 2253: 2015: 1984: 1896: 1848: 1509:

Man Posed As a Woman to Elicit Personal Ad Responses. MSNBC. 12 September 2006.

1405: 1384: 1361: 1336: 1262: 1121: 1059: 741: 662: 479: 435: 416: 94: 8861:

And the inclusion criteria have rarely if ever been so strictly interpreted.--

8000:

per Noroton, Sheffield Steel and Collectonian. The subject is clearly NN. --

10652: 10418: 10363: 10286: 10243: 10159: 10109: 10076: 10072: 10068: 10043: 9688: 9541: 9477: 9225: 9209: 9055: 9038: 8907: 8734: 8730: 8705: 8611: 8529: 8389: 8256: 8252: 8241: 8184: 8160: 8105: 8085: 7522: 7513:

is an argument that an essay recommends we don't use in deletion discussions.

7483: 7444: 7357: 7272: 7264: 7193: 7114: 7089: 7066: 7032: 6945: 6649: 6604: 6258: 6249: 6125: 6044: 5972: 5966: 5892: 5871: 5799: 5771: 5658: 5642: 5601: 5529: 5503: 5478: 5440: 5101: 4967: 4943: 4939: 4868: 4842: 4795: 4759: 4348: 4295: 4227: 4170: 3982: 3948: 3929: 3874: 3814: 3748: 3741: 3618: 3300: 3243: 3234: 3211: 3177: 3088: 3024: 3016: 3012: 2960: 2941: 2924: 2916: 2900: 2876: 2870:

is not a valid argument in favor of deletion. NPOV must be restored, and we

2825: 2662: 2653: 2515: 2418: 2333: 2316: 2284: 2074: 2070: 2045: 1710: 1683: 1521:

Anonymous operation leads to pedophile conviction. Global Television Network.

1360:

No, as I have not commented either keep or delete in this AfD at this point.

1169: 1081: 994: 859: 756: 650: 629: 587: 412: 103: 72: 68: 64: 49: 8653:

Then that's three single-paragraph mentions of it. Doesn't change anything.—

8585: 6737: 6026:

issue), and hope that the closing administrator takes these into account. --

4988:

just because we hate something doesnt mean we delete it. Else we'd not have

2352:

Where, besides the MSN/Nine News article, is the second non-trivial source?

1709:

clearly requires at least two, the way that guideline is currently written.

1457:—Couldn't find online, but judging by what it's cited for, trivial as above. 10564: 10432: 10023: 9857: 9481: 9449: 9163: 8926: 8881: 8810: 8767: 8748: 8713: 8654: 8645: 8615: 8533: 8506: 8496: 8460: 8393: 8277: 8224: 8122: 7976: 7942: 7877: 7830: 7761: 7681: 7672: 7649: 7382: 7176: 6981: 6806: 6488: 6484: 6480: 6410: 6371: 6048: 5946: 5831: 5690: 5681: 5583: 5579: 5543: 5491: 5219: 5100:. The subject meets notability and verifiability standards as well as the 5002: 4697: 4646:. And as for, is it a subject of sufficient prominence? Has any Wikipedian 4643: 4609: 4450:

Note that it wasn't a week after the DRV closed. It was less than a day. --

4401: 4322: 4208: 4044: 3990: 3952: 3934: 3896: 3855: 3842: 3818: 3722: 3660: 3575: 3463: 3409: 3348: 3330: 3254: 3215: 3190: 3135: 2968: 2773: 2431: 2353: 2337: 2300:, in my own words at the DRV: passes the requirements, no more no less. –– 2185: 2170: 2095: 2053: 2025: 1861: 1821: 1714: 1691: 1596: 1503:

Anonymous Protests Outside Scientology Sites. Londonist (11 February 2009).

1469:—Not very long and certainly not indepth, but finally, an article about ED. 1240: 1176: 959: 835: 724: 658: 606: 575: 534: 513: 483: 265: 253: 221: 97:

on such issues. We cannot ignore subjects because they are critical of us.

9037:

While I do not like the site, it is very notable and has enough sources --

7754:

It's not obvious whether Norton is arguing for or against notability of ED

7609:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge, ignore it.

6533:

Thanks for the reply. Hmmm. Interesting issue. I'm really not part of the

4495:

Yes, and bringing it to AfD is close to forum shopping and a violation of

10629: 10621: 10588: 10307: 10225: 10203: 10178: 10113: 9767: 9660: 9473: 9159: 9115: 9085: 9081: 8709: 8476: 8385: 8366:

Two articles, or eight or whatever, constitutes a clear establishment of

8033: 8001: 7919: 7585: 7526: 7423: 7401: 7226:

to see a vocal minority get upset about articles like this, because they

6883: 6600: 6567: 6551: 6367: 5605: 5482: 5210: 5138: 5130: 5049:

I don't care so stop e-mailing me about it asking me to contribute here.

4638: 4115: 4111: 3925: 3870: 3810: 3774: 3707: 3622: 3482: 3384: 3203: 3149: 3120:

ninemsn, Wired and Gawker articles are all non-trivial, at the very least

3008: 2912: 2756: 2633: 2263: 2227: 1910: 1869: 1706: 1687: 1656: 1085: 804: 796: 719: 621: 53: 10120:

never registered these stories about the ED. They weren't about the ED.

3477:

The article is well-sourced and seems to meet all applicable standards.

2069:. The bias shown by some editors is horrifying. This site clearly meets 1517:—Trivial mention (two, to be fair) in an article about internet culture. 419:. Has a few links but they all seem to be trivial coverage or mentions. 10595: 10117: 10101: 9750: 9672: 9509: 9427: 9393: 8555:

reference mentions "Encyclopedia Dramatica" on one line and in passing.

8352:

Apart from the two articles that are devoted to it above, of course...

8251:. Yes they are not feature length, but both meet guidelines set out at 7462: 6555: 6460: 6314:

Because editors will likely ask, the three newspapers that mention the

6288: 5734: 4090: 3832: 3728: 3388: 3371: 2473: 1770: 1734:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

8240:. Now that a second inarguably non-trivial source has been found, any 7220:

Your time could be massively better spent focussing on something else.

3408:: clearly meets standards for notability. various coverage, sources. 499:. I repeat the same arguments I had in this discussion few days ago - 10584: 10580: 9684: 9412: 8974: 8848: 8472: 6865: 6682: 6429:

more sources generated by these search engines. There simply aren't.

6387:

Overall, I think that the subject (at this time) unfortunately fails

6027: 5986: 5785: 5723: 5571: 5521: 5394: 5361: 5316: 5281: 5247: 5037: 4926: 4880: 4860: 4824: 4787: 4742: 4723: 4583: 4554: 4538: 4523: 4514: 4468: 4259: 3683: 3153: 3104: 2249: 2011: 1980: 1892: 1844: 1401: 737: 666: 431: 10544:

Or delete unencyclopedia and about 1,000 other sites for god's sake

9687:. I do sincerely and unsarcastically thank you for reminding me to 7335:

the subject, just verifying its existence, which is unnecessary. --

6298:

Mentions anywhere: 3 newspapers, 2 newsletters, 15 registered blogs.

5426:. I'm sorry, but since when has NPOV been thrown out of the window? 5335:

feature length? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem reasonable. --

9676: 9220:

for the subject. I'll assume that if the article is compliant with

7648:

hat tip to User talk:12.32.217.24 post at 17:52, just below; added

6014:, which this article demonstrates and comply with. I would like to 5851:

I would've mentioned that one too, but I didn't want to offend any

4397:

Rebuttal to the "fully-protected so we can't add sources" argument:

3796:

per ninemsn article which is very, very clearly not non-trivial. --

3370:...the "sources" are not compelling enough to warrant an article.-- 3238: 2406: 2302: 9360:

do provide only brief summaries, etc. individually, together with

9054:

per Collectonian. Passing mentions are not encyclopedic sources.

4222: 3237:. Far more trouble than it is worth, for such a marginal article. 527:

encyclopediadramatica com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:ED_in_the_News --

474:. Has been mentioned in a wide variety of news outlets including 9823: 8899: 7822:

it's open to debate whether or not the article meets the criteria

7742:

hard pressed to call even 2-3 sentences about a subject "trivial"

7561:

sentences that describe this website. More than any other source.

6645: 6464: 6363: 4998: 3711: 3303:. Oh, and add the URL, you're violating some portion of the MoS. 3290: 1906: 1455:"Privacy", Warren's Washington Internet Daily, 12 September 2006. 10700:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

10598:

that write just about Uncyclopedia as the subject of the article

7599:

WP:N and WP:WEB are guidelines, not just rules, and they can be

3617:. The current status of this article is such that it satisfied 3461:

per SheffieldSteel's analysis of the lack of sources available.

1174:

multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent

132: 10289:, as demonstrated above. There isn't a whole lot more to say. 6827:

The arguments for deletion of this article as explained in the

4993: 4989: 4122:, folks: if the topic can be written about reliably, and it is 1256:

The notability argument keeps being thrown around, but look at

925:

understand Internet culture, this is a signifigant piece of it.

7575:

article has a total of 2 phrases in two sentences describe it.

6681:

for the traffic the drama brings to wikipidia.org, making our

5829:

me anywhere near admin tools tonight, give me a shout, OK?) --

4258:- Can we do this when the page isn't fully protected, please? 8603: 8475:

is an admin here afaik and his subpage on ED was baleeted. --

6512: 6468: 6375: 3751:

requires anything to be printed. Online sources work fine. --

2705:, passing judgment on what content is good and what is bad. - 1168:, meaning even this source doesn't meet the requirements of 654: 340:

Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (6th nomination)

335:

Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (5th nomination)

330:

Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (4th nomination)

325:

Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

320:

Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination)

291:

Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination)

10158:

per the sources. As analysed by Sheffieldsteel and Ryūlóng.

9599:

the full Lovecraftian name of which must not even be uttered

8053:

Alexa rank of 2,250 does not justify or connote notability.

7633:

tells closing administrators how to judge consensus (in the

6444:

notability on a search engine we could have a bot do that.

5706:

We're no strangers to love. You know the rules, and so do I.

5541:(to Neapolitan Sixth) No, it does exclude trivial mentions. 5374:

I guess we can chalk this one up to agreeing to disagree. --

1654:

per above. I also see no major demonstration of notability.

1451:—A trivial mention in a roundup of cyber-prank news stories. 194:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 6677: 4463:

And it was closed without bias of bringing to AFD. DRV is

3650:

So I read Neil's comment above (10:21, 15 May) calling the

2919:. Both specifically state non-trivial coverage in news is 2899:. I'm still think it and its ilk should be deleted though. 7460:*sigh* again, another AfD towards ED... I support ED... -- 5464:

The ninemsn article is clearly not a "passing mention". --

1571:

one as a 'troll' and cause trouble elsewhere on the wiki.

1499:—Trivial mention in an article about an e-terrorist group. 1491:

Hind, John. (5 June 2005). What's the word?. The Observer.

1119:

ED, rather than ones that simply refer to it's existence.

430:

which is clearly noted in multiple notability guidelines.

10018: 8640: 8549:: I reviewed the references (that can be viewed online). 8491: 8455: 8312:. I choose not to voice my opinion at this time. -Vezaz 6856:

if ED is notable and we can write a good article about it

6831:, which were ultimately deemed appropriate, went like so: 6559: 5207:

Gawker as a source of a "significant" amount of coverage:

4700:. Certainly much better coverage than the recently saved 3837: 3718: 830: 570: 529: 508: 150:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If 8568:

This is the only one that does not have trivial coverage

6338:

John Hind, “Observer Magazine: What's the word TL; DR,”

3877:

are guidelines, not policies, so technically they don't

4876: 3202:

They are "most definitely" not significant coverage as

1027:

A number of blacklisted sites have articles about them.

547:- can we GO three days without an ED debate? can we? -- 10594:

I count over 24 articles in mainstream newspapers via

7601:

treated with common sense and the occasional exception

7568:

has a total of 2 sentences that describe this website.

6759:

with 567 article edits... so at least he's not a SPA.

6325:

Jonathan Dee, “All the News That’s Fit to Print Out,”

4351:

said stuff about people I like. Can we delete him? --

3148:

I am aware of what "non-trivial" means in respect of

3019:

and so forth). I certainly concur with the spirit of

1080:

per Collectonian regarding the sourcing issue: fails

9228:, it adds value to the encyclopedia. So, here we go. 8471:: Am I going to get b& if I try and work on it? 7857:

comment on the actual content of those sentences. -

7215:

This deletion debate is clearly an abuse of process.

6644:

If we can have an article about Fred Bauder's wiki,

6495:

has not enjoyed that kind of coverage yet. Regards,

4984:

You fuckers got me out of retirement for this vote.

1860:: It exists. It is popular. It is moar popular than 1493:—A trivial mention in an article explaining "TL;DR". 826:

Knowledge:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

822:

defacing the Virgin Mary with excrement or something

820:

Being an atheist, I don't really care about someone

669:

because it gives unwanted attention to terrorists.--

7671:(((additional sentence as noted within the comment 4106:per the ninemsn article. Although that's only one 2721:It's unfortunate that I'm going to have to support 1829:The depth of coverage of the subject by the source 1738:

Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica

424:The depth of coverage of the subject by the source 8636:http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760 7696:http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760 7231:day out, on some of their targets on this website. 6558:provides television coverage for such channels as 6304:Major mentions: 2 articles, both registered blogs. 6248:The ninemsn article is one step toward satisfying 5678:Delete editors will just roll over and play dead. 3924:I used to argue just that, based on my reading of 2652:is NOT a reason to delete. Its sourced and passes 1978:http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=620760 1690:. Provide more sourcing, change my !vote/opinion. 8104:and watch it fester. For the "lulz," apparently. 7929:Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline 6541:discussion at all. I'm also not persuaded by the 6006:- Notability and Web are only interpretations of 3987:Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline 3710:and Google News archive searches was last week's 3676:- Per nom, and also this page has caused alot of 3293:is of the biggest news sources in Australia, and 3152:. I consider three sentences to be non-trivial. 2405:, I think this is already notable enough by far. 1974:http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 1511:—I wasn't watching TV that day, but see #1 above. 1463:—A trivial mention in an article about Knowledge. 1137:http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=459249 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 10710:). No further edits should be made to this page. 7936:mean, we can all agree, can't we, that the word 7631:Knowledge:Deletion guidelines for administrators 3541:and gross invasions of privacy, defamation, etc. 2661: 9379:pass WP:WEB criterion 1, the article should be 6475:limit themselves to academic journal articles, 1058:. Thoroughly cited; it would be a violation of 824:. Besices, your arguments are like copied from 9651:We are on the same side, and not to bring up, 9293:gives enough information that I would call it 7557:The MSN Nine Network source has a total of 15 4467:AFD, assuming they are the same is incorrect-- 10427:(Insert blatant unfurling if the Godwin Flag) 6307:3 or more major mentions: 2 registered blogs. 4671:list of Websites-related deletion discussions 2514:is painting yourself as prejudiced. ED meets 298:Articles for deletion/Encyclopaedia Dramatica 214:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 184:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 146:while commenting or presenting evidence, and 9502:notable while articles that pass WP:WEB are 7916:a brief summary of the nature of the content 7545:a brief summary of the nature of the content 3717:. ninemsn is an Australian joint venture of 3538:http://girlvinyl.livejournal.com/461933.html 1414:Also, I don't recycle and I love foie gras. 315:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica 286:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica 10375:Clearly this AfD is serious business. shas/ 7646:The News Review source has 5 sentences. ((( 7439:The sourcing is better but not impressive. 6128:standards, which aren't low by any means. 5612:and therefore do not "require" anything. -- 3206:clearly defines significant coverage. That 2843:The content itself has been the subject of 8809:Er, better sourced than some FAs? Really? 7694:You forgot about this non-trivial article 3025: 188:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 10077:http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=DSDBBNXH5CY 10073:http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=Rubm-ttR-Lw 10069:http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=4y6LqhrdAxg 9164:independent, reliable third-party sources 7504:Comment: Just a reminder about some facts 6980:Seriously, the nomination itself and the 5798:That category could use some expansion. 3253:. Notable, NPOV and multiple coverage by 306:Votes for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica 10071:. Screenshots of the website used here: 9472:WODUP, If you think this article passes 7624:to overturn WP:WEB or WP:N in this case. 5964:worthless article on worthless website. 4669:: This debate has been included in the 3007:- The sourcing is quite decent, meeting 2470:Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_8 1445:Here are the sources from the article:- 501:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 8 208:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 9363:and the minor sources, I think that ED 8906:to say that the same rules that govern 8586:Passing mention, blog, trivial coverage 8564:mentions it on one line and in passing. 7536:(quote from WP:WEB; WP:N says the same) 3347:what we need, to keep the drama going. 14: 9281:WP:WEB (must meet only one criterion) 8142:, it's a notable site at this point. 6370:. All trivial mentions, as the above. 5870:Torontonians reading this discussion. 4708:. Give the article some time to grow. 2572:actually intend to disrupt the project 10680:. It appears notable enough, and we 10198:feeding the trolls by denying them a 7554:non-trivial sources is a requirement. 7237:from your computer and go for a walk. 3233:. As stated a few times above, fails 2971:have written primarily about them. - 2911:You may want to have another look at 2248:AFD, assuming they are is incorrect-- 9346:WP:N's General notability guideline 7550:In the italicized quote just above, 7539:In the italicized quote just above, 5067:on this AfD. Care to rat them out? — 4289:, but it does. The article seems OK 2152:. Passes all wikipedia guidelines. 1392:Either way, This !vote was added by 645:- Please explain how the site fails 163: 127: 9114: 8451:User:Running/Encyclopedia Dramatica 7620:There has been no consensus formed 6864:effect on a controversial subject. 6755:To be fair, he's been around since 6459:absolutely no editorial oversight. 4966:. Clearly a notable web site, per 2959:- how on earth does this site pass 457:(a TOW cockpuppet stole my nick).-- 23: 7578:Gawker article: 3 sentences on it. 2536:outside this topic. The preceding 1884:Alexa is not an Inclusion criteria 24: 10722: 8591:Passing mention, trivial coverage 8084:vastly lower Alexa rankings... -- 7918:. We also have, in Footnote 2 of 6362:I cross-checked the results with 6351:Neva Chonin, “Sex and the City,” 5213:means by a "significant" amount: 5063:. What a surprise, violations of 5022:to come back would be pointless. 4145:. I think the gawker one is also 3128:WP:N#General notability guideline 3099:, but you need to pay), ninemsn, 2656:. This nom skirts quite close to 10202:legitimate page, we shall see. — 7547:(Criteria section, third bullet) 7222:Secondly, the trolls absolutely 7065:an inappropriate WP article. -- 6329:, 1 July 2007, Section 6, p. 34. 6022:S present (as well as the minor 5722:struck through by administrator 5570:struck through by administrator 5520:struck through by administrator 5477:True, but it's only one source. 5036:struck through by administrator 4925:struck through by administrator 4859:struck through by administrator 4823:struck through by administrator 4786:struck through by administrator 4722:struck through by administrator 4702:First Internet Backgammon Server 4582:struck through by administrator 4513:struck through by administrator 4221: 3126:that has to be non-trivial. See 1774: 564:- i guess that's what they call 167: 131: 9852:on the part of targeted Wikiped 8580:They're using ED as a reference 7750:What makes a publisher notable? 6543:other stuff exists on Knowledge 5784:Category "Faggotry" has 560. -- 3299:is big on teh interwebs. Meets 2923:what makes a subject notable. 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 9252:...is, um, not advertising... 8558:The next one gives a 404 error 6391:for a Knowledge entry. Sorry, 5330:Encylopedia Dramatica was the 4114:is a guideline, not policy -- 2474: 1400:in the past year and a half.-- 13: 1: 10292:Luc "Somethingorother" French 9080:Trivial mentions may satisfy 8596:Two mentions, both in passing 7679:) 16:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)))) 6805:and deleted accordingly too. 6738:numerous useful contributions 5688:) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)))) 4997:coverage of the president of 3727: 2913:general notability guidelines 2240:Closing comment on the DRV. " 204:on the part of others and to 9511: 9429: 9395: 9084:but they do not demonstrate 8755: 8661: 8622: 7200: 6550:itself. That conflicts with 6301:In the headline: no articles 6018:also on the large number of 5674:But if it survives, all the 4431: 3328:- come back in a few weeks. 2936:We have to agree with these 1792: 1279:without prejudice to relist 1215: 1139:That's not just in passing. 148:do not make personal attacks 7: 8574:Nearly non-trivial coverage 8244:argument is rendered moot. 6353:The San Francisco Chronicle 6287:These are the results from 5392: 5359: 5314: 5279: 5245: 4942:policy is about, anyway. -- 3850:No, I'd say Gawker isn't a 3619:the notability requirements 2847:non-trivial published works 10: 10727: 10668:per Alkivar and others. — 10624:mentioned Uncyclopedia on 9992:Close, keep and get a life 8688:) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8634:Second should be probably 7605:Knowledge:Ignore All Rules 6477:the most preferred sources 4481:I didn't say they were. -- 2002:(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 9507:were taken individually. 9279: 9266:...denies recognition... 9072:arbitrary section break 5 7581:No other source has more. 7498:arbitrary section break 4 7194:high schools and highways 6116:arbitrary section break 3 4446:17:04, May 15, 2008 (UTC) 4416:arbitrary section break 2 4291:-ish, but does need to go 4275:Neutral, leaning towards 3214:notability requirements. 3079:arbitrary section break 1 2917:WEB notability guidelines 2075:Knowledge is not censored 10703:Please do not modify it. 10693:20:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10673:19:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10661:19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10642:20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10554:19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10537:16:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10521:14:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10495:19:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10471:11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10446:09:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10408:08:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10386:08:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10371:08:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10356:08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10336:07:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10316:02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10296:01:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 10277:23:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10252:21:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10234:21:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10212:21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10187:21:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10166:20:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10151:18:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10130:15:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10089:14:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10056:14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10033:12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 10008:08:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9987:06:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9959:10:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 9939:05:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9918:21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9891:04:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9874:02:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9839:00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9815:00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9793:00:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9776:23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9759:22:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9728:21:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9719:21:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9705:00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9646:23:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9627:23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9606:22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9591:00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 9574:22:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9546:22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9522:20:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9490:20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9458:20:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9440:19:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9421:19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9406:19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9192:18:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9176:18:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9135:18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9106:17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9066:14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9047:13:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9030:10:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 9012:07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8995:03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8978:01:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8954:06:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 8935:02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 8920:22:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 8890:21:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 8871:14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 8857:00:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8838:00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8819:12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8805:00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8776:12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8761:06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8743:03:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8722:12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8699:03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8667:00:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8649:00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8628:00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8542:23:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8515:00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8500:23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8485:23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8464:23:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8442:23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8417:13:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 8402:12:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8380:10:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 8362:23:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8346:22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8328:20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8299:21:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8286:20:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8268:19:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8233:19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8210:20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8193:20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8176:19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8152:19:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8131:19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8114:18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8094:23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8079:18:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8063:18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8042:19:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8024:17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 8010:17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7985:00:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 7966:23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7951:22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7910:20:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7886:22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7867:21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7839:21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7806:20:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7785:20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7770:20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7723:18:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7708:17:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7690:16:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7658:20:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7492:19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7475:15:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7453:14:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7432:14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7415:14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7391:13:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7370:13:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7345:10:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7322:09:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7299:09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7280:08:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7253:07:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7203:06:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7185:06:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7167:04:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7137:17:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 7123:13:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 7108:16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7098:13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7084:07:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7075:06:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7060:04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7041:04:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 7023:03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6973:02:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6954:02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6936:02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6896:01:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6872:01:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6814:00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6801:00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6780:00:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6747:23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6728:23:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6695:23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6662:00:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6640:23:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6618:22:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6580:10:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6529:07:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6505:07:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6454:01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6439:23:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6418:23:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6401:22:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6275:22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6233:02:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 6216:23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6190:22:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6171:22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6138:22:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6065:22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 6036:22:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5997:10:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 5978:21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5955:21:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5938:21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5919:02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 5900:21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5880:21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5845:19:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 5821:21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5807:21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5794:21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5780:21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5765:20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5748:20:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5718:20:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5699:22:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5667:20:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5650:19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5621:19:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5592:21:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5566:20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5550:19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5537:19:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5516:19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5498:19:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5473:19:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5460:19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5445:19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5403:20:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5383:20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5370:20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5344:19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5325:19:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5304:19:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5290:19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5269:19:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5256:19:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5228:18:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5183:18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5168:18:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5147:18:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5114:18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5077:18:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5032:18:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 5016:18:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4980:18:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4951:19:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4921:19:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4906:19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4889:19:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4855:18:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4819:23:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4803:22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4782:19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4767:19:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4751:19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4718:17:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4686:17:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4661:17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4620:19:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4600:19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4578:19:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4563:19:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4547:06:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 4532:06:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 4509:18:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4490:17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4477:17:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4459:17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4410:16:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4392:16:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4380:16:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4360:17:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4343:17:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4331:16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4310:16:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4270:16:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4249:18:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4233:16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4217:15:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4200:15:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4183:15:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4160:17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4138:15:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4099:15:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4066:18:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4053:18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4038:17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 4014:18:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3999:18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3976:17:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3961:17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3943:17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3920:16:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3905:16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3890:15:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3864:16:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3846:15:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3827:15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3805:15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3787:15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3760:15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3733:15:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3699:14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3669:14:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3639:14:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3610:13:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3584:15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3551:14:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3532:13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3514:13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3491:13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3470:13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3435:12:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3418:12:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3401:12:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3375:12:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3357:11:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3335:11:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3321:11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3262:11:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3246:11:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3224:15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3198:11:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3182:10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3164:15:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 3144:14:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3115:10:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3073:22:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 3056:10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3039:09:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 3000:09:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2979:08:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2948:15:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 2932:08:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2907:08:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2884:08:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2859:07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2834:07:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2817:06:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2799:06:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2782:06:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2765:06:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2748:06:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2730:06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2715:16:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2696:06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2678:06:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2642:05:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2605:05:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2584:05:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2565:05:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2542:05:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2505:05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2488:05:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2461:05:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2440:05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2422:05:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2398:05:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2381:04:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2362:05:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2348:03:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2325:03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2307:03:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2293:03:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2272:05:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2258:03:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2236:03:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2219:03:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2194:03:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2179:03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2162:03:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2127:06:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2104:03:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2062:03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2034:03:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2020:02:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 2006:02:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1989:02:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1934:07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1919:03:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1901:02:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1878:02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1853:02:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1809:17:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1783:02:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1761:02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1723:02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1700:02:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1675:02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1639:07:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1603:13:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1581:06:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1560:10:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1543:02:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1424:03:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1410:03:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1388:02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1379:02:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1365:02:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1356:02:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1340:02:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1311:02:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1293:02:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1271:02:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1249:02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1232:02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1200:02:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1185:02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1131:01:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1108:16:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1091:01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1073:01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1023:01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 1007:01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 980:02:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 966:01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 953:01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 935:01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 907:04:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 868:01:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 839:01:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 813:06:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 788:01:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 770:01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 746:03:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 732:01:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 711:01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 681:01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 638:01:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 613:01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 595:08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 579:01:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 557:01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 538:21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 517:01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 492:01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 467:21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 440:01:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 117:21:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 10579:. Both are parodies of 9446:WP:DGFA#Rough consensus 7507:the following in mind: 6969:about his contributions 6736:Yes, thankyou for your 6511:are national in scope: 780:The Voice Of Your Heart 246:; accounts blocked for 216:single-purpose accounts 186:policies and guidelines 10626:The Charlies Rose Show 10573:Encyclopedia Dramatica 10569:Encyclopedia Dramatica 10106:Encyclopedia Dramatica 9338:ED is self-published. 8896:Encyclopedia Dramatica 8608:Encyclopedia Dramatica 7566:North Adams Transcript 7458:Fucking Strong keep... 6564:Encyclopedia Dramatica 6493:Encyclopedia Dramatica 6316:Encyclopedia Dramatica 5349:specifically suggests 4704:. Please apply policy 3657:North Adams Transcript 3652:North Adams Transcript 3646:North Adams Transcript 3522:per Neil and others.-- 3132:North Adams Transcript 3093:North Adams Transcript 2090:(no consensus, keep), 1972:per nontrivial source 351:Encyclopedia Dramatica 281:AfDs for this article: 123:Encyclopedia Dramatica 10630:notability guidelines 9334:personal blogs, etc.) 9324:Not that I've heard. 9212:, is in violation of 9160:notability guidelines 7746:Nina Chonin's article 7637:section). It states: 6548:Encylopedia Dramatica 6147:cost-benefit analysis 6109:few or no other edits 5200:few or no other edits 3568:few or no other edits 3452:few or no other edits 3279:few or no other edits 2619:few or no other edits 2557:Nobody of Consequence 2540:comment was added at 2534:few or no other edits 2141:few or no other edits 1963:few or no other edits 1623:of an incident on ED 1331:few or no other edits 1046:) 21:00, May 14, 2008 718:. Tentatively meets 95:neutral point of view 10602:The Sunday Telegraph 9216:, and that it is an 8249:Non-trivial Source 2 8246:Non-trivial Source 1 7592:is defined by WP:N: 6791:tagged accordingly. 6342:, 5 June 2005, p. 7. 6111:outside this topic. 6092:) 22:25, 15 May 2008 5887:Yeah, no. ED covers 5726:blocked sock account 5574:blocked sock account 5524:blocked sock account 5202:outside this topic. 5040:blocked sock account 4970:and cited sources. 4929:blocked sock account 4863:blocked sock account 4827:blocked sock account 4790:blocked sock account 4726:blocked sock account 4586:blocked sock account 4517:blocked sock account 3570:outside this topic. 3454:outside this topic. 3281:outside this topic. 2795:Come in for a drink! 2621:outside this topic. 2332:as it seems to pass 2143:outside this topic. 1965:outside this topic. 1333:outside this topic. 1135:What about this one? 10583:. Both poke fun at 10530:Jason Harvestdancer 9965:arbitrary section 7 9657:The Huffington Post 9653:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 9556:Arbitrary section 6 8904:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 8878:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 6012:WP:Reliable sources 5387:Agreed on that :-) 4089:per SHEFFIELDSTEEL 4043:ultimate decision. 3368:User:SheffieldSteel 3306:dihydrogen monoxide 2965:User:SheffieldSteel 1905:So you would deny 1713:requires the same. 1212:Extremely weak keep 198:by counting votes. 177:not a majority vote 10345:LOL INTERNET shas/ 9979:SumeragiNoOnmyouji 9665:Consumerist (blog) 9249:WP:NOTADVERTISING 9022:AnonymousUser12345 8842:Well, notability 8582:; trivial coverage 7473: 6966:is welcome to talk 6517:National Nine News 6327:The New York Times 4962:. This smacks of 3852:WP:Reliable Source 3124:amount of coverage 2283:per AuburnPilot. 1781: 653:. It has a higher 476:The New York Times 44:The result was 10497: 10485:comment added by 10279: 9920: 9908:comment added by 9689:assume good faith 9544: 9375: 9374: 9132: 9102: 9098: 9064: 8689: 8680:comment added by 8384:Um you have read 8330: 8318:comment added by 8191: 8112: 7461: 7413: 7183: 6811: 6638: 6415: 6273: 6214: 6169: 6112: 6093: 6080:comment added by 6063: 5976: 5953: 5727: 5590: 5575: 5525: 5443: 5401: 5368: 5323: 5288: 5254: 5203: 5041: 4930: 4864: 4828: 4791: 4727: 4688: 4674: 4644:original research 4587: 4518: 4447: 4307: 4097: 3789: 3773:comment added by 3697: 3636: 3634:So let it be done 3629: 3571: 3516: 3504:comment added by 3455: 3319: 3282: 3195: 2897:Corey Worthington 2893:Corey Worthington 2693: 2622: 2607: 2595:comment added by 2545: 2451:. its notable. - 2216: 2204:Let's move on. - 2144: 2129: 2117:comment added by 2092:fourth nomination 2084:second nomination 2004: 1966: 1769: 1766:Permanent Keep... 1673: 1539: 1535: 1383:Ah...struck out. 1342: 1334: 1160: 1146:comment added by 1048: 1034:comment added by 909: 897:comment added by 767: 451:</sarcasm: --> 279: 278: 275: 202:assume good faith 162: 161: 10718: 10705: 10606:The Seattle Post 10518: 10511: 10480: 10270: 10026: 10021: 9903: 9540: 9520: 9517: 9515: 9438: 9435: 9433: 9404: 9401: 9399: 9232: 9231: 9183:Ignore all rules 9148:SheffieldSteel's 9133: 9118: 9103: 9100: 9096: 9058: 8757: 8751: 8675: 8663: 8657: 8624: 8618: 8570:, but it's short 8313: 8187: 8108: 7760:-- see Fact 18. 7666:Given all this, 7471: 7468: 7465: 7410: 7404: 7399: 7277: 7201: 7179: 7020: 7013: 7006: 6914:reliable sources 6886: 6810: 6789:Burford Bulldogs 6778: 6776: 6770: 6764: 6708:Burford Bulldogs 6704:Burford Bulldogs 6634: 6631: 6597:Sweet Jesus Keep 6414: 6264: 6261: 6231: 6227: 6224: 6200: 6155: 6094: 6075: 6059: 6056: 6008:WP:Verifiability 5970: 5949: 5721: 5710:Neapolitan Sixth 5586: 5569: 5558:Neapolitan Sixth 5519: 5508:Neapolitan Sixth 5439: 5400: 5397: 5391: 5367: 5364: 5358: 5322: 5319: 5313: 5287: 5284: 5278: 5253: 5250: 5244: 5185: 5035: 5024:Neapolitan Sixth 5014: 5007: 4924: 4913:Neapolitan Sixth 4904: 4900: 4897: 4858: 4847:Neapolitan Sixth 4822: 4811:Neapolitan Sixth 4785: 4774:Neapolitan Sixth 4721: 4710:Neapolitan Sixth 4675: 4665: 4639:fully verifiable 4617: 4614: 4581: 4570:Neapolitan Sixth 4512: 4501:Neapolitan Sixth 4433: 4429: 4308: 4303: 4267: 4262: 4230: 4226:omgbbqdramaz -- 4225: 4135: 4093: 3768: 3731: 3694: 3689: 3686: 3632: 3628: 3606: 3599: 3553: 3499: 3437: 3309: 3264: 3241: 3194: 3180: 3029: 2969:reliable sources 2691: 2676: 2665: 2608: 2590: 2519: 2483: 2480: 2415: 2412: 2409: 2345: 2342: 2214: 2211: 2208: 2130: 2112: 2088:third nomination 2080:First nomination 2052:disruption... -- 2000: 1948: 1807: 1803: 1796: 1779: 1776: 1773: 1759: 1757: 1751: 1745: 1671: 1665: 1659: 1655: 1540: 1537: 1533: 1396:, Who has made 1335: 1316: 1230: 1226: 1219: 1159: 1140: 1129: 1088: 1047: 1028: 1020: 1015: 962: 892: 884: 879: 850:take it down. I 765: 763: 762:Ten Pound Hammer 727: 703: 686:Sweet Jesus Keep 678: 673: 626:Urban Dictionary 609: 446:<sarcasm: --> 398: 392: 374: 273: 261: 245: 229: 210: 180:, but instead a 171: 164: 154:is not reached, 135: 134: 128: 106: 34: 10726: 10725: 10721: 10720: 10719: 10717: 10716: 10715: 10714: 10708:deletion review 10701: 10514: 10507: 10400:Horst.Burkhardt 10384: 10354: 10294: 10081:Cat Constantine 10022: 10017: 9967: 9681:Go Fug Yourself 9558: 9513: 9508: 9431: 9426: 9397: 9392: 9094: 9074: 8749: 8655: 8641:Have a nice day 8616: 8492:Have a nice day 8456:Have a nice day 7752:-- see Fact 3; 7744:-- see Fact 5; 7635:Rough consensus 7500: 7469: 7466: 7463: 7408: 7402: 7291:PrinceoftheDawn 7273: 7016: 7009: 7002: 6884: 6774: 6768: 6762: 6760: 6629: 6259: 6225: 6222: 6118: 6054: 5395: 5362: 5317: 5282: 5248: 5012: 5003: 4898: 4895: 4739:Deletion review 4615: 4610: 4418: 4319:Osama bin Laden 4293: 4265: 4260: 4228: 4173:from working. — 4131: 3838:Have a nice day 3692: 3684: 3635: 3604: 3597: 3391:as a template. 3326:Procedural keep 3315: 3239: 3176: 3081: 3036: 2988:JeremyMcCracken 2796: 2663: 2478: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2343: 2338: 2224:Procedural Keep 2209: 2206: 1837:does not belong 1806: 1801: 1794: 1777: 1771: 1755: 1749: 1743: 1741: 1669: 1663: 1657: 1531: 1229: 1224: 1217: 1141: 1120: 1086: 1029: 1018: 1013: 960: 882: 877: 831:Have a nice day 761: 725: 708: 707:Call me MoP! :) 690: 676: 671: 607: 571:Have a nice day 530:Have a nice day 509:Have a nice day 394: 365: 349: 346: 344: 308: 263: 251: 235: 219: 206:sign your posts 156:other solutions 126: 104: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10724: 10713: 10712: 10696: 10695: 10675: 10663: 10645: 10644: 10614:The Advertiser 10577:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 10557: 10556: 10539: 10523: 10500: 10499: 10498: 10458: 10457: 10449: 10448: 10411: 10410: 10391: 10390: 10389: 10388: 10376: 10359: 10358: 10346: 10339: 10338: 10319: 10318: 10299: 10298: 10290: 10280: 10263:76.245.104.229 10255: 10254: 10222: 10221: 10220: 10219: 10218: 10217: 10175: 10174: 10168: 10153: 10135: 10134: 10133: 10132: 10092: 10091: 10061: 10060: 10059: 10058: 10036: 10035: 10010: 9996:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 9989: 9966: 9963: 9962: 9961: 9943: 9942: 9941: 9910:212.139.122.11 9894: 9893: 9876: 9843: 9842: 9841: 9795: 9778: 9761: 9743: 9742: 9741: 9740: 9739: 9738: 9737: 9736: 9735: 9734: 9733: 9732: 9731: 9730: 9693:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 9669:Lifehacker.com 9611: 9610: 9609: 9608: 9576: 9557: 9554: 9553: 9552: 9551: 9550: 9549: 9548: 9525: 9524: 9493: 9492: 9467: 9466: 9465: 9464: 9463: 9462: 9461: 9460: 9373: 9372: 9369: 9352: 9347: 9343: 9342: 9339: 9336: 9329: 9328: 9325: 9322: 9316: 9315: 9312: 9288: 9283: 9277: 9276: 9273: 9267: 9264: 9260: 9259: 9256: 9253: 9250: 9246: 9245: 9242: 9239: 9236: 9230: 9229: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9196: 9195: 9156:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 9138: 9137: 9108: 9073: 9070: 9069: 9068: 9049: 9032: 9014: 8997: 8980: 8968: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8964: 8963: 8962: 8961: 8960: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8956: 8823: 8822: 8821: 8782: 8781: 8780: 8779: 8778: 8763: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8724: 8682:71.231.141.187 8669: 8631: 8630: 8599: 8598: 8593: 8588: 8583: 8577: 8571: 8565: 8559: 8556: 8544: 8523: 8522: 8521: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8517: 8444: 8426: 8425: 8424: 8423: 8422: 8421: 8420: 8419: 8349: 8348: 8331: 8310:Strong Abstain 8306: 8305: 8304: 8303: 8302: 8301: 8271: 8270: 8259:guideline. -- 8235: 8217: 8216: 8215: 8214: 8213: 8212: 8202:Wildthing61476 8196: 8195: 8154: 8144:Wildthing61476 8133: 8117: 8116: 8097: 8096: 8081: 8066: 8065: 8055:Carlossuarez46 8048: 8047: 8046: 8045: 8044: 8016:Coccyx Bloccyx 7994: 7993: 7992: 7991: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7987: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7889: 7888: 7870: 7869: 7842: 7841: 7809: 7808: 7792: 7791: 7790: 7789: 7788: 7787: 7732: 7731: 7730: 7729: 7728: 7727: 7726: 7725: 7663: 7662: 7644: 7628: 7625: 7618: 7615: 7612: 7607:which states: 7597: 7582: 7579: 7576: 7569: 7562: 7555: 7548: 7537: 7530: 7520: 7514: 7511:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 7499: 7496: 7495: 7494: 7477: 7455: 7434: 7417: 7393: 7372: 7362:Wildthing61476 7347: 7325: 7324: 7302: 7301: 7283: 7282: 7256: 7255: 7239: 7238: 7233: 7232: 7206: 7205: 7187: 7152: 7151: 7150: 7149: 7148: 7147: 7146: 7145: 7144: 7143: 7142: 7141: 7140: 7139: 7026: 7025: 6997: 6996: 6993:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 6987: 6986: 6975: 6956: 6939: 6912:mentions from 6899: 6898: 6875: 6874: 6860: 6859: 6851: 6850: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6839: 6833: 6832: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6817: 6816: 6785: 6784: 6783: 6782: 6763:Lawrence Cohen 6750: 6749: 6740:to Knowledge. 6731: 6730: 6697: 6669: 6668: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6621: 6620: 6593: 6592: 6591: 6590: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6582: 6535:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 6473:Google Scholar 6423: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6404: 6403: 6384: 6383: 6380:Google Scholar 6359: 6358: 6357: 6356: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6343: 6333: 6332: 6331: 6330: 6320: 6319: 6311: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6305: 6302: 6299: 6293: 6292: 6284: 6283: 6277: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6236: 6235: 6174: 6173: 6140: 6117: 6114: 6068: 6067: 6051:requirements. 6038: 6020:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 6001: 6000: 5999: 5983:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 5958: 5957: 5940: 5923: 5922: 5921: 5902: 5865: 5864: 5863: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5856:stick-bundlers 5849: 5848: 5847: 5809: 5750: 5728: 5701: 5669: 5652: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5595: 5594: 5526: 5447: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5230: 5204: 5170: 5149: 5127:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 5123:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 5116: 5106:Coccyx Bloccyx 5095: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5084:SchmuckyTheCat 5069:David Eppstein 5051:SchmuckyTheCat 5044: 5043: 5042: 4982: 4964:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4908: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4829: 4753: 4690: 4689: 4663: 4653:David Eppstein 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4426:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 4417: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4394: 4382: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4312: 4299: 4272: 4252: 4251: 4236: 4235: 4219: 4202: 4185: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4152:David Eppstein 4101: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3735: 3701: 3671: 3644:Comment: That 3641: 3633: 3612: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3534: 3517: 3506:207.58.192.150 3493: 3479:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 3472: 3456: 3440:Faolchu scatha 3427:Faolchu scatha 3420: 3403: 3377: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3323: 3313: 3283: 3259:User:MilkFloat 3248: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3184: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3080: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3058: 3048:129.67.162.133 3041: 3032: 3002: 2981: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2886: 2861: 2836: 2819: 2801: 2794: 2784: 2767: 2750: 2732: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2680: 2650:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 2644: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2611:71.135.183.190 2597:71.135.183.190 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2522:71.135.183.190 2508: 2507: 2490: 2463: 2442: 2424: 2400: 2383: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2327: 2309: 2295: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2221: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2164: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2133:71.135.183.190 2119:71.135.183.190 2064: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 1991: 1967: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1855: 1833:be considered. 1822:unencyclopedic 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1798: 1763: 1744:Lawrence Cohen 1727: 1726: 1725: 1677: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1546: 1545: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1518: 1512: 1506: 1500: 1494: 1488: 1482: 1476: 1470: 1464: 1458: 1452: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1398:no other edits 1285:NonvocalScream 1274: 1273: 1258:Uncyclopedia's 1251: 1234: 1221: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1110: 1093: 1075: 1065:David Eppstein 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 916: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 886: 815: 772: 766:and his otters 750: 749: 748: 713: 706: 683: 640: 615: 599: 598: 597: 581: 542: 541: 540: 525: 494: 469: 428:be considered. 405: 404: 345: 343: 342: 337: 332: 327: 322: 317: 311: 310: 309: 304: 301: 300: 294: 293: 288: 280: 277: 276: 172: 160: 159: 136: 125: 120: 67:" and "Passes 42: 41: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10723: 10711: 10709: 10704: 10698: 10697: 10694: 10691: 10687: 10683: 10679: 10676: 10674: 10671: 10670:CharlotteWebb 10667: 10664: 10662: 10658: 10654: 10650: 10647: 10646: 10643: 10639: 10635: 10631: 10627: 10623: 10619: 10615: 10611: 10607: 10603: 10599: 10597: 10590: 10586: 10582: 10578: 10574: 10570: 10566: 10562: 10559: 10558: 10555: 10551: 10547: 10546:71.56.237.252 10543: 10540: 10538: 10535: 10531: 10527: 10524: 10522: 10519: 10517: 10512: 10510: 10504: 10501: 10496: 10492: 10488: 10487:71.56.237.252 10484: 10477: 10476: 10475: 10474: 10473: 10472: 10468: 10464: 10454: 10451: 10450: 10447: 10443: 10439: 10435: 10434: 10428: 10424: 10420: 10416: 10413: 10412: 10409: 10405: 10401: 10396: 10393: 10392: 10387: 10383: 10379: 10374: 10373: 10372: 10369: 10367: 10366: 10361: 10360: 10357: 10353: 10349: 10344: 10341: 10340: 10337: 10333: 10329: 10324: 10321: 10320: 10317: 10313: 10309: 10304: 10301: 10300: 10297: 10293: 10288: 10284: 10281: 10278: 10275:was added at 10274: 10268: 10264: 10260: 10257: 10256: 10253: 10249: 10245: 10241: 10238: 10237: 10236: 10235: 10231: 10227: 10215: 10214: 10213: 10209: 10205: 10201: 10197: 10193: 10192: 10191: 10190: 10189: 10188: 10184: 10180: 10172: 10169: 10167: 10164: 10161: 10157: 10154: 10152: 10148: 10144: 10140: 10137: 10136: 10131: 10127: 10123: 10119: 10115: 10111: 10107: 10103: 10099: 10096: 10095: 10094: 10093: 10090: 10086: 10082: 10078: 10074: 10070: 10066: 10063: 10062: 10057: 10053: 10049: 10045: 10040: 10039: 10038: 10037: 10034: 10030: 10025: 10020: 10014: 10011: 10009: 10005: 10001: 9997: 9993: 9990: 9988: 9984: 9980: 9976: 9972: 9969: 9968: 9960: 9956: 9952: 9947: 9944: 9940: 9936: 9932: 9928: 9925: 9924: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9919: 9915: 9911: 9907: 9900: 9897: 9892: 9888: 9884: 9880: 9877: 9875: 9871: 9868: 9867: 9862: 9860: 9855: 9851: 9847: 9844: 9840: 9836: 9832: 9829: 9828:OldDirtyBtard 9825: 9821: 9818: 9817: 9816: 9812: 9808: 9803: 9799: 9796: 9794: 9790: 9786: 9785:78.34.137.171 9782: 9781:Close as keep 9779: 9777: 9773: 9769: 9765: 9762: 9760: 9756: 9752: 9748: 9745: 9744: 9729: 9726: 9722: 9721: 9720: 9716: 9712: 9708: 9707: 9706: 9702: 9698: 9694: 9690: 9686: 9682: 9678: 9674: 9670: 9666: 9662: 9658: 9654: 9650: 9649: 9648: 9647: 9644: 9639: 9635: 9630: 9629: 9628: 9624: 9620: 9615: 9614: 9613: 9612: 9607: 9604: 9600: 9596: 9595: 9594: 9593: 9592: 9588: 9584: 9581: 9580:OldDirtyBtard 9577: 9575: 9571: 9567: 9563: 9560: 9559: 9547: 9543: 9539: 9534: 9530: 9527: 9526: 9523: 9519: 9518: 9505: 9501: 9497: 9496: 9495: 9494: 9491: 9487: 9483: 9479: 9475: 9471: 9470: 9469: 9468: 9459: 9455: 9451: 9447: 9443: 9442: 9441: 9437: 9436: 9424: 9423: 9422: 9418: 9414: 9409: 9408: 9407: 9403: 9402: 9390: 9386: 9382: 9377: 9376: 9370: 9366: 9362: 9359: 9356: 9353: 9351: 9348: 9345: 9344: 9340: 9337: 9335: 9331: 9330: 9326: 9323: 9321: 9318: 9317: 9313: 9310: 9306: 9303: 9300: 9296: 9292: 9289: 9287: 9284: 9282: 9278: 9274: 9271: 9268: 9265: 9262: 9261: 9257: 9254: 9251: 9248: 9247: 9243: 9240: 9237: 9234: 9233: 9227: 9223: 9222:WP:NOTABILITY 9219: 9218:advertisement 9215: 9211: 9207: 9206:WP:NOTABILITY 9202: 9201: 9194: 9193: 9190: 9184: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9173: 9169: 9165: 9161: 9157: 9153: 9149: 9145: 9142: 9141: 9140: 9139: 9136: 9130: 9126: 9122: 9117: 9112: 9109: 9107: 9104: 9091: 9087: 9083: 9082:verifiability 9079: 9076: 9075: 9067: 9062: 9057: 9053: 9050: 9048: 9044: 9040: 9036: 9033: 9031: 9027: 9023: 9018: 9015: 9013: 9009: 9005: 9001: 8998: 8996: 8992: 8988: 8987:91.143.81.107 8984: 8981: 8979: 8976: 8972: 8969: 8955: 8951: 8947: 8943: 8938: 8937: 8936: 8932: 8928: 8923: 8922: 8921: 8917: 8913: 8909: 8905: 8901: 8897: 8893: 8892: 8891: 8887: 8883: 8879: 8874: 8873: 8872: 8868: 8864: 8860: 8859: 8858: 8854: 8850: 8845: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8835: 8831: 8827: 8824: 8820: 8816: 8812: 8808: 8807: 8806: 8803: 8802: 8801: 8798: 8795: 8792: 8786: 8783: 8777: 8773: 8769: 8764: 8762: 8758: 8752: 8746: 8745: 8744: 8740: 8736: 8732: 8729: 8723: 8719: 8715: 8711: 8707: 8702: 8701: 8700: 8696: 8692: 8687: 8683: 8679: 8674: 8670: 8668: 8664: 8658: 8652: 8651: 8650: 8647: 8643: 8642: 8637: 8633: 8632: 8629: 8625: 8619: 8613: 8609: 8605: 8601: 8600: 8597: 8594: 8592: 8589: 8587: 8584: 8581: 8578: 8575: 8572: 8569: 8566: 8563: 8560: 8557: 8554: 8551: 8550: 8548: 8545: 8543: 8539: 8535: 8531: 8527: 8524: 8516: 8512: 8508: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8498: 8494: 8493: 8488: 8487: 8486: 8482: 8478: 8474: 8470: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8462: 8458: 8457: 8452: 8448: 8445: 8443: 8439: 8435: 8431: 8428: 8427: 8418: 8414: 8410: 8405: 8404: 8403: 8399: 8395: 8391: 8387: 8383: 8382: 8381: 8377: 8373: 8369: 8365: 8364: 8363: 8359: 8355: 8351: 8350: 8347: 8343: 8339: 8335: 8332: 8329: 8325: 8321: 8320:98.169.148.60 8317: 8311: 8308: 8307: 8300: 8297: 8295: 8294: 8289: 8288: 8287: 8283: 8279: 8275: 8274: 8273: 8272: 8269: 8266: 8264: 8263: 8258: 8254: 8250: 8247: 8243: 8239: 8236: 8234: 8230: 8226: 8222: 8219: 8218: 8211: 8207: 8203: 8198: 8197: 8194: 8190: 8186: 8181: 8180: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8174: 8172: 8171: 8166: 8162: 8158: 8155: 8153: 8149: 8145: 8141: 8137: 8134: 8132: 8128: 8124: 8119: 8118: 8115: 8111: 8107: 8103: 8099: 8098: 8095: 8091: 8087: 8082: 8080: 8077: 8075: 8074: 8068: 8067: 8064: 8060: 8056: 8052: 8049: 8043: 8039: 8035: 8031: 8027: 8026: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8013: 8012: 8011: 8007: 8003: 7999: 7996: 7995: 7986: 7982: 7978: 7973: 7972:wikilawyering 7969: 7968: 7967: 7963: 7959: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7948: 7944: 7939: 7934: 7930: 7925: 7921: 7917: 7913: 7912: 7911: 7908: 7906: 7905: 7899: 7887: 7883: 7879: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7871: 7868: 7864: 7860: 7855: 7851: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7843: 7840: 7836: 7832: 7827: 7823: 7818: 7813: 7812: 7811: 7810: 7807: 7803: 7799: 7794: 7793: 7786: 7782: 7778: 7773: 7772: 7771: 7767: 7763: 7759: 7755: 7751: 7747: 7743: 7740: 7739: 7738: 7737: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7724: 7720: 7716: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7705: 7701: 7697: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7687: 7683: 7680: 7678: 7674: 7669: 7665: 7664: 7661: 7659: 7655: 7651: 7645: 7643: 7642: 7636: 7632: 7629: 7626: 7623: 7619: 7616: 7613: 7610: 7606: 7602: 7598: 7595: 7591: 7587: 7583: 7580: 7577: 7574: 7570: 7567: 7563: 7560: 7556: 7553: 7549: 7546: 7542: 7538: 7535: 7531: 7528: 7524: 7521: 7518: 7515: 7512: 7509: 7508: 7505: 7502: 7501: 7493: 7489: 7485: 7481: 7478: 7476: 7472: 7459: 7456: 7454: 7450: 7446: 7441: 7438: 7435: 7433: 7429: 7425: 7421: 7418: 7416: 7412: 7411: 7405: 7397: 7394: 7392: 7388: 7384: 7380: 7376: 7373: 7371: 7367: 7363: 7359: 7355: 7351: 7348: 7346: 7342: 7338: 7334: 7330: 7327: 7326: 7323: 7319: 7315: 7311: 7307: 7304: 7303: 7300: 7296: 7292: 7288: 7285: 7284: 7281: 7278: 7276: 7270: 7266: 7261: 7258: 7257: 7254: 7250: 7246: 7241: 7240: 7235: 7234: 7229: 7225: 7221: 7216: 7211: 7208: 7207: 7204: 7199: 7195: 7191: 7188: 7186: 7182: 7178: 7174: 7171: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7164: 7160: 7156: 7138: 7134: 7130: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7120: 7116: 7111: 7110: 7109: 7106: 7101: 7100: 7099: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7082: 7078: 7077: 7076: 7072: 7068: 7063: 7062: 7061: 7057: 7053: 7052:William Ortiz 7048: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7042: 7038: 7034: 7030: 7024: 7021: 7019: 7014: 7012: 7007: 7005: 6999: 6998: 6994: 6989: 6988: 6983: 6979: 6976: 6974: 6970: 6967: 6964: 6960: 6957: 6955: 6951: 6947: 6943: 6940: 6938: 6937: 6934: 6930: 6925: 6921: 6917: 6915: 6911: 6907: 6901: 6900: 6897: 6894: 6893: 6892: 6888: 6887: 6880: 6877: 6876: 6873: 6870: 6867: 6862: 6861: 6857: 6853: 6852: 6847: 6846: 6840: 6837: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6830: 6826: 6823: 6822: 6815: 6812: 6808: 6804: 6803: 6802: 6798: 6794: 6790: 6787: 6786: 6781: 6777: 6771: 6765: 6758: 6754: 6753: 6752: 6751: 6748: 6745: 6744: 6739: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6729: 6725: 6721: 6720:contributions 6717: 6713: 6709: 6705: 6701: 6698: 6696: 6692: 6688: 6684: 6680: 6679: 6674: 6671: 6670: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6651: 6647: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6637: 6633: 6632: 6625: 6624: 6623: 6622: 6619: 6615: 6611: 6606: 6602: 6598: 6595: 6594: 6581: 6577: 6573: 6569: 6568:verifiability 6565: 6561: 6557: 6553: 6549: 6544: 6540: 6536: 6532: 6531: 6530: 6526: 6522: 6518: 6514: 6509: 6508: 6506: 6502: 6498: 6494: 6490: 6486: 6482: 6479:according to 6478: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6451: 6447: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6436: 6432: 6427: 6426: 6425: 6424: 6419: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6407: 6406: 6405: 6402: 6398: 6394: 6390: 6389:WP:NOTABILITY 6386: 6385: 6381: 6377: 6373: 6369: 6365: 6361: 6360: 6354: 6350: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6341: 6337: 6336: 6335: 6334: 6328: 6324: 6323: 6322: 6321: 6317: 6313: 6312: 6306: 6303: 6300: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6290: 6286: 6285: 6281: 6278: 6276: 6271: 6268: 6263: 6262: 6255: 6251: 6247: 6244: 6243: 6234: 6228: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6212: 6208: 6204: 6199: 6198: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6187: 6183: 6178: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6172: 6167: 6163: 6159: 6154: 6153: 6148: 6144: 6141: 6139: 6135: 6131: 6127: 6123: 6120: 6119: 6113: 6110: 6106: 6102: 6098: 6091: 6087: 6083: 6079: 6072: 6066: 6062: 6058: 6057: 6050: 6046: 6042: 6039: 6037: 6033: 6029: 6025: 6021: 6017: 6013: 6009: 6005: 6002: 5998: 5995: 5994: 5990: 5989: 5984: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5974: 5969: 5968: 5963: 5960: 5959: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5941: 5939: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5924: 5920: 5916: 5912: 5908: 5903: 5901: 5898: 5896: 5895: 5890: 5886: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5877: 5873: 5869: 5857: 5854: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5834: 5833: 5827: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5819: 5817: 5816: 5810: 5808: 5805: 5803: 5802: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5791: 5787: 5783: 5782: 5781: 5777: 5773: 5768: 5767: 5766: 5762: 5758: 5754: 5751: 5749: 5746: 5745: 5741: 5737: 5732: 5729: 5725: 5720: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5708: 5707: 5702: 5700: 5696: 5692: 5689: 5687: 5683: 5677: 5673: 5670: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5656: 5653: 5651: 5648: 5646: 5645: 5640: 5636: 5632: 5622: 5619: 5617: 5616: 5611: 5607: 5603: 5599: 5593: 5589: 5585: 5581: 5577: 5576: 5573: 5568: 5567: 5563: 5559: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5535: 5533: 5532: 5527: 5523: 5518: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5488: 5484: 5480: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5471: 5469: 5468: 5463: 5462: 5461: 5458: 5455: 5451: 5448: 5446: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5429: 5425: 5422: 5404: 5398: 5390: 5386: 5385: 5384: 5381: 5379: 5378: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5365: 5357: 5352: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5342: 5340: 5339: 5333: 5328: 5327: 5326: 5320: 5312: 5307: 5306: 5305: 5302: 5300: 5299: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5285: 5277: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5267: 5265: 5264: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5251: 5243: 5238: 5234: 5233:Strong delete 5231: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5212: 5208: 5205: 5201: 5197: 5193: 5189: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5171: 5169: 5165: 5161: 5157: 5153: 5150: 5148: 5144: 5140: 5136: 5132: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5117: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5096: 5089: 5085: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5074: 5070: 5066: 5062: 5059: 5058: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5045: 5039: 5034: 5033: 5029: 5025: 5019: 5018: 5017: 5011: 5008: 5006: 5000: 4995: 4991: 4987: 4983: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4958: 4952: 4949: 4945: 4941: 4937: 4934: 4928: 4923: 4922: 4918: 4914: 4909: 4907: 4901: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4866: 4865: 4862: 4857: 4856: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4826: 4821: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4801: 4797: 4793: 4792: 4789: 4784: 4783: 4779: 4775: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4765: 4761: 4757: 4754: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4741:in january.-- 4740: 4736: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4725: 4720: 4719: 4715: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4687: 4683: 4679: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4649: 4645: 4640: 4636: 4633: 4621: 4618: 4613: 4607: 4601: 4598: 4596: 4595: 4589: 4588: 4585: 4580: 4579: 4575: 4571: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4520: 4519: 4516: 4511: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4488: 4486: 4485: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4457: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4448: 4445: 4444: 4439: 4438: 4434: 4427: 4423: 4420: 4419: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4398: 4395: 4393: 4390: 4386: 4383: 4381: 4378: 4376: 4375: 4370: 4367: 4361: 4358: 4356: 4355: 4350: 4349:Chris Chelios 4346: 4345: 4344: 4341: 4337: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4313: 4311: 4306: 4301: 4300: 4297: 4292: 4288: 4283: 4280: 4278: 4273: 4271: 4268: 4263: 4257: 4254: 4253: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4237: 4234: 4231: 4224: 4220: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4203: 4201: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4186: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4165: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4148: 4144: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4136: 4134: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4102: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4088: 4085: 4067: 4064: 4062: 4061: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4036: 4034: 4033: 4027: 4023: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3888: 3886: 3885: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3834: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3801: 3800: 3795: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3788: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3761: 3758: 3756: 3755: 3750: 3746: 3745: 3743: 3739: 3736: 3734: 3730: 3724: 3720: 3716: 3713: 3709: 3705: 3702: 3700: 3695: 3688: 3687: 3679: 3675: 3672: 3670: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3653: 3649: 3647: 3642: 3640: 3637: 3630: 3626: 3625: 3620: 3616: 3613: 3611: 3608: 3607: 3601: 3600: 3592: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3539: 3535: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3497: 3494: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3473: 3471: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3460: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3421: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3404: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3378: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3333: 3332: 3327: 3324: 3322: 3317: 3308: 3307: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3263: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3249: 3247: 3244: 3242: 3236: 3232: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3185: 3183: 3179: 3174: 3171: 3165: 3162: 3161: 3157: 3156: 3151: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3113: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3083: 3082: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3059: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3042: 3040: 3035: 3030: 3028: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3010: 3006: 3003: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2982: 2980: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2955: 2949: 2946: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2928: 2927: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2887: 2885: 2882: 2880: 2879: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2862: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2846: 2840: 2837: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2820: 2818: 2815: 2812: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2800: 2797: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2768: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2751: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2736: 2733: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2689: 2684: 2681: 2679: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2628: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2550: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2517: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2491: 2489: 2486: 2484: 2482: 2481: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2443: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2428: 2425: 2423: 2420: 2416: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2346: 2341: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2313: 2310: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2299: 2296: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2279: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2222: 2220: 2217: 2212: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2110: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1992: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1946: 1943: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1843:is removed.-- 1842: 1838: 1834: 1832: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1797: 1795:Corvus cornix 1790: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1758: 1752: 1746: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1678: 1676: 1672: 1666: 1660: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1552:86.31.102.215 1548: 1547: 1544: 1541: 1528: 1527: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1483: 1480: 1477: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1444: 1441: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1341: 1338: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1220: 1218:Corvus cornix 1213: 1209: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1118: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1100:24.150.181.11 1097: 1094: 1092: 1089: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1016: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 989: 981: 977: 973: 969: 968: 967: 964: 963: 956: 955: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 937: 936: 932: 928: 923: 920: 917: 908: 904: 900: 899:24.23.212.107 896: 890: 887: 885: 880: 874: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 842: 841: 840: 837: 833: 832: 827: 823: 819: 816: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 776: 773: 771: 764: 758: 754: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 734: 733: 729: 728: 721: 717: 714: 712: 709: 704: 701: 697: 693: 687: 684: 682: 679: 674: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 647:WP:NOTABILITY 644: 641: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 616: 614: 611: 610: 603: 600: 596: 593: 589: 585: 582: 580: 577: 573: 572: 567: 563: 560: 559: 558: 554: 550: 546: 543: 539: 536: 532: 531: 526: 523: 520: 519: 518: 515: 511: 510: 505: 502: 498: 495: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 470: 468: 464: 460: 459:82.156.183.49 456: 455:OldDirtyBtard 452: 447: 444: 443: 442: 441: 437: 433: 429: 427: 422: 418: 414: 410: 409:WP:NOTABILITY 402: 397: 390: 386: 382: 378: 373: 369: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 347: 341: 338: 336: 333: 331: 328: 326: 323: 321: 318: 316: 313: 312: 307: 303: 302: 299: 296: 295: 292: 289: 287: 284: 283: 282: 271: 267: 259: 255: 249: 243: 239: 233: 227: 223: 217: 213: 209: 207: 203: 197: 193: 192: 187: 183: 179: 178: 173: 170: 166: 165: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 130: 129: 124: 119: 118: 114: 113: 108: 107: 98: 96: 91: 89: 83: 79: 76: 74: 70: 66: 61: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 10702: 10699: 10681: 10677: 10665: 10648: 10617: 10616:(Australia), 10613: 10610:The Guardian 10609: 10605: 10601: 10593: 10572: 10565:Uncyclopedia 10560: 10541: 10525: 10515: 10508: 10502: 10459: 10452: 10431: 10426: 10422: 10414: 10394: 10364: 10342: 10322: 10302: 10282: 10258: 10239: 10223: 10199: 10195: 10176: 10170: 10155: 10138: 10105: 10097: 10075:, and here: 10064: 10048:78.34.133.49 10012: 10000:64.81.169.20 9991: 9975:not being ED 9974: 9970: 9945: 9931:98.200.35.25 9926: 9901: 9898: 9895: 9883:98.200.35.25 9878: 9865: 9858: 9853: 9849: 9845: 9831:84.61.12.187 9819: 9801: 9797: 9780: 9763: 9746: 9640: 9636: 9632: 9598: 9583:84.61.12.187 9561: 9528: 9510: 9503: 9499: 9428: 9394: 9388: 9384: 9380: 9364: 9349: 9332: 9319: 9308: 9298: 9294: 9285: 9280: 9186: 9143: 9110: 9089: 9077: 9051: 9034: 9016: 8999: 8982: 8970: 8902:. It is not 8843: 8825: 8789: 8788: 8784: 8639: 8576:, also short 8546: 8525: 8490: 8468: 8454: 8446: 8430:Weak Abstain 8429: 8367: 8333: 8309: 8292: 8261: 8237: 8220: 8169: 8167:category. -- 8156: 8135: 8101: 8072: 8050: 8029: 7997: 7937: 7932: 7923: 7915: 7903: 7854:undetermined 7853: 7849: 7825: 7821: 7816: 7757: 7753: 7749: 7745: 7741: 7700:12.32.217.24 7670: 7667: 7647: 7640: 7638: 7621: 7608: 7600: 7593: 7589: 7572: 7565: 7558: 7551: 7544: 7540: 7533: 7503: 7479: 7457: 7436: 7419: 7400: 7395: 7379:WP:OTHERCRAP 7374: 7352:You may not 7349: 7332: 7328: 7305: 7286: 7274: 7259: 7245:86.27.233.17 7227: 7223: 7219: 7214: 7209: 7189: 7172: 7154: 7153: 7046: 7028: 7027: 7017: 7010: 7003: 6977: 6958: 6941: 6928: 6926: 6922: 6918: 6913: 6909: 6905: 6903: 6890: 6889: 6882: 6878: 6855: 6824: 6742: 6712:InvaderJim42 6699: 6675: 6672: 6627: 6596: 6563: 6547: 6492: 6485:Google Books 6476: 6372:Google Books 6352: 6340:The Observer 6339: 6326: 6315: 6279: 6257: 6254:crystal ball 6245: 6196: 6151: 6142: 6121: 6097:72.71.230.87 6082:72.71.230.87 6070: 6069: 6052: 6040: 6015: 6003: 5992: 5987: 5965: 5961: 5942: 5925: 5906: 5893: 5888: 5867: 5866: 5855: 5852: 5830: 5825: 5814: 5800: 5752: 5743: 5739: 5735: 5730: 5704: 5703: 5679: 5675: 5671: 5654: 5643: 5638: 5634: 5614: 5609: 5554: 5544: 5542: 5530: 5502: 5492: 5490: 5486: 5466: 5449: 5423: 5376: 5350: 5337: 5331: 5297: 5262: 5236: 5232: 5214: 5206: 5156:speedy close 5155: 5151: 5118: 5097: 5060: 5046: 5020: 5004: 4985: 4959: 4935: 4910: 4838: 4837: 4807: 4771: 4755: 4734: 4706:consistently 4705: 4693: 4692: 4691: 4666: 4647: 4634: 4611: 4593: 4567: 4494: 4483: 4464: 4452: 4442: 4436: 4421: 4396: 4384: 4373: 4368: 4353: 4335: 4314: 4296: 4290: 4286: 4281: 4276: 4274: 4255: 4204: 4192:Rocksanddirt 4187: 4166: 4146: 4142: 4132: 4123: 4120:WP:NOT#PAPER 4107: 4103: 4086: 4059: 4031: 4025: 3883: 3881:anything. -- 3878: 3836: 3798: 3793: 3766: 3753: 3737: 3723:Nine Network 3703: 3682: 3673: 3656: 3651: 3645: 3643: 3623: 3614: 3603: 3596: 3590: 3519: 3495: 3474: 3464: 3462: 3458: 3422: 3405: 3379: 3363: 3344: 3340: 3329: 3325: 3304: 3294: 3286: 3250: 3230: 3207: 3186: 3172: 3159: 3154: 3131: 3123: 3119: 3110: 3105: 3100: 3095:(look it up 3092: 3084: 3060: 3044:Speedy Close 3043: 3026: 3004: 2983: 2956: 2937: 2925: 2920: 2888: 2877: 2871: 2863: 2844: 2842: 2838: 2821: 2803: 2786: 2769: 2752: 2734: 2722: 2682: 2646: 2629: 2589:rest. -DLB 2571: 2552: 2492: 2476: 2475: 2465: 2444: 2426: 2402: 2385: 2373:EconomicsGuy 2368: 2339: 2329: 2311: 2301: 2297: 2280: 2245: 2241: 2223: 2200: 2166: 2149: 2108: 2066: 2042: 1998:RyanGerbil10 1993: 1969: 1944: 1909:an entry? -- 1888: 1883: 1882: 1862:Uncyclopedia 1857: 1841:encyclopedia 1830: 1828: 1825: 1817: 1799: 1765: 1729: 1679: 1651: 1597: 1595: 1573:86.27.233.17 1520: 1514: 1508: 1502: 1496: 1490: 1484: 1478: 1472: 1466: 1460: 1454: 1448: 1442: 1315: 1298: 1280: 1277:Speedy close 1276: 1275: 1253: 1236: 1222: 1211: 1173: 1165: 1122: 1116: 1112: 1095: 1077: 1055: 999:AnmaFinotera 990: 958: 941:Speedy close 940: 918: 888: 872: 855: 851: 847: 843: 829: 821: 817: 792: 774: 752: 723: 715: 699: 695: 691: 685: 659:Uncyclopedia 657:rating than 642: 617: 605: 601: 583: 569: 561: 544: 528: 521: 507: 496: 475: 471: 450: 445: 425: 423: 420: 406: 269: 257: 248:sockpuppetry 241: 230:; suspected 225: 211: 199: 195: 189: 181: 175: 138:Please stay 110: 102: 99: 92: 87: 84: 80: 77: 62: 45: 43: 31: 28: 10622:Jimbo Wales 10589:Uncylopedia 10481:—Preceding 10395:Strong Keep 10271:—Preceding 9971:Strong Keep 9951:Broooooooce 9946:Strong Keep 9904:—Preceding 9798:Weak Delete 9711:Enric Naval 9661:Boing Boing 9562:Strong keep 9295:non-trivial 9035:Strong Keep 9017:Strong keep 8676:—Preceding 8434:78.86.18.55 8409:KleenupKrew 8372:KleenupKrew 8354:78.86.18.55 8338:KleenupKrew 8314:—Preceding 8276:See Fact 5 7859:Chunky Rice 7826:non-trivial 7798:Chunky Rice 7588:. The word 7541:non-trivial 6910:non-trivial 6368:Google News 6246:Weak delete 6197:ObiterDicta 6182:Cube lurker 6152:ObiterDicta 6107:) has made 6076:—Preceding 5930:Prashanthns 5868:politicians 5424:Strong Keep 5198:) has made 5119:Strong Keep 4678:Fabrictramp 4432:RichardΩ612 4175:Quasirandom 4006:Chunky Rice 3968:Chunky Rice 3912:Chunky Rice 3769:—Preceding 3747:No part of 3708:Google News 3704:Weak delete 3566:) has made 3524:Cube lurker 3500:—Preceding 3450:) has made 3406:Strong Keep 3385:Wookiepedia 3277:) has made 3061:Speedy Keep 2868:IDONTLIKEIT 2864:Strong Keep 2851:Enric Naval 2770:Strong keep 2753:Strong Keep 2735:Strong Keep 2707:Chunky Rice 2617:) has made 2591:—Preceding 2532:) has made 2390:Gregg Potts 2386:Strong Keep 2139:) has made 2113:—Preceding 2094:(delete). - 2082:, (delete) 1976:Edit:also, 1961:) has made 1951:68.101.8.94 1329:) has made 1142:—Preceding 1030:—Preceding 893:—Preceding 643:Strong keep 622:Livejournal 545:bloody hell 10634:J Readings 10612:(London), 10596:LexisNexis 10534:Talk to me 10463:Beerslurpy 10328:Giovanni33 10122:J Readings 10118:LexisNexis 10102:LexisNexis 9783:, please. 9673:Gawker.com 9638:the site? 9533:WP:IHATEIT 9444:ZOOr, see 9297:, but not 9238:Criterion 9168:J Readings 9152:WP:ILIKEIT 9086:notability 9020:deleted?-- 9004:Gurchzilla 8912:Prosfilaes 8863:Prosfilaes 8830:Prosfilaes 8293:Smashville 8262:Smashville 8170:Smashville 8165:WP:ILIKEIT 8073:Smashville 7904:Smashville 7850:inherently 7622:explicitly 7517:WP:ILIKEIT 7269:WP:IHATEIT 7198:Yamanbaiia 7129:Prosfilaes 6793:MickMacNee 6743:Black Kite 6687:MickMacNee 6685:rule all. 6630:Horologium 6601:Notability 6572:J Readings 6556:LexisNexis 6539:WP:ILIKEIT 6497:J Readings 6461:LexisNexis 6431:J Readings 6393:J Readings 6289:LexisNexis 6055:Horologium 5911:InkSplotch 5826:Underwater 5815:Smashville 5757:InkSplotch 5615:Smashville 5610:guidelines 5467:Smashville 5454:Antandrus 5428:WP:IHATEIT 5377:Smashville 5338:Smashville 5298:Smashville 5295:words". -- 5263:Smashville 5065:WP:CANVASS 4867:Like your 4594:Smashville 4484:Smashville 4453:Smashville 4387:. Thanks, 4374:Smashville 4354:Smashville 4060:Smashville 4032:Smashville 3884:Smashville 3833:Gawker.com 3799:Smashville 3754:Smashville 3393:Jasynnash2 3389:Wiktionary 3343:ED AFD is 3065:Ecoleetage 2740:Froginabox 2453:Badmachine 2244:". DRV is 2154:JeanLatore 1889:Notability 720:notability 182:discussion 10686:Superm401 10585:Knowledge 10581:Knowledge 10423:inclusion 10362:lolwut? 10171:Question: 9725:GTBacchus 9685:Gothamist 9643:GTBacchus 9603:GTBacchus 9299:extensive 9241:Analysis 9189:GTBacchus 9129:E-mail me 9121:Talk Page 8942:WP:POINTy 8691:Analogrex 8673:Analogrex 7437:Weak keep 7337:SmokeyJoe 7105:GTBacchus 7081:GTBacchus 6963:Alexius08 6933:GTBacchus 6854:However, 6829:March DRV 6757:July 2005 6683:internets 6654:Dragon695 6610:Dragon695 6203:pleadings 6158:pleadings 6130:(jarbarf) 5639:in no way 5489:sources. 5433:WP:CENSOR 5160:J Milburn 4972:Klausness 4389:SqueakBox 4340:SqueakBox 4167:Weak keep 4091:≈ jossi ≈ 3267:MilkFloat 3134:article. 2984:Weak keep 2973:Peripitus 2727:Ned Scott 2688:Sjakkalle 2576:Everyking 2497:Everyking 1385:Acalamari 1362:Acalamari 1337:Acalamari 1263:Kevman459 667:Al-Quaida 566:wikidrama 549:Random832 238:canvassed 232:canvassed 191:consensus 152:consensus 10653:Delirium 10618:24 Hours 10567:and the 10483:unsigned 10365:Celarnor 10285:. Fails 10244:Oakshade 10196:continue 10160:Garion96 9906:unsigned 9850:butthurt 9820:Comment: 9807:Terraxos 9677:Fleshbot 9500:presumed 9476:but not 9263:WP:DENY 9125:Contribs 9097:HEFFIELD 9056:Gamaliel 9039:Boss Big 8946:Wikidemo 8735:Howa0082 8678:unsigned 8562:NY Times 8553:SFGate's 8507:*Dan T.* 8469:Question 8316:unsigned 8185:Tony Fox 8106:Tony Fox 8086:Rividian 7958:Wikidemo 7777:Wikidemo 7715:Wikidemo 7590:presumed 7552:multiple 7484:Mvuijlst 7445:Rividian 7318:contribs 7275:Excirial 7115:DHeyward 7090:DHeyward 7067:DHeyward 7033:DHeyward 6946:23skidoo 6906:multiple 6676:for the 6521:Wikidemo 6446:Wikidemo 6355:, p. 20. 6105:contribs 6090:contribs 6078:unsigned 6071:Comment: 6024:WP:POINT 5894:Celarnor 5872:Howa0082 5801:Celarnor 5772:Howa0082 5659:Jtrainor 5644:Celarnor 5580:reliable 5531:Celarnor 5487:multiple 5485:require 5351:multiple 5196:contribs 5188:Em otter 5175:Em otter 4944:Dhartung 4873:changing 4796:Dhartung 4760:Dhartung 4756:Comment' 4497:WP:POINT 4298:Dendodge 4282:Possibly 4241:Wikidemo 4229:lucasbfr 4124:slightly 3783:contribs 3771:unsigned 3740:- fails 3721:and the 3598:Merkin's 3576:*Dan T.* 3564:contribs 3556:Em otter 3543:Em otter 3502:unsigned 3448:contribs 3349:*Dan T.* 3275:contribs 3178:Nunh-huh 3087:, meets 3027:xDanielx 2996:contribs 2942:David D. 2926:Celarnor 2901:David D. 2878:Celarnor 2845:multiple 2826:Davewild 2692:(Check!) 2664:LegoTech 2658:WP:POINT 2593:unsigned 2538:unsigned 2530:contribs 2432:Alex-jon 2317:Jtrainor 2285:VegaDark 2115:unsigned 2086:(keep), 2026:*Dan T.* 1959:contribs 1926:Wikidemo 1670:contribs 1631:Wikidemo 1534:HEFFIELD 1327:contribs 1192:Wikidemo 1156:contribs 1148:Wikidemo 1144:unsigned 1044:contribs 1036:Wikidemo 1032:unsigned 972:Wikidemo 945:Wikidemo 927:Wikidemo 895:unsigned 860:Howa0082 630:Deathawk 588:Dhartung 553:contribs 484:*Dan T.* 401:View log 270:username 264:{{subst: 258:username 252:{{subst: 242:username 236:{{subst: 226:username 220:{{subst: 105:Al Tally 88:de facto 10561:Comment 10433:wwwwolf 10273:comment 10098:Comment 10024:Zenwhat 9927:Comment 9824:hipster 9697:Ford MF 9619:Ford MF 9597:Um... " 9566:Ford MF 9529:Comment 9482:Noroton 9450:Noroton 9389:deleted 9385:deleted 9270:WP:DENY 9244:Result 9214:WP:DENY 9144:Comment 9078:Comment 8983:Abstain 8927:Noroton 8900:Wikinfo 8882:Noroton 8811:JoshuaZ 8768:JoshuaZ 8750:Ryūlóng 8714:JoshuaZ 8656:Ryūlóng 8646:Running 8617:Ryūlóng 8534:JoshuaZ 8497:Running 8461:Running 8447:Comment 8394:JoshuaZ 8278:Noroton 8238:Comment 8225:Dezidor 8221:Comment 8157:Comment 8136:Comment 8123:Tombomp 7977:Noroton 7943:Noroton 7938:trivial 7878:Noroton 7831:Noroton 7762:Noroton 7682:Noroton 7673:Noroton 7650:Noroton 7383:Tombomp 7354:like it 7271:topic. 7210:Comment 7177:Amarkov 7159:Biophys 7047:Comment 6807:Viridae 6724:contact 6646:wikinfo 6465:Factiva 6411:Viridae 6364:Factiva 6270:wizard! 6211:appeals 6180:time.-- 6166:appeals 6145:Simple 6016:comment 5947:Rossami 5832:wwwwolf 5691:Noroton 5682:Noroton 5680:(fixed 5672:Comment 5655:Comment 5600:Again, 5584:Rossami 5545:Hut 8.5 5493:Hut 8.5 5220:Noroton 5061:Comment 5047:Neutral 5005:ALKIVAR 4999:Lesotho 4936:Comment 4839:Comment 4635:Comment 4402:Noroton 4369:Comment 4336:Comment 4256:Comment 4209:Orbis 3 4143:Comment 4045:Noroton 3991:Noroton 3953:Noroton 3935:Noroton 3897:Noroton 3879:require 3856:Noroton 3843:Running 3819:Noroton 3715:article 3712:ninemsn 3661:Noroton 3648:source: 3465:Hut 8.5 3410:Apelike 3341:another 3331:Sceptre 3291:ninemsn 3216:Noroton 3191:Viridae 3136:Noroton 3021:WP:DENY 2921:exactly 2811:megalon 2774:Dezidor 2703:WP:NPOV 2449:WP:NPOV 2369:Comment 2354:Noroton 2186:Rjd0060 2171:Rjd0060 2109:Honesty 2096:Mpontes 2054:ElKevbo 2046:Notable 1907:Toe Fat 1715:Noroton 1692:Noroton 1598:Hut 8.5 1487:—Ditto. 1416:Dantsea 1394:Dantsea 1371:Dantsea 1348:Dantsea 1319:Dantsea 1303:Dantsea 1241:Exxolon 1237:Comment 1177:Noroton 1060:WP:NPOV 961:MBisanz 889:Comment 873:Comment 836:Running 818:comment 793:Comment 726:pd_THOR 663:WP:DENY 608:MBisanz 584:Comment 576:Running 562:comment 535:Running 522:comment 514:Running 480:WP:NPOV 417:WP:DENY 368:protect 363:history 234:users: 10682:should 10442:growls 10419:WP:WEB 10308:Tyciol 10287:WP:WEB 10283:Delete 10226:Piepie 10204:bersl2 10200:single 10179:Piepie 10163:(talk) 10156:Delete 10110:WP:WEB 10044:WP:VPP 9902:keep 9768:bersl2 9504:deemed 9478:WP:WEB 9354:While 9226:WP:WEB 9210:WP:WEB 9116:Nwwaew 9090:should 9052:Delete 9000:Delete 8908:WP:AFD 8791:Editor 8731:WP:COI 8706:WP:WEB 8612:WP:WEB 8547:Delete 8530:WP:WEB 8528:Meets 8477:Piepie 8390:WP:WEB 8334:Delete 8257:WP:WEB 8253:WP:WEB 8242:WP:WEB 8189:(arf!) 8161:WP:WEB 8110:(arf!) 8051:Delete 8034:rogerd 8002:rogerd 7998:delete 7523:WP:WEB 7424:Stifle 7403:naerii 7381:... -- 7358:WP:WEB 7265:WP:Web 7029:Delete 6959:Delete 6885:EhsanQ 6869:(tock) 6849:truth. 6636:(talk) 6537:verus 6280:Delete 6250:WP:WEB 6207:errata 6162:errata 6143:Delete 6126:WP:WEB 6061:(talk) 6045:WP:WEB 6043:fails 6041:Delete 5962:Delete 5951:(talk) 5943:Delete 5907:for us 5841:growls 5753:Delete 5602:WP:WEB 5588:(talk) 5504:WP:WEB 5479:WP:WEB 5457:(talk) 5450:Delete 5237:single 5139:Rhonan 5131:rhonan 5102:WP:WEB 4994:Dahmer 4990:Hitler 4968:WP:WEB 4940:WP:COI 4869:WP:COI 4843:WP:COI 4616:figura 4385:delete 4294:...... 4277:delete 4171:WP:HEY 4095:(talk) 4087:Delete 3983:WP:IAR 3949:WP:ORG 3930:WP:WEB 3875:WP:WEB 3815:WP:WEB 3775:Scanna 3749:WP:WEB 3742:WP:WEB 3738:Delete 3674:Delete 3624:Xymmax 3459:Delete 3364:Delete 3301:WP:WEB 3285:(ecx2) 3235:WP:WEB 3231:Delete 3212:WP:WEB 3173:Delete 3089:WP:WEB 3017:WP:SET 3013:WP:WEB 2976:(Talk) 2961:WP:WEB 2957:Delete 2945:(Talk) 2904:(Talk) 2889:Delete 2839:Delete 2757:Jameth 2683:Delete 2654:WP:WEB 2634:McJeff 2544:(UTC). 2516:WP:WEB 2493:Delete 2344:figura 2334:WP:WEB 2264:JuJube 2228:JuJube 2207:auburn 2071:WP:WEB 2050:pointy 1911:Piepie 1870:Piepie 1864:. See 1839:in an 1818:Delete 1730:Delete 1711:WP:WEB 1684:WP:WEB 1680:Delete 1658:seicer 1652:Delete 1443:Delete 1170:WP:WEB 1127:scribe 1113:Delete 1087:Durova 1082:WP:WEB 1078:Delete 995:WP:WEB 991:Delete 939:Also, 805:Jameth 797:Jameth 775:DELETE 757:WP:WEB 702:uppets 694:aster 651:WP:WEB 602:Delete 413:WP:WEB 407:Fails 396:delete 372:delete 73:WP:BLP 69:WP:WEB 65:WP:WEB 50:WP:WEB 10509:Chris 10438:barks 10143:Nxsty 10139:Keep. 10065:Keep. 10013:Keep. 9899:also 9872:: --> 9870:edits 9861:eland 9751:PyTom 9371:Pass 9341:Fail 9327:Fail 9314:Fail 9275:Pass 9258:Pass 9235:Test 8604:4chan 8140:drama 7573:Wired 7559:short 7333:about 7310:Impin 6982:WP:AN 6513:MSNBC 6489:WP:RS 6481:WP:RS 6469:JSTOR 6376:JSTOR 6267:Koopa 6260:Kamek 6226:notes 6223:Grace 6049:WP:RS 5973:Help! 5837:barks 5393:(aka 5360:(aka 5315:(aka 5280:(aka 5246:(aka 4899:notes 4896:Grace 4871:edit 4698:WP:RS 4287:exist 4279:keep: 4147:about 4133:juice 4128:Mango 4108:about 3729:A. B. 3678:drama 3372:MONGO 3339:Like 3296:Wired 3255:WP:RS 3208:Wired 3101:Wired 2938:rules 2210:pilot 2167:Close 2043:Keep' 1994:Keep. 1866:here. 1281:after 1117:about 1014:Urban 878:Urban 672:Urban 655:Alexa 568::) -- 449:snow. 399:) – ( 389:views 381:watch 377:links 212:Note: 144:civil 16:< 10690:Talk 10678:Keep 10666:Keep 10657:talk 10649:Keep 10638:talk 10550:talk 10542:Keep 10526:Keep 10516:lk02 10503:keep 10491:talk 10467:talk 10453:Keep 10415:Keep 10404:talk 10343:Keep 10332:talk 10323:Keep 10312:talk 10303:Keep 10267:talk 10259:KEEP 10248:talk 10240:Keep 10230:talk 10208:talk 10183:talk 10147:talk 10126:talk 10114:WP:N 10085:talk 10052:talk 10029:talk 10004:talk 9983:talk 9955:talk 9935:talk 9914:talk 9887:talk 9879:Keep 9866:talk 9846:Keep 9835:talk 9826:. -- 9811:talk 9789:talk 9772:talk 9764:Keep 9755:talk 9747:Keep 9715:talk 9701:talk 9623:talk 9587:talk 9570:talk 9542:talk 9486:talk 9474:WP:N 9454:talk 9417:talk 9413:Z00r 9381:kept 9365:does 9357:and 9309:very 9304:and 9224:and 9208:and 9172:talk 9111:Keep 9101:TEEL 9061:talk 9043:talk 9026:talk 9008:talk 8991:talk 8975:Bill 8971:Keep 8950:talk 8931:talk 8916:talk 8886:talk 8867:talk 8853:talk 8849:Hu12 8834:talk 8826:Keep 8815:talk 8800:wiki 8785:Keep 8772:talk 8739:talk 8718:talk 8710:WP:N 8695:talk 8686:talk 8538:talk 8526:keep 8511:talk 8481:talk 8473:Shii 8438:talk 8413:talk 8398:talk 8388:and 8386:WP:N 8376:talk 8358:talk 8342:talk 8324:talk 8282:talk 8229:talk 8206:talk 8148:talk 8127:talk 8102:Keep 8090:talk 8059:talk 8038:talk 8020:talk 8006:talk 7981:talk 7962:talk 7947:talk 7920:WP:N 7882:talk 7863:talk 7835:talk 7802:talk 7781:talk 7766:talk 7719:talk 7704:talk 7686:talk 7677:talk 7654:talk 7586:WP:N 7571:The 7564:The 7527:WP:N 7488:talk 7480:Keep 7464:Crea 7449:talk 7428:talk 7420:Keep 7409:talk 7396:Keep 7387:talk 7375:Keep 7366:talk 7350:Keep 7341:talk 7329:Keep 7314:talk 7306:Keep 7295:talk 7287:Keep 7260:Keep 7249:talk 7228:know 7224:love 7190:Keep 7181:moo! 7173:Keep 7163:talk 7155:Keep 7133:talk 7119:talk 7094:talk 7071:talk 7056:talk 7037:talk 7011:ston 6978:Keep 6950:talk 6942:Keep 6929:keep 6879:Keep 6866:Shii 6825:Keep 6797:talk 6716:talk 6700:Keep 6691:talk 6678:lulz 6673:Keep 6658:talk 6614:talk 6603:and 6576:talk 6552:WP:N 6525:talk 6515:and 6501:talk 6471:and 6463:and 6450:talk 6435:talk 6397:talk 6378:and 6366:and 6318:are: 6186:talk 6134:talk 6122:Keep 6101:talk 6086:talk 6032:talk 6028:Izno 6010:and 6004:Keep 5988:Neıl 5934:talk 5926:Keep 5915:talk 5876:talk 5853:gays 5790:talk 5786:Hu12 5776:talk 5761:talk 5731:Keep 5724:hu12 5714:talk 5695:talk 5686:talk 5676:Keep 5663:talk 5635:main 5608:are 5606:WP:N 5604:and 5572:hu12 5562:talk 5522:hu12 5512:talk 5483:WP:N 5481:and 5441:talk 5435:. -- 5396:Wimt 5389:Will 5363:Wimt 5356:Will 5332:only 5318:Wimt 5311:Will 5283:Wimt 5276:Will 5249:Wimt 5242:Will 5224:talk 5211:WP:N 5192:talk 5179:talk 5164:talk 5152:Keep 5143:talk 5135:talk 5110:talk 5098:Keep 5088:talk 5073:talk 5055:talk 5038:hu12 5028:talk 4986:Keep 4976:talk 4960:Keep 4948:Talk 4927:hu12 4917:talk 4885:talk 4881:Hu12 4875:the 4861:hu12 4851:talk 4825:hu12 4815:talk 4800:Talk 4788:hu12 4778:talk 4764:Talk 4747:talk 4743:Hu12 4733:Grow 4724:hu12 4714:talk 4694:Keep 4682:talk 4667:Note 4657:talk 4584:hu12 4574:talk 4559:talk 4555:Hu12 4543:talk 4539:Hu12 4528:talk 4524:Z00r 4515:hu12 4505:talk 4473:talk 4469:Hu12 4422:Keep 4406:talk 4327:talk 4323:Node 4315:Keep 4305:Talk 4245:talk 4213:talk 4205:Keep 4196:talk 4188:keep 4179:talk 4156:talk 4116:WP:V 4112:WP:N 4104:Keep 4049:talk 4010:talk 3995:talk 3972:talk 3957:talk 3947:Oh, 3939:talk 3926:WP:N 3916:talk 3901:talk 3873:and 3871:WP:N 3860:talk 3823:talk 3813:and 3811:WP:N 3809:And 3794:Keep 3779:talk 3693:AAAA 3685:AAA! 3665:talk 3615:Keep 3591:Keep 3580:talk 3560:talk 3547:talk 3528:talk 3520:Keep 3510:talk 3496:Keep 3487:talk 3483:Kate 3475:Keep 3444:talk 3431:talk 3423:Keep 3414:talk 3397:talk 3387:and 3380:Keep 3366:per 3353:talk 3345:just 3287:Keep 3271:talk 3251:Keep 3220:talk 3204:WP:N 3187:Keep 3155:Neıl 3150:WP:N 3140:talk 3106:Neıl 3097:here 3085:Keep 3069:talk 3052:talk 3009:WP:N 3005:Keep 2992:talk 2915:and 2872:have 2855:talk 2830:talk 2822:Keep 2814:2000 2808:Maxa 2804:Keep 2787:Keep 2778:talk 2761:talk 2744:talk 2723:Keep 2711:talk 2647:Keep 2638:talk 2630:Keep 2615:talk 2601:talk 2580:talk 2561:talk 2553:Keep 2526:talk 2501:talk 2466:Keep 2457:talk 2445:KEEP 2436:talk 2427:Keep 2419:Talk 2403:Keep 2394:talk 2377:talk 2358:talk 2330:Keep 2321:talk 2312:Keep 2298:Keep 2289:talk 2281:Keep 2268:talk 2254:talk 2250:Hu12 2232:talk 2215:talk 2201:Keep 2190:talk 2175:talk 2158:talk 2150:Keep 2137:talk 2123:talk 2100:talk 2067:Keep 2058:talk 2030:talk 2016:talk 2012:Hu12 1985:talk 1981:Z00r 1970:Keep 1955:talk 1945:Keep 1930:talk 1915:talk 1897:talk 1893:Hu12 1874:talk 1858:Keep 1849:talk 1845:Hu12 1831:must 1802:talk 1772:Crea 1736:and 1719:talk 1707:WP:N 1696:talk 1688:WP:N 1664:talk 1635:talk 1577:talk 1556:talk 1538:TEEL 1420:talk 1406:talk 1402:Hu12 1375:talk 1352:talk 1323:talk 1307:talk 1299:Keep 1289:talk 1267:talk 1254:Keep 1245:talk 1225:talk 1196:talk 1181:talk 1152:talk 1104:talk 1096:Keep 1069:talk 1056:Keep 1040:talk 1019:Rose 1003:talk 976:talk 949:talk 931:talk 919:Keep 903:talk 883:Rose 864:talk 858:er. 856:Keep 848:will 828:. -- 809:talk 801:talk 784:talk 753:Keep 742:talk 738:Z00r 716:Keep 677:Rose 649:and 634:talk 624:and 618:Keep 592:Talk 506:. -- 497:Keep 488:talk 472:Keep 463:talk 436:talk 432:Hu12 426:must 385:logs 359:talk 355:edit 142:and 140:calm 112:talk 58:this 54:WP:N 52:and 46:keep 10269:) 10112:or 9802:one 9695:. 9683:or 9679:or 9675:or 9671:or 9667:or 9663:or 9659:or 9538:HAL 9514:ODU 9432:ODU 9398:ODU 9127:) ( 9123:) ( 8898:or 8797:the 8708:or 8368:non 8030:all 7698:.-- 7660:))) 7312:| { 7004:Pre 6931:. - 6650:IAR 6605:WEB 6560:CNN 5967:Guy 5889:WAY 5437:HAL 4992:or 4676:-- 4673:. 4648:not 4465:not 4302:.. 4261:sho 3719:MSN 3605:mum 3240:SQL 2994:) ( 2791:Irk 2671:)·( 2477:Hdt 2303:Lid 2246:not 1686:or 1214:. 1123:WjB 844:... 768:• 266:csp 262:or 254:csm 222:spa 196:not 10688:- 10659:) 10640:) 10552:) 10532:| 10493:) 10469:) 10444:) 10406:) 10334:) 10314:) 10250:) 10232:) 10224:-- 10210:) 10185:) 10177:-- 10149:) 10128:) 10087:) 10079:. 10054:) 10046:. 10031:) 10006:) 9985:) 9957:) 9937:) 9916:) 9889:) 9859:el 9854:os 9837:) 9813:) 9791:) 9774:) 9757:) 9717:) 9703:) 9625:) 9589:) 9572:) 9536:-- 9488:) 9456:) 9419:) 9391:. 9301:. 9174:) 9154:, 9045:) 9028:) 9010:) 8993:) 8952:) 8933:) 8918:) 8888:) 8869:) 8855:) 8847:-- 8844:is 8836:) 8817:) 8794:of 8774:) 8759:) 8756:竜龙 8741:) 8720:) 8712:. 8697:) 8665:) 8662:竜龙 8644:. 8626:) 8623:竜龙 8540:) 8513:) 8495:. 8483:) 8459:. 8453:-- 8440:) 8415:) 8400:) 8378:) 8360:) 8344:) 8326:) 8284:) 8231:) 8208:) 8150:) 8129:) 8121:-- 8092:) 8070:-- 8061:) 8040:) 8022:) 8008:) 7983:) 7964:) 7949:) 7931:: 7922:: 7884:) 7865:) 7837:) 7804:) 7783:) 7768:) 7721:) 7706:) 7688:) 7656:) 7490:) 7482:. 7470:y! 7451:) 7443:-- 7430:) 7406:- 7389:) 7368:) 7343:) 7320:} 7316:- 7297:) 7251:) 7165:) 7135:) 7121:) 7096:) 7073:) 7058:) 7039:) 6971:. 6952:) 6908:, 6799:) 6766:§ 6726:) 6722:• 6718:• 6693:) 6660:) 6616:) 6608:-- 6599:. 6578:) 6527:) 6507:\ 6503:) 6483:. 6452:) 6437:) 6399:) 6209:• 6205:• 6201:( 6188:) 6164:• 6160:• 6156:( 6136:) 6103:• 6095:— 6088:• 6034:) 5985:? 5936:) 5917:) 5878:) 5843:) 5812:-- 5792:) 5778:) 5763:) 5716:) 5697:) 5665:) 5564:) 5514:) 5226:) 5194:• 5186:— 5181:) 5166:) 5158:. 5145:) 5112:) 5075:) 5057:) 5030:) 4978:) 4946:| 4919:) 4887:) 4877:ED 4853:) 4817:) 4798:| 4780:) 4762:| 4749:) 4716:) 4684:) 4659:) 4591:-- 4576:) 4561:) 4545:) 4537:-- 4530:) 4507:) 4499:. 4475:) 4408:) 4329:) 4247:) 4215:) 4198:) 4181:) 4158:) 4051:) 4029:-- 4026:is 4012:) 3997:) 3974:) 3959:) 3941:) 3918:) 3903:) 3862:) 3854:. 3841:. 3825:) 3785:) 3781:• 3681:-- 3667:) 3582:) 3562:• 3554:— 3549:) 3530:) 3512:) 3489:) 3446:• 3438:— 3433:) 3416:) 3399:) 3355:) 3273:• 3265:— 3257:. 3222:) 3142:) 3071:) 3054:) 3037:\ 2998:) 2857:) 2832:) 2780:) 2763:) 2746:) 2713:) 2667:·( 2660:. 2640:) 2609:— 2603:) 2582:) 2563:) 2528:• 2520:— 2503:) 2479:83 2459:) 2438:) 2430:-- 2417:| 2396:) 2379:) 2360:) 2323:) 2291:) 2270:) 2256:) 2234:) 2192:) 2177:) 2160:) 2131:— 2125:) 2102:) 2060:) 2032:) 2018:) 1987:) 1957:• 1949:— 1932:) 1917:) 1899:) 1887:. 1876:) 1868:-- 1851:) 1778:y! 1747:§ 1740:. 1721:) 1698:) 1667:| 1661:| 1637:) 1579:) 1558:) 1422:) 1408:) 1377:) 1354:) 1325:• 1317:— 1309:) 1291:) 1269:) 1247:) 1198:) 1183:) 1158:) 1154:• 1106:) 1071:) 1042:• 1005:) 978:) 951:) 933:) 905:) 866:) 852:am 834:. 811:) 803:) 786:) 759:. 744:) 730:| 698:f 636:) 590:| 574:. 555:) 533:. 512:. 490:) 465:) 438:) 411:, 387:| 383:| 379:| 375:| 370:| 366:| 361:| 357:| 272:}} 260:}} 250:: 244:}} 228:}} 218:: 115:) 75:. 10655:( 10636:( 10548:( 10489:( 10465:( 10440:/ 10436:( 10402:( 10382:C 10380:| 10378:T 10352:C 10350:| 10348:T 10330:( 10310:( 10265:( 10246:( 10228:( 10206:( 10181:( 10145:( 10124:( 10083:( 10050:( 10027:( 10019:☯ 10002:( 9981:( 9953:( 9933:( 9912:( 9885:( 9863:/ 9833:( 9809:( 9787:( 9770:( 9753:( 9713:( 9699:( 9621:( 9585:( 9568:( 9516:P 9512:W 9484:( 9452:( 9434:P 9430:W 9415:( 9400:P 9396:W 9170:( 9131:) 9119:( 9099:S 9095:S 9063:) 9059:( 9041:( 9024:( 9006:( 8989:( 8948:( 8929:( 8914:( 8884:( 8865:( 8851:( 8832:( 8813:( 8770:( 8753:( 8737:( 8716:( 8693:( 8684:( 8659:( 8620:( 8536:( 8509:( 8479:( 8436:( 8411:( 8396:( 8374:( 8356:( 8340:( 8322:( 8280:( 8227:( 8204:( 8146:( 8125:( 8088:( 8057:( 8036:( 8018:( 8004:( 7979:( 7960:( 7945:( 7880:( 7861:( 7833:( 7800:( 7779:( 7764:( 7717:( 7702:( 7684:( 7675:( 7652:( 7486:( 7467:m 7447:( 7426:( 7385:( 7364:( 7339:( 7293:( 7247:( 7161:( 7131:( 7117:( 7092:( 7069:( 7054:( 7035:( 7018:H 6995:. 6948:( 6795:( 6775:e 6772:/ 6769:t 6714:( 6689:( 6656:( 6612:( 6574:( 6523:( 6499:( 6448:( 6433:( 6395:( 6272:) 6265:( 6230:§ 6213:) 6184:( 6168:) 6132:( 6099:( 6084:( 6030:( 5993:☎ 5975:) 5971:( 5932:( 5913:( 5874:( 5839:/ 5835:( 5788:( 5774:( 5759:( 5744:a 5742:c 5740:z 5738:a 5736:m 5712:( 5693:( 5684:( 5661:( 5560:( 5510:( 5399:) 5366:) 5321:) 5286:) 5252:) 5222:( 5190:( 5177:( 5162:( 5141:( 5137:) 5133:( 5108:( 5090:) 5086:( 5071:( 5053:( 5026:( 5013:☢ 5010:™ 4974:( 4915:( 4903:§ 4883:( 4849:( 4813:( 4776:( 4745:( 4735:? 4712:( 4680:( 4655:( 4651:— 4612:B 4572:( 4557:( 4541:( 4526:( 4503:( 4471:( 4443:ɸ 4440:| 4437:Ɣ 4404:( 4325:( 4266:y 4243:( 4211:( 4194:( 4177:( 4154:( 4150:— 4047:( 4008:( 3993:( 3970:( 3955:( 3937:( 3914:( 3910:- 3899:( 3858:( 3821:( 3777:( 3696:) 3690:( 3663:( 3578:( 3558:( 3545:( 3526:( 3508:( 3485:( 3442:( 3429:( 3412:( 3395:( 3351:( 3318:) 3316:O 3314:2 3312:H 3310:( 3269:( 3218:( 3160:☎ 3138:( 3111:☎ 3067:( 3050:( 3034:C 3031:/ 3011:/ 2990:( 2853:( 2828:( 2776:( 2759:( 2742:( 2709:( 2675:) 2673:c 2669:t 2636:( 2613:( 2599:( 2578:( 2559:( 2524:( 2499:( 2455:( 2434:( 2414:P 2411:I 2408:J 2392:( 2375:( 2356:( 2340:B 2319:( 2287:( 2266:( 2252:( 2230:( 2188:( 2173:( 2156:( 2135:( 2121:( 2098:( 2056:( 2028:( 2014:( 1983:( 1953:( 1928:( 1913:( 1895:( 1872:( 1847:( 1775:m 1756:e 1753:/ 1750:t 1717:( 1694:( 1633:( 1575:( 1554:( 1536:S 1532:S 1418:( 1404:( 1373:( 1350:( 1321:( 1305:( 1287:( 1265:( 1261:- 1243:( 1194:( 1179:( 1150:( 1102:( 1067:( 1038:( 1001:( 974:( 947:( 929:( 901:( 862:( 807:( 799:( 782:( 740:( 700:P 696:o 692:M 632:( 551:( 486:( 461:( 434:( 403:) 393:( 391:) 353:( 274:. 268:| 256:| 240:| 224:| 109:(

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

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Encyclopedia Dramatica (2nd nomination) - Knowledge

Index