Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kevin Knuth

494:

readily explainable. That has been publicly acknowledged by the US government and its agencies. As you're no doubt aware, the US Congress has now passed legislation - with more coming shortly - to require US government agencies to take this matter seriously; from encouraging service personnel to file reports, to the research and investigation of those reports. For the sake of clarity: The US government has made official statements - and even passed legislation - that effectively declares that the topic of UAP should no longer be considered "fringe", with all the associated stigma that implies. Indeed, this essential point is explicitly at the heart of these initiatives, which are intended to encourage witnesses in professional positions to come forward without fear of career impacting ridicule; from military and intelligence community personnel, to civil aviation pilots, to police officers and so on.

1380:. The citation record is less impressive than it first looks: if one skips over the highly cited non-first-author work in neuroscience (an extremely high-citation-count field) he barely breaks into triple digits with his work applying Bayesian methods to physics. I'm less impressed with the editorship of an MDPI journal than I would be with one from a reputable publisher. And the UFO work is well-enough sourced to keep in the article, but not really enough for notability by itself. All that said, this could easily be a weak keep rather than a weak delete. I'm pushed over to the delete side by the ongoing 498:

consideration by an a priori assumption with no proven theoretical grounding. I am well aware of Occam's razor and the appeal to parsimony. However, this only applies when evaluating a set of hypotheses that fit the known facts. When you are tasked with collecting and analysing the raw data of an unexplained phenomena, you do not shrug your shoulders and say "I won't bother looking, because established wisdom dictates what can and cannot be, ergo I'll just cherrypick whichever "facts" conform to those preconceptions and ignore the rest". That approach is more akin to religion that science.

930:

attention, based on a communication I received from someone associated with a member of university faculty, that Knuth has just been promoted to a full professorship. The official university website has not yet been updated, but should be by the beginning of the new semester (if the academic calendar is the same as the UK, I'm assuming September). Either way, confirmation by reliable references should hopefully be available within a matter of weeks. I'd ask that this be taken into consideration.

404:

as "fringe" is patently absurd. Is Prof. Avi Loeb, leading Harvard University's Galileo Project, also now regarded as a fringe "pseudoscientist"? In any case, as noted, this is likely not the place for that wider discussion, however I would like to register my disappointment and strong opposition to this apparent state of affairs within the prevailing culture at Knowledge that seems to be defining policies at present.

1924:. He is no more 'ufologist' than any of the aforementioned examples. Yet whether Avi numbers 1 or 10 or 100 Harvard scientists, and whether UAP prove to be completely mundane, natural phenomena, time traveling teapots in the orbit of Jupiter, or momentary imaginings of a Boltzmann brain bears no impact on the merit or suitability of Knuth's notability or suitability for entry. The question of whether Knuth or 1733:

they do, I feel, add yet further weight to the argument that Knuth is a notable presence with his academic domain. That, combined with his activity within the field of scientifically grounded UAP investigation - for which he is notable for having combined an established academic career with longstanding public engagement in that discourse - provide ample grounds for his inclusion in Knowledge, in my opinion.

572:"But the judgement of his colleagues...". You know them all personally, do you? Look, I'm sure we could argue back and forth about the UAP question all night long. However, as previously noted, this is not the place to have that broader discussion - and frankly, I have neither the inclination nor time to waste on such a pointless exercise. 1647:

The Galileo Project, Sky360 and others are actually trying to do the scientific investigative work to collect and analyse evidence, as opposed to sitting on their arses pompously yabbering ad infinitum about the inability to seriously hypothesise about the nature of anomalous phenomena due to ... you guessed it; lack of evidence.

1483:"misleading" about the text - it was absolutely factual. That you see fit to deem it "insignificant" does not render the text "misleading" in and of itself. If I had written "This demonstrates that Knuth's work eclipses that of Albert Einstein in terms of its impact on the course of human history", then you may have had a point. 1059:. Sometimes different pillars come into conflict. This is especially the case in situations where the subject is borderline or obscure. That's what we're dealing with here. You are making a case that the subject is not obscure, but the problem as I see it is that the evidence seems to indicate that he hasn't been 1029:. That C6 then refers to administrators who may not even have followed the academic career path - yet dismisses professors who have - is contradictory and contrary to the spirit of the guideline's purpose as stated, in my view. Much like many of Knowledge's monumental corpus of rules, regulations and guidelines. 884:

a biography, and we should be honest about that. Standards for inclusion should be higher here because when they are low, we end up writing either prose that is helpful to precisely no one or we turn into glorified CVs. Neither of those options seems better than just putting this part of the project away.

2106:

This is important. "Full Professor" is simply the third step in the tenure and promotion process, after "Assistant Professor" and "Associate Professor." If it conferred notability, there would be tens of thousands more academics suddenly eligible for articles. It does not. "Distinguished Professor"

1865:“When you say "world renowned academic institutions like Harvard University what you mean to say is one astronomer has fallen off the deep end. Academic freedom means Avi can pursue whatever flights of fancy he likes. But the judgement of his colleagues is that he is barking up some very wrong trees.” 1835:

available at links that haven’t even been incorporated into the article yet: it was only a barebones skeleton effort just getting off the ground when this childish edit-warring began due to the religious fervency of the topic and willful disbelief from either side to see the perspective of the other.

399:

Having originally authored the article, I'm clearly of the opinion that the subject achieves the requisite standard of notability. His academic papers; his career history in the round (including NASA Ames); his editorship of the Entropy journal; the Knuth Algorithm on Wolfram; and the public exposure

2143:

Feel free to take that up on the NPROF talk page. I'll note that at one point I did investigate university presidents' academic pedigrees (55+ people, chosen by looking at the current president of every other university a given president had attended/worked at) and was surprised to find most of them

2018:

historically considered to be a part of that field itself necessarily pseudoscience. Yet all of this is neither here nor there when the question is one of notability, not acting as self-appointed intellectual internet police on a crusade to protect the sanctity of the vaunted halls of knowledge from

1642:

Thirdly, whilst you might imagine yourself to be Knowledge's Sherlock Holmes, that someone with the aforementioned interests might be motived to write an article about a notable professor who is brave enough to put their head above the parapet, conduct research and speak out about a subject that has

1423:

is a typical example. It adds a description of Knuth's research, based only on primary sources about that research. As I wrote on the BLPN discussion, material by the subject is ok for career milestones (if not unduly self-serving) but not for opinion-based material like what the main results of his

883:

of this person? Where do they account for his interest in anything, his childhood and adolescence, his personal life, his hobbies, his friends, his cultivation of a persona? I see no source that can attest to that. Mere mention of a person saying this or that isn't really good enough for us to write

493:

The "U" in UAP stands for "unidentified". A very large proportion of UAP reports are most likely resolvable to human tech, natural phenomena, hoaxes and so forth. This has already been established in numerous historical studies, both private and government. However, there is a subset that are not so

421:

is well-defined as a content guideline on Knowledge and was codified well before the recent dust-ups about UFOs. Note that it does not make any value judgement with respect to the subject material. It only outlines best practices for how to discuss fringe material. There are even clear rules for how

1894:

counts close to half a dozen tenured PhD astrophysicists as core members. Dozens more including DOE national labs distinguished research fellows contribute to the nonprofit from the wings, yet choose to remain anonymous precisely because of the stigma brought to fore from the skeptics, many of whom

1338:

All of his top 5 papers are outside of his own self-described research interests, and additionally are in a field with higher citation rates than what he seems to publish in the most. Accordingly, if I censor both those papers and the citation profiles of his coauthors on those papers (most of whom

1189:

of his highest-cited papers are even in his field (they're all neuropsych/neurophys, in neuropsych/neurophys journals), and he's predictably a middle author on all of them. Since he made only minor contributions to those papers, we shouldn't credit him with their success, and we certainly shouldn't

403:

I will also note - albeit this is likely outwith the scope of this discussion - that in light of the recent US governmental statements and actions pertaining to UAP (involving the US military; intelligence agencies; Congressional hearings; NASA), to regard scientific research into this subject area

1732:

I also have links to 5 published (not self-published) academic books (non-UAP related), authored either solely by Knuth (2), or in collaboration with other authors (3), however I assume these would not be useful references owing them being primary sources (hence I did not include them). That said,

1673:

UFO/UAP data collection and analysis by the DOD/Intel is now the official policy and law of the United States government. So a scientist like Knuth's interest in the topic is not automatically disqualifying as fringe as it was in the past. Lots of skeptics with Knowledge bios have also appeared in

1646:

I have been absolutely transparent about my interest in the UAP topic and the small subset of scientists, engineers and other professionals who are gutsy enough to put their public reputations on the line and actually do the research. Those involved with UAPx, Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies,

497:

Scientists of the likes of Kevin Knuth are pursuing what the US government has now explicitly requested of academia - to research UAP phenomena. In following the scientific method, no outcome should be assumed prior to the collection and analysis of the evidence, and nothing should be ruled out of

440:

How is the current "mainstream" view on UAP established? The fact that US government officials have publicly confirmed that UAP *do* exist most certainly should be considered important in this regard. The scientific study of UAP is not "Fringe" - even if many of the theories as to their nature may

315:

source that seems relevant for the biography, but that is rather thin to write a standalone article. Having an algorithm used by Wolfram is perhaps noteworthy, but it's also not normally the thing we would identify as justifying a standalone BLP since Wolfram tends to be pretty peripatetic when it

248:. The subject has a moderate number of citations, but most of the citations are from middle authorship on papers with a moderately high number of coauthors. Looking past these papers, the highest cited paper has 167 citations (in what I believe to be a higher citation field). So I'm skeptical of 1650:

So yes, I have an interest. As do most people, I'd assume, who take time out of their day to write articles for Knowledge about subjects within their domain of interest that they regard as important and notable. If that makes me somehow befitting of Knowledge blackballing, fine. Go ahead. Do your

1520:

whatever you feel is necessary to support your unsubstantiated claim that my edits were "dubious". It should be quite obvious why the edits were made. Nobody is claiming that the Knuth Algorithm demonstrated notability in and of itself. But, it is part of a corpus of work which, in my view, does.

929:

On this point specifically: I would like to share some 'original research'. I am aware that, in the absence of a reference, the following information may not be enough to support the case in and of itself, but I'd nevertheless like to add this to the record, for what it's worth. It has come to my

2175:

I think there are a few criteria the subject almost meets, like C1 and C7. I find the analysis by JoelleJay convincing: he's less-cited than his co-authors (with a reasonable cut-off of having 12 papers published), so doesn't meet C1. I would like to see more of his impact to satisfy C7: a few

1024:

Professors within academia are generally known to others within their research domain. They lead teams of PhDs conducting academic research; they run labs (Knuth Lab, for example). Indeed, the very work depends on knowing who your peers are and what they are researching. That should amount to

557:

astronomer has fallen off the deep end. Academic freedom means Avi can pursue whatever flights of fancy he likes. But the judgement of his colleagues is that he is barking up some very wrong trees. That's the context. Now we need to get on with figuring out how to make sure that the reader

988:, you'll find this for C6: "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify)." 1840:'s authorship of the article represents one of the first attempts by a young editor to make a positive contribution, yet all sorts of critical opprobrium is being indiscriminately tossed about in shotgun approach for a variety of invalid reasons including lack of familiarity with 2013:

characteristics of the tic-tac in the USS Nimitz incident are equally straightforward and by no means deserving of premature dismissal as pseudoscience. Just because a field was historically considered fringe doesn't mean that it will be in the future, nor is any study into what

2121:

I think everyone knows they're not the same thing, PianoDan. It is nevertheless absurd that a University President should qualify for academic notability when they may not even have followed an academic career path (and often haven't), whilst there is even a question over the

1638:

Secondly, define "they". I am not a member of UAPx. I am someone who has followed and supported their work and believes in their mission to collect and analyse raw UAP data using the scientific method with a view to furthering understanding of UAP phenomena, whatever they may

1556:, he'd be just another non-notable academic. Knuth is best known for advocacy of the notion that a number of UFOs reported by the military are likely extraterrestrial in origin, UFO skepticism is bad, and we should fund serious research to get evidence of ET in our skies. His 1600:

ideas (and not his rather unremarkable academic career) are the sole focus of media coverage, we don't have the kind of serious, in-depth 3rd party biographical information we'd need to construct a neutral BLP. Until we do, Knuth and his claims are best given a few lines in

1920:, a term which represents blatant mischaracterization and historical stigma when intentionally misapplied. Knuth is employed as a tenured university professor who leads his own research group and is responsible for millions of dollars in federal grants from NSF 52:. Opinion is split, with a slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. The notability of academics is a notoriously contentious topic, and people here don't agree about whether Knuth is notable for his academic work, his UFO-related activity, or both. 969:

posts within the institution - usually full professors. The word "administrative" may apply to professors, whose responsibilities invariably include a set of administrative tasks within both their departments and the institution as a whole.

501:

World renowned academic institutions like Harvard University are openly supporting such UAP projects. The US military and now NASA are setting up programs to explicitly study UAP. The act of engaging in the investigative processes of the

1018:

This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements. An academic is someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such

810:

But he can be held responsible for (a) taking a position at a journal that has a history of publishing pseudoscience and (b) supporting the ongoing pseudoscience being published at that journal including a paper that he wrote himself.

1693:

1478:

That still does not support your accusing my edits of being "dubious". As regards developing an algorithm used in Wolfram's Mathematica not indicating significance; so says you. Others, including myself, disagree. There was

459:. Until there is a big splash article published in mainstream journals that argue there is something more to UFOs than human technology, natural phenomena, hoaxes, or delusions, we are stuck at Knowledge with following this 205: 1497:

Not mentioning that the "Knuth Algorithm" is only one of five options for one parameter of a software function that takes many parameters is misleading by omission. And a publication in data analysis that has

524:

The problem with the argument (which is an old one) that there are "U" accounts which are "not readily explainable" is that the arguments that a particular "sighting" is "explainable" can be argued against

2144:

had strong scholarly profiles. Almost all of them had been profs, and a large proportion appeared to additionally meet NPROF through citations/named chairs. These were mostly R1 universities, however.

682:

via that path. Nor do I see a path through citation counts alone, given the concerns raised above (middle authorship, having to stand out from a high-citation field). Having one's work implemented in

463:

approach that the scientific research community has taken towards the subject. The subtext, of course, of the present governmental interest is that there may be human technology at work here. The

1899:, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This deletion review itself is the elephant in the room and case in point front and center as a prominent example of such lingering stigma. 1887:

counts upwards of 200 formal subject matter experts among its invitation-only membership, with well over 400 scientists and engineers attending its last annual meeting in June. This is not

1442:

the kind of information that Knowledge editors are demanding to demonstrate notability. That is why I put it in there. So again, I ask you: Why was that edit, in your words, "dubious"?

704:

For what it's worth, I first heard of Knuth because of work he co-authored in quantum theory, work that was respectably published but neither a solo effort nor as influential as, e.g.,

268:

UFO theories, but I don't see a GNG pass around there. It is possible that there is a good faith combined case for notability, but I am sufficiently skeptical to make this nomination.

545:. So far, you might notice, the boosters of this current UAP craze do not take kindly to the mainstream critique of their arguments. It's a classic story that we see all across the 1063:

by "others within their research domain" in the way we would normally desire if we were to be complete and honest about the biography. That is my argument in toto. If you know of

422:

to identify the fringe nature of a topic and the ide that "recent US governmental statements and actions" is not the standard that is used to judge whether a topic is subject to

285: 1516:

If Mathematica offered hundreds of alternative algorithms that produce exactly the same output, then you might have a point. As it is, you simply appear to be pronouncing as

1635:

deleted - as a cursory glance at the AfD decision should inform you. It was moved to the Draft namespace, pending additional secondary source references becoming available.

1136:

As I see it there are three possible route for notability for Knuth, WP:PROF-C1, WP:PROF-C8, and general notability for his UFO work. I don't believe he passes C1 due to "

720:. The raw numbers are a crude indicator, of course, but I think it is fair to say that on this topic, the work to which he contributed doesn't stand out above the field. 1895:

remain blissfully unaware of the contemporary body of evidence that has led to an immediate about-face and historically unprecedented legislation from the Congress, the

1198:

of his research). So if we shouldn't describe those papers with more than a half-sentence in his biography, they shouldn't be given much weight for C1 purposes either.

1812: 199: 690:

is a big, big toolbox. So, no path to wiki-notability there. Scraping together scattered media mentions isn't a good foundation for an encyclopedia article, either.

1723:- Article & interview on Texas Public Radio: https://www.tpr.org/science-technology/2021-06-18/physicist-takes-a-serious-look-at-unidentified-aerial-phenomena 1438:

That edit appears to be the introduction of the Knuth Algorithm into the article that is incorporated into Wolfram's Mathematica. Why is that "dubious"? This is

162: 825:

Whether or not he's "responsible" for anything, the relevant point is that only being Editor-in-Chief of a very select class of journals qualifies for the

2046: 2028: 2101: 1232: 1180: 1092:

is not good enough to pass him on that criterion. If he had a bit more discussion in mainstream media for his activity, that would push him over on

965:

it seems logical that "...held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post..." in Criteria 6 would refer to those occupying the highest

2129:

of a Full Professor like Dr. Knuth, who has over 100 papers & several books published in the academic literature and runs his own research lab.

1872: 616: 2005:

were all at one time in the realm of UAP, yet no one would call research into these topics pseudoscientific in nature. Fundamental analysis of the

297: 506:

is no longer considered "fringe science". It is absolutely mainstream - and I am of the opinion that it's high time Knowledge caught up with the

89: 2087: 1164: 752: 699: 634: 1815:

of the filing regarding the subject and article creator at ANI. Depending on how you choose to define academic field, subject qualifies under

791: 1729:- Interview on WAMC Northeast Public Radio: https://www.wamc.org/podcast/vox-pop/2022-05-11/uap-ufo-tic-tacs-what-can-science-tell-us-5-11-22 1577: 1499: 705: 657: 1763: 1451: 1433: 1415: 413: 1768:

Just a note that interviews do not contribute to notability unless they include very substantial independent secondary analysis/commentary

1144:. It might be possible that he passes GNG in the future for his UFO work, but at the moment he doesn't quite make it in my opinion. -- LCU 729: 1207: 2116: 2082: 2024: 1227: 1159: 925:"The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society". 529:. And that is typically the name of the game. The goal of the "I want to believe" enthusiast is to cast doubt on any prosaic explanation 260:

C8. I don't see any sign of other NPROF criteria, and I indeed think it would be a bit surprising if a long-term associate professor at

109: 1660: 1530: 1511: 1492: 1473: 1401: 939: 893: 842: 782:-- was enough to put the whole publisher on Beall's List. So I certainly wouldn't call his editorship of it an NPROF pass by any means. 352: 325: 2153: 1781: 979: 953: 863: 805: 94: 2138: 1277:. Per my comments above, and also: Scopus citations do not suggest Knuth passes the "average professor test", as he is below even the 1123: 1038: 1000: 1626: 1561: 1259: 1257: 915: 387: 1368: 1754:

if you have authored books with independent reviews in reliable sources, then the reviews can help contribute towards notability.

1568: 1212:

I missed this comment, but JoelleJay has said everything I would have. I was aware of those papers when I made my comment. -- LCU

1109: 991:

Full professor is a rank, not a job, and the notability criterion for rank is "named chair or 'Distinguished Professor'", per C5.

1742: 1726:- Article in UK press: https://metro.co.uk/2018/06/30/ex-nasa-scientist-says-aliens-exist-encounters-covered-governments-7672163/ 1687: 1557: 820: 776: 581: 567: 519: 488: 450: 435: 277: 240:. Looking more closely, I am uncertain that the subject is notable, and making this nomination -- please consider my !vote as a 2185: 2020: 1385: 1269: 1521:

Whether you agree with that assessment or not, to label the edits "dubious" is non-collegial and appears contrary to WP:AGF.

1055:

The problem we are having here is that Knowledge is non-innovative and aims to inform to the best of our ability according to

1831:

Knuth was recently promoted to the rank of full professor. There's additional third-party coverage about the article subject

1709: 373: 773: 768:

has a long track record of publishing junk science by unqualified "researchers". In fact, it's probably one of the journals

510:

rather than base policy around anachronistic sociocultural and political paradigms that should be left in the 20th century.

1610: 1005:

The point I am making is not about the letter of the guideline - it is about exposing those letters as self-contradictory.

852: 220: 1406:

What "dubious edits" are you referring to please, David? Which edits have I made that you consider "dubious" - and why?

187: 2092:

This is correct. The "full professor" title does not mean a pass of any of the wiki-notability-for-academics criteria.

1958: 1076: 1596:

kind: his extraordinary claims are merely reported in media outlets with zero expert analysis or critique. Since his

1945:

any sort of automatic disqualification. Historically now-mainstream topics that were once considered fringe include

1253: 103: 1844:

that should be not only expected, but welcomed and encouraged. We weren’t all born spouting Wiki markup syntax and

963:

This guideline reflects consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements."),

2076: 1221: 1153: 338:

The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

135: 130: 82: 17: 2019:

the hordes of unwashed masses and infidels at the gates, whether such characterization holds water of not. — 🤖

1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 64: 1974: 1574: 139: 1970: 1932:

is neither here nor there, and has only entered into this conversation as a farcical pretense and red herring.

645: 1582:

Open Minds UFO Radio, Phenomenon Radio, Radio Misterioso, My Alien Life, Podcast UFO, Night Dreams Talk Radio

1249: 400:

he has attained for his willingness to publicly engage in the endeavour of scientific investigation into UAP.

181: 1460:

offers five different binning algorithms, not just Knuth's), and it doesn't actually indicate significance (

1171:

I can't understand the above comment. His work has been cited by 4672 mostly independent reliable sources.

122: 166: 144: 99: 713: 177: 2069: 1214: 1146: 1609:. BTW, I found circumstances of the article's creation by a single purpose account of interest: after 2202: 1883:

researchers and affiliates with the project, many of them top scientists in their respective fields.

1803:, several calling for weak delete, no shortage of straw man arguments, and a few outright fallacies. 1705: 1266: 1072: 889: 816: 612: 563: 549:

spectrum. Also, when you say "world renowned academic institutions like Harvard University" what you

484: 431: 378:

Indeed, the only thing well-established about it is that nobody trusts it to do any quality control.

369: 321: 40: 156: 78: 1759: 1429: 1397: 717: 709: 293: 273: 227: 2062: 1606: 1420: 796:

Knuth cannot be held responsible for what the publication did before he was its editor-in-chief.

1114:

Please see my reply to jps, above, specifically in relation to Criteria (6) of WP:PROF. Thanks.

1896: 1581: 1592:. Knuth's "ex NASA scientist says UFOs aliens" schtick definitely got attention, but only the 29:

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

2198: 2197:

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

2097: 1593: 1507: 1469: 838: 725: 695: 383: 36: 35:

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

1938: 1860: 1808: 1701: 1622: 1262: 1176: 1068: 911: 885: 812: 748: 622: 608: 559: 480: 427: 365: 317: 261: 1194:

research career (or vice versa: they shouldn't be presented as if they were a significant

152: 8: 2149: 2010: 1845: 1777: 1755: 1425: 1393: 1364: 1203: 949: 859: 787: 630: 625:, you might want to reconsider the impact of the journal editorship, per comments below. 334: 308: 307:

is met, but if it is, I imagine it is going to end up that the article would be mostly a

289: 269: 193: 479:

paper, I guess, and, until then, keep reaching for those stars (just not at Knowledge).

2112: 1966: 1913: 1880: 1876: 1381: 1255: 1105: 996: 674:

journal with a poor reputation, not the kind of flagship-of-the-field publication that

653: 646:

the rapid closure today of this filing regarding the subject and article creator at ANI

148: 2134: 1946: 1738: 1656: 1571: 1526: 1488: 1447: 1411: 1119: 1034: 975: 935: 801: 666: 577: 533:. This has been the name of the game for decades. The US government, thankfully, has 515: 446: 409: 1140:". I was of the thought that he passed C8, but I don't believe Entropy quite passes 686:

is nice, but hardly an indication that one has pioneered a pivotal new development;

2093: 2002: 1998: 1697: 1597: 1585: 1503: 1465: 834: 721: 691: 546: 538: 423: 418: 379: 265: 126: 1824: 1820: 740: 675: 531:

so that the conclusion they want to keep alive as a possibility is not snuffed out

213: 2181: 2052: 1950: 1618: 1172: 1064: 907: 744: 542: 464: 312: 257: 249: 245: 944:

Full professorship is irrelevant to C6, which applies to university presidents.

2145: 1994: 1773: 1360: 1199: 1097: 1085: 985: 945: 903: 876: 855: 826: 783: 626: 460: 69: 55: 1859:

Of particular note is the willfully incoherent blatant mischaracterization by

1807:

rightfully calls to attention the repeated lapses in judgment demonstrated by

1700:, not some vision of how the US government policy legitimizes investigations. 1614: 1502:

even by the permissive standards of Google Scholar is, indeed, insignificant.

471:

is the one that requires extraordinary evidence we do not have. Wait for that

2108: 2043: 1849: 1816: 1804: 1684: 1101: 1093: 992: 649: 456: 349: 304: 237: 772:

responsible for MDPI's poor reputation; certainly its publication of antivax

2130: 2006: 1841: 1837: 1749: 1734: 1652: 1522: 1484: 1443: 1407: 1389: 1115: 1056: 1030: 971: 931: 797: 573: 511: 442: 405: 252:

C1. The subject is editor-in-chief of a 20-year-old journal published by

2058: 1909: 118: 70: 2177: 1720:

Here are three additional references to Knuth's UAP related notability:

1359:: 968, 274, 70; 392, 151, 59; 250, 115, 51; 199, 100, 47; 161, 87, 45. 1643:

for so long been subject to ridicule, should be of no surprise to you.

1917: 1589: 2035: 1962: 1925: 1905: 1676: 604: 341: 2033:

Is there a link available showing Knuth is now a full professor?

1602: 1553: 1008:

As I said, the entire point of WP:Prof is defined as being about

1580:. Knuth is also active on the paranormal entertainment circuit: 1578:

click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens

678:

has in mind. If there's a notability case to be made here, it's

2193:

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

1891: 236:

Page has recently had some edit-warring, and was discussed at

1631:

Firstly, LuckieLouie, the article in question about UAPx was

1339:

were well above the median), his metrics are actually worse:

1067:

who discuss Knuth's biographical import, please let me know.

875:. I was truly on the fence about this, but the discussion at 2176:

quotations in the press is relatively common for academics.

1930:“entirely off the deep end in the eyes of their colleageues” 1884: 1281:

for most citation metrics among his ~70 coauthors with : -->

364:

is neither a major nor a well-established academic journal.

286:

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

1954: 854:

as editor-in-chief. That's part of why I singled them out.

671: 303:

Thanks for starting this discussion. I am not sure whether

253: 1875:

which represents only about two-thirds of the membership.

1464:

implements many tools, sometimes just because they can).

2067:, being a professor would not pass the criteria. -- LCU 541:

guideline. We go by sources that are in compliance with

1827:. In contrast to above statement dismissing subject as 1590:

Utah's paranormal Conference, Phenomenon ("We Believe")

879:

has swayed me. Where are the sources that document the

1613:

their next step was to create this resume-like bio of

264:

passed this criteria. The subject has an interest in

212: 607:is quite right about that journal editorship. Best 1611:their article on the UAPx organization was deleted 1567:have gotten rehashed all over the media landscape 244:. Reasons: any notability is likely to come from 1889:“one astronomer who has fallen off the deep end.” 256:, which I do not believe is well-established for 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2205:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1384:problems, including recent dubious additions by 921:Regarding WP:Prof, under Criteria (6) it states: 316:comes to including ideas that are mathematical. 284:Note: This discussion has been included in the 1456:The text is misleading (per the documentation, 1138:as demonstrated by independent reliable sources 1937:In regards to Cosmoid's referenced statement, 1552:. If it weren't for the subject's activity in 603:I think overall the subject passes WP:GNG and 226: 467:that there may be an explanation beyond the 110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 1904:Notably, neither the Knowledge entries for 1252:, and is also covered in the popular media 676:the wiki-notability guideline for academics 2107:and "Named Chair" are NOT the same thing. 1292:: average: 7053, median: 2593, Knuth: 2330 718:Chiribella, D'Ariano and Perinotti (2011) 1885:The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies 1811:on the subject page, Talk page, and the 1190:describe their findings as a product of 311:which is fraught. There is at least one 716:, for example, or the 650 citations to 537:over whether a topic is subject to our 14: 833:is not a member of that select class. 1696:That's not how this works. We follow 1386:User:Not the droid you're looking for 1084:- I don't think he quite climbs over 1674:"sensational" media over the years. 902:The above comment is irrelevant for 23: 1959:Norse colonization of the Americas 1829:“a long-term associate professor,” 708:. Compare the 88 GS citations for 24: 2217: 1799:votes. I see plenty of votes for 2021:Not the droid you're looking for 1867:I count the endorsement of some 710:Goyal, Knuth and Skilling (2010) 95:Introduction to deletion process 1772:the interviewee by the author. 1088:on citations, and I agree that 778:propaganda in 2012 and 2013 -- 644:per above keep! votes. I found 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1842:“The Art of Knowledge Weeding” 906:, which the user should read. 13: 1: 1965:. Academic investigation of 1916:sees any of them labeled as 1065:independent reliable sources 958:Being that WP:Prof concerns 7: 984:If you read the details on 85:(AfD)? Read these primers! 10: 2222: 2186:18:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 2154:00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC) 2139:23:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 2117:22:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 2102:17:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 2088:14:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 2047:10:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 2029:08:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 1782:17:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1764:13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1743:12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1710:08:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 1233:14:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC) 1077:18:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 1039:11:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 1012:In so many words it states 851:published under his tenure 780:from the same quack author 712:to the 384 accumulated by 65:06:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC) 1688:14:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 1661:00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 1627:19:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1531:11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 1512:04:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 1493:00:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 1474:22:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1452:20:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1434:19:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1416:19:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1402:18:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1369:07:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1270:06:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1208:06:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1181:23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 1165:12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 1124:20:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 1110:04:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 1001:15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 980:13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 954:01:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 940:20:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 916:04:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 894:04:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 864:06:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 843:02:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 821:01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 806:01:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 792:00:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 753:00:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 730:19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC) 714:Masanes and Müller (2011) 700:00:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 658:23:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 635:01:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC) 617:13:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 582:01:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 568:01:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 520:00:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 489:15:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 451:14:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 441:well be defined as such. 436:13:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 414:13:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 388:00:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC) 374:13:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 353:12:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 326:11:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 298:11:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 278:11:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC) 2195:Please do not modify it. 1949:before the discovery of 1250:very high citation count 32:Please do not modify it. 2063:distinguished professor 1607:UFO conspiracy theories 1421:Special:Diff/1100329026 465:extraordinary arguments 2007:flight characteristics 1558:Newsweek opinion piece 1500:less than 30 citations 504:topic in and of itself 167:edits since nomination 2070:ActivelyDisinterested 1871:of his colleagues in 1615:the organization's VP 1215:ActivelyDisinterested 1147:ActivelyDisinterested 1100:, but... he doesn't. 508:world as it is today, 83:Articles for deletion 1879:counts close to 100 1424:research might be. — 827:notability guideline 262:University of Albany 2011:radar cross-section 1953:, the existence of 1877:The Galileo Project 1345:: 4494, 1699, 827. 1027:academic notability 2055:criteria 5 is for 1914:Christopher Mellon 1881:Harvard University 1317:: 1025, 496, 810; 558:understands this. 2086: 2016:may or may not be 1947:continental drift 1873:this group photo, 1586:Coast To Coast AM 1329:: 280, 140, 162; 1325:: 337, 154, 169; 1321:: 521, 263, 206; 1231: 1163: 1096:independently of 300: 100:Guide to deletion 90:How to contribute 63: 2213: 2073: 2045: 2040: 2003:Hessdelen lights 1753: 1686: 1681: 1563:The Conversation 1333:: 226, 109, 103. 1218: 1150: 1142:well-established 351: 346: 283: 231: 230: 216: 160: 142: 80: 62: 60: 53: 34: 2221: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2203:deletion review 2061:appointment or 2036: 2034: 1999:St. Elmo's fire 1963:Big Bang Theory 1951:plate tectonics 1747: 1677: 1675: 1290:Total citations 623:Alexandermcnabb 609:Alexandermcnabb 342: 340: 173: 133: 117: 114: 77: 74: 56: 54: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2219: 2208: 2207: 2189: 2188: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 1995:ball lightning 1935: 1933: 1902: 1900: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1795:per the above 1789: 1788: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1766: 1756:Russ Woodroofe 1730: 1727: 1724: 1721: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1594:WP:SENSATIONAL 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1426:David Eppstein 1394:David Eppstein 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1355:: 24, 21, 14. 1349:: 81, 54, 77. 1336: 1335: 1334: 1308: 1299: 1293: 1284: 1283: 1272: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1210: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1022: 1006: 989: 927: 922: 897: 896: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 845: 823: 757: 756: 734: 733: 732: 706:Lucien Hardy's 660: 639: 638: 637: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 499: 495: 401: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 356: 355: 328: 301: 290:Russ Woodroofe 270:Russ Woodroofe 234: 233: 170: 113: 112: 107: 97: 92: 75: 73: 68: 46: 45: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2218: 2206: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2171: 2170: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2084: 2080: 2078: 2077:transmissions 2072: 2071: 2066: 2064: 2060: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2041: 2039: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939:WP:FRINGE/ALT 1936: 1934: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1901: 1898: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813:rapid closure 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1790: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1751: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1682: 1680: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1576:, often with 1575: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1564: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1548: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1422: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1348: 1344: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1309: 1306: 1304: 1300: 1298:: 104, 62, 83 1297: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1280: 1276: 1273: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1261:.---Lilach5 ( 1260: 1258: 1256: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1243: 1234: 1229: 1225: 1223: 1222:transmissions 1217: 1216: 1211: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1188: 1185: 1184: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1161: 1157: 1155: 1154:transmissions 1149: 1148: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1023: 1020: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 987: 983: 982: 981: 977: 973: 968: 964: 961: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 943: 942: 941: 937: 933: 928: 926: 923: 920: 919: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 899: 898: 895: 891: 887: 882: 878: 874: 871: 865: 861: 857: 853: 850: 847:Those papers 846: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 822: 818: 814: 809: 808: 807: 803: 799: 795: 794: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 774: 771: 767: 763: 759: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 702: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 668: 664: 661: 659: 655: 651: 648:of interest. 647: 643: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 599: 598: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 523: 522: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 500: 496: 492: 491: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 461:Occam's razor 458: 454: 453: 452: 448: 444: 439: 438: 437: 433: 429: 425: 420: 417: 416: 415: 411: 407: 402: 398: 395: 389: 385: 381: 377: 376: 375: 371: 367: 363: 360: 359: 358: 357: 354: 350: 347: 345: 339: 336: 332: 329: 327: 323: 319: 314: 310: 306: 302: 299: 295: 291: 287: 282: 281: 280: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 229: 225: 222: 219: 215: 211: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 186: 183: 179: 176: 175:Find sources: 171: 168: 164: 158: 154: 150: 146: 141: 137: 132: 128: 124: 120: 116: 115: 111: 108: 105: 101: 98: 96: 93: 91: 88: 87: 86: 84: 79: 72: 67: 66: 61: 59: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2194: 2192: 2172: 2126: 2123: 2074: 2068: 2056: 2037: 2015: 1942: 1929: 1921: 1888: 1868: 1864: 1846:WP:SHORTCUTS 1832: 1828: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1769: 1692: 1678: 1632: 1619:- LuckyLouie 1562: 1549: 1517: 1480: 1461: 1457: 1439: 1390:User:Cosmoid 1377: 1356: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1311:Top 5 papers 1310: 1307:: 31, 23, 20 1302: 1301: 1296:Total papers 1295: 1289: 1278: 1274: 1245: 1219: 1213: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1151: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1089: 1081: 1060: 1026: 1017: 1013: 1009: 966: 962: 960:academics (" 959: 924: 880: 872: 848: 830: 779: 775:and anti-GMO 769: 765: 761: 736: 687: 683: 679: 665: 662: 641: 600: 554: 550: 534: 530: 527:ad infinitum 526: 507: 503: 476: 472: 469:prosaic four 468: 455:Please read 396: 361: 343: 337: 335:WP:NACADEMIC 330: 309:WP:FRINGEBLP 241: 235: 223: 217: 209: 202: 196: 190: 184: 174: 76: 57: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 2173:Weak delete 2065:appointment 2059:named chair 1910:Garry Nolan 1833:as a person 1462:Mathematica 1458:Mathematica 1382:WP:COATRACK 1378:Weak delete 1248:because of 1134:Weak delete 1019:engagement. 688:Mathematica 684:Mathematica 242:weak delete 200:free images 119:Kevin Knuth 71:Kevin Knuth 2127:notability 2094:XOR'easter 2051:Note that 2001:, and the 1961:, and the 1825:WP:PROF#C7 1821:WP:PROF#C1 1504:XOR'easter 1466:XOR'easter 1282:12 papers. 1173:Xxanthippe 1010:academics. 908:Xxanthippe 835:XOR'easter 745:Xxanthippe 743:at least. 741:WP:Prof#C1 722:XOR'easter 692:XOR'easter 553:to say is 380:XOR'easter 58:Sandstein 2199:talk page 2146:JoelleJay 1918:ufologist 1774:JoelleJay 1698:WP:FRINGE 1598:WP:FRINGE 1361:JoelleJay 1200:JoelleJay 946:JoelleJay 881:biography 856:JoelleJay 784:JoelleJay 739:. Passes 627:JoelleJay 547:WP:FRINGE 539:WP:FRINGE 424:WP:FRINGE 419:WP:FRINGE 333:, passes 266:WP:FRINGE 37:talk page 2201:or in a 2124:academic 2109:PianoDan 2053:WP:NPROF 1926:Avi Loeb 1906:Avi Loeb 1805:Jusdafax 1102:PianoDan 993:PianoDan 967:academic 650:Jusdafax 543:WP:FRIND 313:WP:FRIND 258:WP:NPROF 250:WP:NPROF 246:WP:NPROF 163:View log 104:glossary 39:or in a 2131:Cosmoid 2083:co-ords 1967:sprites 1838:Cosmoid 1750:Cosmoid 1735:Cosmoid 1653:Cosmoid 1651:worst. 1603:Ufology 1554:ufology 1523:Cosmoid 1485:Cosmoid 1481:nothing 1444:Cosmoid 1440:exactly 1408:Cosmoid 1267:discuss 1228:co-ords 1160:co-ords 1116:Cosmoid 1098:WP:PROF 1090:Entropy 1086:WP:PROF 1061:noticed 1031:Cosmoid 986:WP:PROF 972:Cosmoid 932:Cosmoid 904:WP:Prof 877:WP:BLPN 831:Entropy 798:Cosmoid 766:Entropy 762:Comment 667:Entropy 574:Cosmoid 535:no sway 512:Cosmoid 473:Science 443:Cosmoid 406:Cosmoid 362:Entropy 206:WP refs 194:scholar 136:protect 131:history 81:New to 1991:gnomes 1989:, and 1987:ghosts 1983:pixies 1979:trolls 1957:, the 1850:WP:AGF 1823:, and 1817:WP:GNG 1588:, and 1550:Delete 1305:-index 1279:median 1275:Delete 1094:WP:GNG 1082:Delete 873:Delete 829:. And 670:is an 663:Delete 477:Nature 457:WP:RGW 305:WP:GNG 238:WP:ANI 178:Google 140:delete 2178:Femke 1975:ELVES 1922:et al 1869:sixty 1797:Keep! 1770:about 1694:past. 1565:piece 1263:לילך5 1196:focus 1057:WP:5P 397:Keep. 221:JSTOR 182:books 157:views 149:watch 145:links 16:< 2182:talk 2150:talk 2135:talk 2113:talk 2098:talk 2025:talk 2009:and 1971:jets 1955:Troy 1928:are 1912:nor 1892:UAPx 1801:Keep 1793:Keep 1778:talk 1760:talk 1739:talk 1706:talk 1657:talk 1623:talk 1560:and 1527:talk 1518:fact 1508:talk 1489:talk 1470:talk 1448:talk 1430:talk 1412:talk 1398:talk 1388:and 1365:talk 1246:Keep 1204:talk 1187:None 1177:talk 1120:talk 1106:talk 1073:talk 1035:talk 997:talk 976:talk 950:talk 936:talk 912:talk 890:talk 860:talk 849:were 839:talk 817:talk 802:talk 788:talk 770:most 760:(EC) 749:talk 737:Keep 726:talk 696:talk 672:MDPI 654:talk 642:Keep 631:talk 613:talk 601:Keep 578:talk 564:talk 551:mean 516:talk 485:talk 447:talk 432:talk 410:talk 384:talk 370:talk 331:Keep 322:talk 294:talk 274:talk 254:MDPI 214:FENS 188:news 153:logs 127:talk 123:edit 2038:5Q5 1943:not 1941:is 1908:or 1861:jps 1809:jps 1702:jps 1679:5Q5 1639:be. 1633:not 1605:or 1392:. — 1331:5th 1327:4th 1323:3rd 1319:2nd 1315:1st 1192:his 1069:jps 886:jps 813:jps 680:not 605:5Q5 560:jps 555:one 481:jps 475:or 428:jps 366:jps 344:5Q5 318:jps 228:TWL 161:– ( 2184:) 2152:) 2137:) 2115:) 2100:) 2057:a 2027:) 1997:, 1993:, 1985:, 1981:, 1977:, 1973:, 1969:, 1897:IC 1863:: 1848:. 1819:, 1780:) 1762:) 1741:) 1708:) 1659:) 1625:) 1617:. 1584:, 1573:, 1570:, 1529:) 1510:) 1491:) 1472:) 1450:) 1432:) 1414:) 1400:) 1367:) 1357:T5 1347:TP 1343:TC 1313:: 1265:) 1206:) 1183:. 1179:) 1122:) 1108:) 1075:) 1037:) 1021:". 999:) 978:) 952:) 938:) 918:. 914:) 892:) 862:) 841:) 819:) 804:) 790:) 764:. 751:) 728:) 698:) 656:) 633:) 615:) 580:) 566:) 518:) 487:) 449:) 434:) 426:. 412:) 386:) 372:) 324:) 296:) 288:. 276:) 208:) 165:| 155:| 151:| 147:| 143:| 138:| 134:| 129:| 125:| 2180:( 2148:( 2133:( 2111:( 2096:( 2085:° 2081:° 2079:∆ 2075:∆ 2042:| 2023:( 1852:. 1776:( 1758:( 1752:: 1748:@ 1737:( 1704:( 1683:| 1655:( 1621:( 1525:( 1506:( 1487:( 1468:( 1446:( 1428:( 1410:( 1396:( 1363:( 1352:h 1303:h 1230:° 1226:° 1224:∆ 1220:∆ 1202:( 1175:( 1162:° 1158:° 1156:∆ 1152:∆ 1132:. 1118:( 1104:( 1071:( 1033:( 1016:" 1014:: 995:( 974:( 948:( 934:( 910:( 888:( 858:( 837:( 815:( 800:( 786:( 755:. 747:( 724:( 694:( 652:( 629:( 621:@ 611:( 576:( 562:( 514:( 483:( 445:( 430:( 408:( 382:( 368:( 348:| 320:( 292:( 272:( 232:) 224:· 218:· 210:· 203:· 197:· 191:· 185:· 180:( 172:( 169:) 159:) 121:( 106:) 102:(

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

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Kevin Knuth - Knowledge

Index