Talk:Slipknot Demo - Knowledge (XXG)

1395:

GAs, FAs, and FLs which makes it seem to me that we have a pretty good grasp on the requirements for the said criteria; even though the first nomination failed I don't think that is grounds to delete or merge the article, it simply means we have to keep working on it. I disagree that the article will "continue raising a few concerns" because AfD has been covered multiple times, reasons have been given against a merge into Slipknot (band) multiple times, and the second GA review is coming up anytime now (and I remind the viewer that Length is not a GA criteria) so I think we should wait for that and go from there. As Rezter said at another point (the FT I believe): just because it isn't a GA doesn't mean it is not notable.

681:

that. Anyway, as for a solution to the question at hand, I would think "Slpknot" should be incorporated somehow: "Slipknot demo", "Slipknot 1998 Demo", "1998 Slipknot Demo", "Slipknot Roadrunner Records Demo", or for the all-inclusive package, "1998 Slipknot Roadrunner Records Demo". Personally, I like "Slipknot Demo"; it's simple, to the point, and most importantly I doubt Slipknot will be recording any more demos in the future, so it won't be confused with anything else. Though on the downside, that may imply that it is the

2586:

the length, forget about it getting GA status. This discussion is about notability, that is it. You said this article has "hardly any significant importance to the band itself", like I said before I think it does because it is the demo that got them to work with Ross Robinson which was a huge step for an unsigned band... they got signed to his personal label and then he helped them get signed to Roadrunner Records. I think that's hugely significant for the band.

1719:. It doesn't matter what tracks are on the album, this demo was recorded in 1997 in Sr Audio in Iowa... the band released this demo.. enlisted Ross Robinson to help them, got signed to Roadrunner and then moved out to LA to work with Ross on their debut album. You are bringing up different points and I'm sorry but nothing you are saying is new to this discussion and all previous discussions have came to a no consensus.... meaning that the article shall remain. 1901:

And to answer your unrelated question I would prefer separate articles for singles instead of just an article like "Singles from Slipknot's Iowa album" or something like that, please keep this discussion to the subject at hand though. I keep saying this discussion is going nowhere because you are not bringing up any new points. If have any else to add about notability... then please do. If you feel strong enough on the subject, consider a

190: 1631:

this... so I think this is a very noteworthy subject to have an article on. Slipknot were and are quite picky about what they release. Plus it was the demo which got them to work with Ross Robinson and signed to Roadrunner Records so that is a very noteworthy point. What I'm trying to say is... this was a very important release for the band and that adds a lot of emphasis on the notability of the article, it isn't "just another demo".

1565:, "Merging should be not be considered if: 3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short". This was not a demo of their debut album... it was a demo that was released WAY before they were even signed to Roadrunner and working on their debut album. In future please discuss things like this before making drastic edits like this, it's worth discussing things so you don't make mistakes. 456: 428: 397: 661:

curious as to why the article has been assigned this title, is it just because it got them signed to Roadrunner? If so why is that the decided title? Why not "1998 demo" or "Slipknot demo" to refer to the art or "Spit It Out demo" to refer to the fact that it was mainly that song which the demo was made around? There isn't one reliable source that declare the title so how do we decide the article title?

606: 538: 588: 520: 909:

Diluted more than Interloper, but I should probably listen to Interloper until I understand it. I agree with you on the Despise/Purity part, but I'm not so sure about the the Interloper/Diluted part. I believe you, but part of me is confused. I'll add this, but it's not something that I plan on being permanant, so if you don't think it can stay, remove it, and I won't add it back.

2109:"Conditional support - I think that the Slipknot Demo and Welcome to Our Neighborhood need to be made Good articles or merged. The usual reasons for the checkmark, such as being unreleased, or having a big potential for future growth, don't really apply here. So the options really are either GA status or merger." Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 1486:, and the extra info easily could be included there without it being called extraneous, so why is this article necessary in the first place? That the demo has been covered in a couple of books (which seems to be the rationale for keeping the article according to the AfDs) hardly means a separate page is warranted. Note that the notability criteria only says "... 2660:. Above in the discussion, I have cited several wikipedia policies regarding notability to this article. You may say this article was the turning point for the band. If it was, please find third-party sources and put them up here if you want to expand the article. I think there is no point in defending a minor, unsignificant article from being deleted/merged. — 2558:, it is recommended that such articles be combined or merged with a more broader topic. Also this article doesn't stand a chance for GA status; it is barely 2 pages long with half of it being empty blank space. There is relatively little detailed information about the subject and the prose is weak. Having only 3 references is a poor example for a GA. See 2187:

somehow miraclously expand the slipknot demo article yourself, or just listen what other wikipedians have to say on this, I don't think it is worth fighting a useless battle. You don't own or dictate Knowledge (XXG). Honestly the past discussion(s) has been a waste of time since you won't abide to community consensus. —

1813:

will keeping this article as it is hinder the Slipknot Wikiproject? Really I'd like to hear why you think this.... the project is here to make sure all articles related to Slipknot are reliable and the best they can be, how does this article contradict that? Just because it won't be GA? That makes no difference at all.

2339:

for that album. This demo was recorded in 1997, solely funded by the band working out of a cheap studio in their hometown. It is completely separate from the album which they went and recorded in LA in late 1998. You bringing up the 742617000027 thing is completely irrelevant, they are two VERY different subjects.

2655:

You might want to say that this demo is the reason how Slipknot got signed to a record label and produced their first album. This may have happened in real life, however Knowledge (XXG) is not real life. In Knowledge (XXG) we have established rules, policies, and guidelines that editors should follow

2338:

which has no notability outside of the album, it wasn't a single and all the information that could be given about that song was already in the album article. As I keep saying... this demo was completely separate from the album, it is not like Slipknot recorded their album and released this as a demo

2147:

How many times do I have to mention that the fact it can't be a GA doesn't mean it has to be merged. That was during a candidate to get the Slipknot discography listed as a featured topic, part of that criteria is that all articles are GA. Just because we can't get this article to GA and get Slipknot

1171:

Since this article is so short, the prose can at least be elegant. The first couple of sentences in the section: "Following the release of the band's first demo album Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat., the members of Slipknot continued to write new material and work in local studio SR Audio with new vocalist

931:

there should be a "critics" section, something about the songs' influence on the future development of the band (i.e. were the songs later reused on other albums or they were forgotten forever on an album that is not found for sale?) This is the text I foudn an one of the first few articles that show

2274:

I am just being fair, and by doing that I have requested comments from other editors because it appears that neither of us are convincing each other. Your input is still very welcome, I am only trying to do the best for Slipknot on Knowledge (XXG) and I'm very open to a consensus being drawn on this

2226:

I believe it is you who is being selfish in this discussion. I'm sorry if I believe that sacrificing an article just so we can have a Featured topic is a bad idea. I am following Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, it is you who just wants to eradicate this article for a badge of honor. Like I said, you are

1900:

I understand what you are saying but yes I think it is important to have separate articles if the subject is notable enough and it doesn't matter if they get GA status or anything. Those are just badges of honor if I'm honest, they have nothing to do with notability and merging or deleting articles.

1560:

Just because we can't get this article to Good Article quality does not mean we have to merge it. I and other editors alike are here to make the best articles we can and just because we have limited information on a subject doesn't mean it isn't noteworthy enough and needs to be merged in to another

1540:

My intentions of merging the article is plain simple; trying to keep this article won't do much good in the long term. This article's history has been riddled with comments that the article isn't that notable enough to be a GA on its own. If you want to make decent quality Slipknot articles, merging

1219:

Therefore, I feel I cannot pass this article for GA on the basis that the article content and references do not support that the article subject is notable, that the article contains little information on the impact, legacy or effect of this demo on the band or anything else, and that the article is

680:

I believe articles are to be entitled by what their subject is most commonly known as, although in this case I somehow doubt people are sitting around and discussing the the Demo, by any title. As far as I know, this demo was the reason that Roadrunner signed Slipknot, so it seems natural to call it

2585:

Too short? Too short for what? The only regulations against the length of an article which may result in a merge or a delete are if the article is incapable of getting past stub status. This article is not a stub. You bring up conflicting ideas as to why this article should be deleted. Forget about

2072:

No... those comments are for the B-class rating, one of the criteria is that it meets all previous criteria for lower ratings and thats why it mentions start class, besides it is still not a stub like you mentioned, do you have a problem with the b-class rating? If so, which part of the criteria do

1812:

Like I keep having to point out to you.... just because it won't ever becoming a Good Article doesn't mean it has to be merged. Yeah I know the difference... but unless you bring up new points which can swing the consensus in favor of merging or deleting this article then I'm afraid it remains. How

1630:

This subject has been discussed many times in AFD and GA nominations. Agreed that generally speaking demos aren't noteworthy enough and I am well aware that many bands release a load of demos. However, according to the sources used in this article the only demos they ever put together were MFKR and

1100:

To my knowledge all info has been included. All of the songs have been included on subsequent releases and musical/lyrical themes can be found on their articles. I'm going to remove the info with the {{fact}} tags, I guess it can be assumed they "got out" somehow, but they were only officially sent

908:

a demo version of Purity, seeing as I have both songs now (I have 3 copies of the self-titled album, all bought together) and am able to make some connections. The connections between Interloper and Diluted are somewhat confusing me, seeing as the lyrics are somewhat different. I'm not sure, I like

2961:

A "page" is everything you see on the screen which is approxiametly one page on paper if you print it out. I know that the GAC here does not list a specific limit of how long a GA article should be. However it is by common sense and using your best judgement to determine how long a certain article

2888:

I would suggest that this merge seems to be the way the discussion is going. And I would suggest to the two editors who were originally discussing the issue that if you are going to have an RfC, you should really try not to insert yourselves into the discussion by outside commenters, other than to

2186:

Alright given the current state of the debate, there seems to be little progress as to whether to merge the article or not. I tried to help the wikiproject achieve their first good/featured topic by following the rules in Knowledge (XXG), however you clearly don't seem to want that. Unless you can

2691:

All the claims I made about it being a turning point for the band with Ross Robinson and Roadrunner are sourced with third-party sources. Those two books ARE third-party sources. They are not publications by Slipknot, they are books by journalists. Journalists who recognize this demo as a turning

2516:

I'm not a big fan of "the article is too short" argument as a reason to merge because what is short is objective. I see an article with multiple sources, no WP:OR, as much coverage on the topic as has been released from a band which is generally pretty secrative. I do see one interesting upcoming

2463:

into the full album. Having one section in the full album about this demo is like having a section in there about the second release. I see no good reason in terms of notability to keep this demo separate. Would anybody have a second article on the re-release of an album? Yes, ONLY if that second

2458:

I have suggested in the past that this article has little future. 11 months have past from the initial GAN when lengths concerns were first noted and NOTHING has changed in the meantime. Nobody really cares about this, and the main reason for that is that almost all the material in this album was

1394:

This demo is not a "pre-release" they weren't signed to a record label when it was released, and I feel it has little relation to Slipknot (album) as I'm sure all of the songs were re-recorded and most were changed for that release. Gary King, Rezter, and myself have all had multiple sucesses for

2389:

I don't see anything on the page in which a secondary source (such as a music critic) establishes the noteworthiness of the subject. Given that, and given that it is a demo rather than an actual album, it would be best to delete the page and merge its information into the album page. I hope that

660:

I was just wondering why the article title is "Roadrunner Records Demo", it doesn't have that title on the art work and none of my sources use this title, they just refer to it as "a demo" and Shawn Crahan says in one book "We sent a copy of "Spit It Out" to Monte Connor at Roadrunner". I'm just

1371:

With or without that, this article is borderline on wp:N. But if you were to think it logically, the demo is really similar to the status of the re-release of the album in 2003. If this demo ought to be a separate page, then the re-release should probably also have its own page... which doesn't

841:

I don't think we should need a source. It is noticibley a demo of purity. It has differences in lyrics here and there, but it revolves around the same thing as purity does. The music is very similar to that of purity, and anyone listening to both songs could easily notice the similarities. If I

1863:

Consider this, would you prefer the slipknot wikiproject to have a 100 seperate articles including each song having its own article that is only three sentences long and hardly informational, or just 40 slipknot articles with the majority of them being well-constructed, throughly comprehensive

2622:

which references article length. If the prose is "weak", then help us out and make it stronger. I am aware that the 10th anniversary edition is about the album, but it will include things about the "making of" of the album, which would include this demo (that's the reason you want to merge it

1317:

That is probably the best merge/delete suggestion we've had so far. But I'm still confident that this topic deserves it's own article. It seems that Gary King is just wanting to get a stamp of approval from Knowledge (XXG) to up his statistics, thats why he's once again submitted this and

1712:

Like I said in my first reply to you... just because this article won't be improved or get certified a good article does NOT mean it should be merged. This demo is not a demo for their debut album... so merging it into that is just as mindless as merging this article with (for example)

2692:

point in the bands history. Tryptofish's statement is half true.... yes we don't have sources which are from magazines or something reviewing the demo or anything, but we have two books which are very reliable third-party sources recognizing the demo as the turning point for the band.

873:. Yes, the riff is the same, but played faster. It shares some lyrical similarities in certain parts of the song. Despise and Purity have far more incommon lyrically, and musically than Slipknot and (sic) do. So why can't we list this? because we don't have a source? Well neither does 2962:

should be. For example, an article that is only half a screen long is obviously too short to be a GA, i.e. not enough information. However in several other wikipedias such as the simple english wikipedia, they do have a certain minimum limit in length for a GA nomination to pass. —

1490:

be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". (Emphasis mine) I can find hundreds of articles about Barack Obama's (not) wearing a flag pin, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. (I'm sure we can agree that the one paragraph summary at

1479:, only how it was important to the band's career. A good article should tell me about the writing/recording process of the demo, and what reliable reviewers have said about it. How do later versions of the songs differ from these? And was the demo ever released to the public? 2797:, they were sitting there with no one knowing what to do with them for months, eventually it was cleaned up (I think I did it?). To add the track listings, or any other information that may be merge'able on this page, is rediculous - none of it should be in a discography. 2812:

page (because that is what makes it notable), not on this separate page. Every(?) album has demos at some point, and unless you can find some more significant coverage (which obviously doesn't exist at this point), then this notablility issue isn't going to go away.

1322:

for GA status, probably so he can submit the discography for feature topic status again. I think this should really be talked through logically and we should agree on a consensus and I don't think GA/FA/FT status should come in to play what so ever, only notability.

727:

I'm more inclined to go with "Spit It Out Demo". The article even states that Spit It Out was the track of focus on the demo, and, like you said, Shawn calls it 'Spit It Out' which make me think that maybe that's what the band calls it... any thoughts on this?

2521:

which will include various bonus material. Perhaps there will be something in there which will allow us to expand this article. If so, we'll expand it and go for the GA (which I think it is now, but that's for another discussion) and if not than we can merge.

1341:

Please assume good faith. You're not the only one that likes Slipknot, y'know? I've brought two of the Slipknot articles to FAC, helped on a few for GAN, and reviewed a few for GAN, too. That's why I want to bring the topic to featured status.

1520:

Wait a minute.... dude you can't just redirect a page like this without prior discussion. Please state your case because this article is not jsut here for show, maybe we can come to a consensus before you make VERY drastic changes like this.

705:

I completely agree, so what do you think? "Slipknot 1998 Demo" or "Slipknot Demo"... I think the MFKR article is substantial enough for people to figure out the difference and I think "Slipknot Demo" is just fitting considering the art work.

2985:

A page on your screen is not a very accurate way of measuring things. Consider screen resolutions for example, my page may be twice the length of yours. Nevertheless, I do agree that this page does not have enough content to go for GA.

760:

I'm not sure we should do that because them people may get the impression it's a demo of the album which followed. It never had a title, it was jsut a demo that they used so I don't think we can proclaim that it's title was "Slipknot".

2115:

If you need to know, I'm not the only person here who wants to merge articles. Since you and other editors tried and failed, twice actually, to get both articles into a GA, there is not much else you could do to improve the situation.

1096:

This is a very short article that does not describe its subject very extensively. Is this all that is known about this demo? Perhaps a Legacy section or more about its influence or importance? Or how it was stylistically influencial?

936:

This "demo" was launched through 1997 before Slipknots self titled album debut album. A limited amount of copies were released so this demo is extremely rare and is unavailable to buy in shops, so try ebay. Obiously beware of FAKES!

3062:

with the regular album art already on the article. And once the 10th anniversary edition of Slipknot is released, if enough info is included in the bonus material to improve this article to a GA, I will support its re-creation.

2227:

more than welcome to get other peoples opinion on this and I will gladly go along with a collective consensus. However this doesn't mean I want you to go and get a bunch of editors to support you, we need impartial opinions.

3120:

enough information comes out to make the demo article broad enough, I would totally support its recreation. But as long as the article would consist of only 1 paragraph of text, I think it is better to keep them merged.

846:

that both Interloper, and despise were demos for Diluted and Purity. I think saying that it evolved into Purty with out a source is acceptible, due to the many similarities both lyrically and musically each song share.

348: 291: 153: 2054: 1220:

so short, even if it does contain all available information. The absence of available information on the subject may merely support that the subject is not notable enough for reliable sources to be available.

1372:

really make too much sense. Why should a pre-release get its own page? It is clear that until more serious details for the "prerelese" would be found, this article is going to continue raising a few concerns.

2920:

So far the general consensus seems to be leaning in favor towards merging the demo. If there is no serious opposition to this within the next few days, I will merge and redirect this article with the album.

2018:

This article is not a stub, in fact it's B-class rated. You have made it clear that a big problem you have with this article is that it will never become a GA which is not reason for merging and/or deletion.

329: 1121:

But isn't it important to the article that it is a rare, limited edition? What was its importance? Surely the book in your references must have something on its influence or effect, the role it played.

2001:

The sources used in this article do address the subject directly and there is no information in the article that is original research. The length of the article has nothing to do with that guideline.

3147:

Right, a consensus was reached based on the info currently avalible. If new info comes to light, which it will on 9.9.9, then the discussion should be re-opened, but not if it's only a tiny amount.

1769:. Two, there is a difference between a Keep consensus and a no consensus. FYI, if you want to keep this article, it will only stunt the slipknot wikiproject from improving any better from here. — 2546:

Not only is the article too short, if that is a poor agrument to some people, this article has very little notability or hardly any significant importance to the band itself. In such cases per

2073:

you think it fails? Who said Ross Robinson was a band member? I know he was a producer, but he was instrumental in their success also... what has this got to do with the subject at hand?

2800:

This should be merged to the album article imo. Rezter, you said that te demo was the reason why they worked with Ross Robinson and eventually signed to Roadrunner. They then released

1302:

Hey, I have a good suggestion: why not simply merge this demo into the Slipknot album one (have a small section there) and just get away from this notability/unencomprehensive issue.

2015:

that Slipknot ever released and it was the demo which helped them recruit Ross Robinson and help them get signed to Roadrunner Records and the sources provided back up these claims.

1176:

You could figure out different wording than repeating the word "work" in adjacent sentences; also "work in local studio SR Audio" - should there be an "a" in there or something?

1033:

I'd support adding whatever good info that can be found. I've contacted Rezter about the statement, but as far as I know or can find this article pretty well covers the topic.

1541:

may sometimes be the better idea rather than desperately searching for additional references on a decades-old demo that is almost forgotten. Quality is superior to quantity. —

1868:; a slipknot article like this one that is barely 2 pages long with most of it as empty blank space is not the best an article could be. Hint: Try thinking outside the box. — 2011:

not notable enough and that some exemptions may be made, sources permitting. I have said before that I believe this is an exemption because this is the only demo besides

3091:

Please don't try to bring up the debate again. We had just finished on reaching a consensus. Why do you really need a seperate article? (Not that it matters anymore.) —

1213:

which supported the view that this article is not GA material and should perhaps be merged with the band article or even AFD. You seemed to agree with this assessment.

147: 1492: 1208:- As you know I have had significant reservations regarding this article for GA. You were part of the conversation when I obtained a third point of view on the issue: 310: 2302: 272: 1673:

Unless I suppose that tomorrow NME or MTV will feature this demo as equivalent to a front page article in a major newspaper, I think this best be left merged to

79: 3203: 2488:"If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." 1671:"If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic." 2004:

In fact there are 3 separate sources used in the article and all of them are third-party sources. The two books are not publications by the band themselves.

1161:

Otherwise, it seems to fulfill the GA criteria. It is reasonably well-written, referenced, not very broad however, neutral, stable, with appropriate image.

1172:

Corey Taylor in 1997. The band was working on new material with the intent of releasing a second demo album but never got further than pre-production."

914: 832: 794: 1665:

I appreciate your effort on trying to improve Slipknot articles, but do you really think any hard-lined GA reviewer would accept this as an article?

3095: 3043: 2966: 2925: 2877: 2754: 2664: 2566: 2498: 2412: 2313: 2262: 2191: 2120: 2061: 1986: 1872: 1773: 1681: 1607: 1545: 2789:

Don't mean to be blunt, but do not even think about merging this to the Discography page. It'll turn out being an absolute mess, obviously against

85: 1677:. One point of interest: if the demo was released "WAY" back before the debut album, why is spit it out and wait and bleed are on both releases? — 1472:

There have been no substantial changes to the article since the last failed GAN – apparently there is no more information available at this time?

3193: 216: 3188: 3183: 44: 211: 3198: 943:

The Interloper and Despise tracks would feature on Digi Pak versions, and SNAP would appear many years later in the Freddy VS Jason Movie.

910: 828: 790: 30: 2937:

The questions from my last comment haven't been answered yet. Specifically What is a page? and Where do the GAC reference article length?

2258:

Say whatever you want, I'm not going to continue this senseless argument any furthur. Its a complete waste of time. I've done with this. —

554: 3208: 622: 729: 1591:

Other bands in the world have released demos prior to their debut album as well, just like Slipknot. However most of them are deemed

207: 99: 893: 2490:

This article has little notability to deserve its own article. The most reasonable approach to this is to merge and redirect it to

827:

I understand, and I won't add it again. I don't really understand "Despise" as well as "Purity", having heard "Purity" many times.

747:

Just thinking, right, what about we call it Slipknot (demo)? There is no title, making me wonder whether it is self titled or not.

462: 433: 104: 20: 210:

at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be

74: 2464:

release is particularly notable. Should a demo of an album have its separate article? Yes, ONLY if the demo is notable enough.

751: 549:, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the 2555: 1953: 550: 545: 525: 502: 408: 613: 593: 168: 65: 1944:"Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability" 135: 2623:

right?). To stay on the notability aspect, I see three sources, inline citations, and no WP:OR (Hey that meets GAC #2!).

2057:. Also Ross Robinson is obviously not a member of Slipknot, instead he was hired by them to produce their early albums. — 3098: 3046: 2969: 2928: 2880: 2757: 2700: 2667: 2594: 2569: 2501: 2439: 2415: 2375: 2347: 2316: 2283: 2265: 2235: 2194: 2156: 2123: 2081: 2064: 2031: 1989: 1913: 1875: 1821: 1776: 1727: 1684: 1639: 1610: 1573: 1548: 1529: 1331: 816: 769: 714: 669: 492: 1180:

Done the sentence. "work in local studio SR Audio" is grammatically correct, but I have changed it to make it clearer.

785:

If you listen closely to both songs, you'll notice that both "Despise" and "Purity" share lyrics. Not saying that they

2050: 1319: 189: 1762: 3001: 2828: 1264: 748: 2750:

is merged with the actual album itself. (Scroll down to the end of the page.) That is what demos should be like. —

1902: 201: 109: 2148:

discography up to featured topic are not reason enough to merge this article. That is just vanity to be honest.

1456: 1062: 2307:"This is an article about a non-notable track and all information included can be used in the album's article." 1938:

The article is I mentioned before is at most 2 pages in length with half of the screen being empty blank space.

866: 129: 2804:

on Roadrunner. So the thing that makes this piece of information notable, is that they then went onto release

414: 940:

This demo included two of possibly Slipknot's most successful songs to date, Spit It Out and Wait and Bleed.

3092: 3040: 2963: 2922: 2874: 2751: 2661: 2563: 2495: 2431:

OK that is one opinion, we still need other people opinion. One more opinion is not a collective consensus.

2409: 2310: 2259: 2188: 2117: 2058: 2053:, the article was only written to satisfy the start-class criteria. Also I recommend you take a look at the 1983: 1869: 1770: 1678: 1604: 1542: 733: 396: 2657: 2547: 1596: 1592: 881: 467: 441: 3155: 3071: 2945: 2631: 2530: 2012: 1460: 1403: 1109: 1066: 1041: 693: 367: 253: 125: 1866:"the project is here to make sure all articles related to Slipknot are reliable and the best they can be" 1074:

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. Feel free to contact me on my talk page or to answer here. —

55: 2794: 2743: 889: 877:. Call it Original research, or call it common sense, but Despise is very noticibly a demo for Purity. 852: 621:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

70: 2894: 2808:, which was the breakout hit - the fact that the demo was the reason for this should be noted on the 2739: 2735: 2395: 175: 2551: 2483: 1666: 1562: 1251: 1969:"Articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" 1353: 1289: 1191: 1145: 985: 161: 2747: 2734:

with the slipknot album. One alternative I could suggest would be to merge this article with the

1233: 1083: 2790: 3150: 3126: 3066: 3029: 2940: 2626: 2525: 2469: 1505: 1432: 1398: 1377: 1307: 1104: 1036: 1016: 1002: 958: 688: 618: 51: 2619: 2562:. Also the special 10th anniversary is about the actual slipknot album, not about the demo. — 2105:

How about you take a look at pervious attempts to promote slipknot as a good/featured topic.

2870: 2491: 2334: 1715: 1674: 885: 848: 843: 3059: 2559: 1962:

de facto rule concerning albums and songs in Knowledge (XXG). Editors' opinions are futile.

141: 2890: 2391: 1483: 1258:

I don't know anything about it personally and i'm not showing opinion, i'm just saying. --

1256:"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable;" 874: 1931: 1030: 953:

I think it says more than this GAN says at this point. Seriously, beef up the article...

805: 2995: 2822: 1761:

One, it is possible to merge all of Slipknot's studio albums and create a hypothetical

1344: 1280: 1182: 1136: 974: 1244: 1101:

to record companies; obviously if new sources come to light the info can be re-added.

3177: 1930:"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and 1225: 1075: 24: 3122: 3025: 2465: 2298: 1501: 1428: 1373: 1303: 1012: 998: 954: 946:

If you have this, You are lucky to own this ultra rare.. awesome.. Slipknot demo!

969: 2694: 2588: 2433: 2369: 2341: 2277: 2229: 2150: 2075: 2025: 1907: 1815: 1721: 1633: 1567: 1523: 1325: 810: 763: 708: 663: 455: 427: 605: 587: 537: 519: 3024:

I have merged ALL the information here into the album article. Any comments?

2987: 2814: 1463:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 1069:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 1948:

The article only has 5 sources, with only one being a third-party source.

1482:

The article only goes a sentence or so beyond what's already included at

2793:

and completely not notable there. When those demos were merged into the

685:

demo that Slipknot has made, which (MFKR) is not true. So, there ya go.

2656:

to maintain a productive, stable online encyclopedia. Please read over

1128:"The band were working on ..." Shouldn't be the band "was" working on? 3162: 3130: 3101: 3078: 3049: 3033: 3009: 2972: 2952: 2931: 2898: 2883: 2836: 2760: 2705: 2670: 2638: 2599: 2572: 2537: 2504: 2473: 2444: 2418: 2399: 2380: 2352: 2319: 2288: 2268: 2240: 2197: 2161: 2126: 2086: 2067: 2036: 1992: 1918: 1878: 1826: 1779: 1732: 1687: 1644: 1613: 1578: 1551: 1534: 1509: 1436: 1410: 1381: 1360: 1336: 1311: 1296: 1272: 1237: 1198: 1152: 1116: 1087: 1048: 1020: 1006: 992: 962: 918: 897: 856: 836: 821: 798: 774: 754: 737: 719: 700: 674: 3058:

Only that the cover is a fair use image and I don't see how it meets

789:

the same song, but they have a lot of lyrics that are in both songs.

2297:

If you think this article is important, why not also keep the song

1561:

article. I'm sorry but this subject deserves it's own article, see

1093:

The article has some {{fact}} tags on it that need to be addressed.

2614:

Where is this "2 pages" figure coming from? Pages of what? I see

1475:

After reading the article I know almost nothing about the demo

949:

Head over to the audio page if you want to listen to the songs.

1975:

This is what I have been trying to say for the past two hours.

1601:"Consider merging such content to a more appropriate article." 390: 15: 2556:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs

2305:, the track was non-notable, not to mention stubby as well. 1954:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music)#Albums, singles and songs

1468:

This nomination is being failed for the following reasons:

804:

I agree, but it can't be added without a source. It fails

553:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the 1131:"In 1998 Slipknot were ..." Shouldn't be Slipknot "was"? 1864:

articles passing GA and FA nominations. You stated that

2889:

maybe correct factual errors. No need to keep score! --

1214: 1211: 1209: 997:

and doesn't that qualify at least as an external link?

360: 341: 322: 303: 284: 265: 246: 1011:

and they seem to reffer to it as "Rare Slipknow Demo"

160: 2332:

That is COMPLETELY different, that is one track off

972:. The information there is already in this article. 617:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 220:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

174: 2367:Is this demo notable enough for it's own article? 3039:Not really except thanks for doing the honors. — 1767:all of the studio albums are at least GA quality 1493:Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 842:remember correctly, it at one stage said on the 465:, a project which is currently considered to be 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 407:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2873:section. Kiac makes a very good point there. — 2007:It says on that guideline page that demos are 8: 1595:enough to deserve its own seperate article. 1278:Please have a look at the two AfDs. Thanks. 1982:Hope this points out some of the issues, — 582: 514: 422: 225: 184: 2871:Slipknot (album)#Recording and production 2301:as its seperate article. Well as for the 2869:This demo should actually belong in the 1765:article. However that is unlikely since 1427:Thanks for completely missing my point! 2517:event: The special ten year edition of 584: 516: 424: 2482:I concur. Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on 869:is listed as having been evolved into 611:This redirect is within the scope of 543:This redirect is within the scope of 394: 7: 2746:. Blink-182's demo for their album 477:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Slipknot 461:This article is within the scope of 3204:Redirect-Class Heavy Metal articles 2408:And I see someone agrees with me. — 413:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 563:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Albums 14: 2744:Blink-182 discography#Demo albums 1250:Are you sure this article passes 631:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Metal 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 604: 586: 536: 518: 454: 426: 395: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 911:Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) 829:Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) 791:Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) 497:This article has been rated as 1763:List of Slipknot studio albums 206:nominee, but did not meet the 1: 3194:Redirect-Class Album articles 2732:supports merging this article 2055:criteria for B-class articles 1510:18:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC) 968:I guess you are referring to 898:03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 857:03:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 738:00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 625:and see a list of open tasks. 480:Template:WikiProject Slipknot 42:Put new text under old text. 3189:Old requests for peer review 3184:Former good article nominees 2738:article. Here's an example, 1437:13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 1411:18:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 1382:17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 1361:17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 1337:15:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 1312:22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 1297:04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1273:01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 3199:WikiProject Albums articles 2051:Talk:Slipknot Demo/Comments 1238:14:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 1199:22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1153:21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1117:20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1088:20:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1049:04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1021:05:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 1007:05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 993:04:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 963:04:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 919:00:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC) 837:18:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC) 822:21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 799:21:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC) 566:Template:WikiProject Albums 380:Former good article nominee 3225: 3209:WikiProject Metal articles 2658:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 2548:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 634:Template:WikiProject Metal 214:. Editors may also seek a 3163:03:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 3131:18:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3102:18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3079:14:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3050:06:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3034:04:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 3010:03:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 2973:22:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2953:21:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2932:20:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2899:18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2884:07:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2837:07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2761:07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2706:07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2671:06:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2639:03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) 2600:22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2573:19:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2538:19:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2505:19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2474:18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2445:14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2419:12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2400:20:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2381:18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2353:22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2320:20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC) 2289:18:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2269:18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2241:17:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2198:17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2162:17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2127:17:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2087:17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2068:17:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 2037:17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1993:16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1919:16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1879:16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1827:16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1780:15:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1733:15:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1688:15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1645:15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1614:15:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1579:14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1552:14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1535:14:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) 1495:is all that's necessary.) 599: 531: 496: 449: 421: 377: 228: 224: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 2554:, and more specifically 1224:This article fails GA. — 775:16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 755:16:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 720:00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 701:00:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC) 675:23:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 2552:Knowledge (XXG):Merging 1667:Knowledge (XXG):Merging 1563:Knowledge (XXG):Merging 2013:Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. 1461:Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA3 1067:Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2 951: 781:From Despise to Purity 75:avoid personal attacks 2795:Blink-182 discography 1924:Here are my concerns; 1029:If you can find more 934: 501:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 330:Articles for deletion 311:Articles for deletion 208:good article criteria 100:Neutral point of view 2740:Blink-182 demo tapes 2736:Slipknot discography 1932:no original research 637:Heavy Metal articles 463:WikiProject Slipknot 368:Good article nominee 349:Good topic candidate 292:Good topic candidate 254:Good article nominee 105:No original research 1134:Yikes; yeah. Done. 904:I think Despise is 2748:Enema of the State 2363:Requested comments 875:the main band page 546:WikiProject Albums 503:content assessment 409:content assessment 285:September 16, 2008 266:September 14, 2008 229:Article milestones 86:dispute resolution 47: 3008: 2835: 2791:discog guidelines 1269: 901: 884:comment added by 653: 652: 649: 648: 645: 644: 619:heavy metal music 614:WikiProject Metal 581: 580: 577: 576: 513: 512: 509: 508: 483:Slipknot articles 389: 388: 385: 384: 361:December 26, 2008 342:November 21, 2008 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3216: 3161: 3158: 3153: 3077: 3074: 3069: 3007: 3004: 2998: 2992: 2990: 2951: 2948: 2943: 2834: 2831: 2825: 2819: 2817: 2703: 2697: 2637: 2634: 2629: 2597: 2591: 2536: 2533: 2528: 2492:Slipknot (album) 2442: 2436: 2378: 2372: 2350: 2344: 2286: 2280: 2238: 2232: 2159: 2153: 2084: 2078: 2034: 2028: 1916: 1910: 1824: 1818: 1730: 1724: 1716:All Hope Is Gone 1675:Slipknot (album) 1642: 1636: 1576: 1570: 1532: 1526: 1408: 1406: 1401: 1359: 1356: 1350: 1334: 1328: 1295: 1292: 1286: 1267: 1263: 1230: 1197: 1194: 1185: 1151: 1148: 1139: 1114: 1112: 1107: 1080: 1046: 1044: 1039: 1031:reliable sources 991: 988: 982: 977: 900: 878: 819: 813: 772: 766: 717: 711: 698: 696: 691: 672: 666: 639: 638: 635: 632: 629: 608: 601: 600: 590: 583: 571: 570: 567: 564: 561: 540: 533: 532: 522: 515: 485: 484: 481: 478: 475: 458: 451: 450: 445: 438: 430: 423: 400: 399: 391: 378:Current status: 363: 344: 325: 323:October 20, 2008 306: 304:October 14, 2008 287: 268: 249: 226: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3174: 3173: 3156: 3151: 3148: 3072: 3067: 3064: 3022: 3002: 2996: 2993: 2988: 2946: 2941: 2938: 2829: 2823: 2820: 2815: 2701: 2695: 2632: 2627: 2624: 2595: 2589: 2531: 2526: 2523: 2440: 2434: 2376: 2370: 2365: 2348: 2342: 2284: 2278: 2236: 2230: 2157: 2151: 2082: 2076: 2032: 2026: 1914: 1908: 1822: 1816: 1728: 1722: 1640: 1634: 1574: 1568: 1530: 1524: 1518: 1484:Slipknot (band) 1455:This review is 1451: 1404: 1399: 1397: 1354: 1345: 1343: 1332: 1326: 1290: 1281: 1279: 1265: 1254:? Particularly 1248: 1226: 1192: 1183: 1181: 1146: 1137: 1135: 1110: 1105: 1103: 1076: 1061:This review is 1057: 1042: 1037: 1035: 986: 978: 975: 973: 929:Just commenting 926: 879: 817: 811: 783: 770: 764: 745: 715: 709: 694: 689: 687: 670: 664: 658: 636: 633: 630: 627: 626: 568: 565: 562: 559: 558: 482: 479: 476: 473: 472: 439: 436: 359: 340: 321: 302: 283: 264: 247:August 29, 2008 245: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3222: 3220: 3212: 3211: 3206: 3201: 3196: 3191: 3186: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3053: 3052: 3021: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2956: 2955: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2798: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2541: 2540: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2477: 2476: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2403: 2402: 2364: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2309:Touché, huh? — 2292: 2291: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2023:My responses. 2020: 2019: 2016: 2005: 2002: 1996: 1995: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1926: 1925: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1597:Check this out 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1555: 1554: 1517: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1497: 1496: 1480: 1473: 1466: 1465: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1300: 1299: 1247: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1217: 1216: 1202: 1201: 1174: 1173: 1163: 1162: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1094: 1072: 1071: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 925: 922: 825: 824: 782: 779: 778: 777: 744: 741: 725: 724: 723: 722: 657: 654: 651: 650: 647: 646: 643: 642: 640: 623:the discussion 609: 597: 596: 591: 579: 578: 575: 574: 572: 569:Album articles 541: 529: 528: 523: 511: 510: 507: 506: 495: 489: 488: 486: 459: 447: 446: 431: 419: 418: 412: 401: 387: 386: 383: 382: 375: 374: 371: 364: 356: 355: 352: 345: 337: 336: 333: 326: 318: 317: 314: 307: 299: 298: 295: 288: 280: 279: 276: 269: 261: 260: 257: 250: 242: 241: 238: 235: 231: 230: 222: 221: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3221: 3210: 3207: 3205: 3202: 3200: 3197: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3187: 3185: 3182: 3181: 3179: 3164: 3160: 3159: 3154: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3119: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3103: 3100: 3097: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3080: 3076: 3075: 3070: 3061: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3048: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3019: 3011: 3005: 2999: 2991: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2974: 2971: 2968: 2965: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2949: 2944: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2927: 2924: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2838: 2832: 2826: 2818: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2762: 2759: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2742:redirects to 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2707: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2672: 2669: 2666: 2663: 2659: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2630: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2601: 2598: 2593: 2592: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2574: 2571: 2568: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2529: 2520: 2515: 2512: 2511: 2506: 2503: 2500: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2486:states that, 2485: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2462: 2457: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2443: 2438: 2437: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2388: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2379: 2374: 2373: 2362: 2354: 2351: 2346: 2345: 2337: 2336: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2321: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2242: 2239: 2234: 2233: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2190: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2163: 2160: 2155: 2154: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2107: 2106: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2088: 2085: 2080: 2079: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2049:According to 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2038: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1974: 1973: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1942: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1933: 1928: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1904: 1903:third opinion 1880: 1877: 1874: 1871: 1867: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1828: 1825: 1820: 1819: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1781: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1734: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1718: 1717: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1689: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1669:states that, 1668: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1646: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1615: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1580: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1547: 1544: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1533: 1528: 1527: 1515: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1464: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1452: 1448: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1412: 1409: 1407: 1402: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1362: 1357: 1351: 1349: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1298: 1293: 1287: 1285: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1271: 1270: 1268: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1229: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1215: 1212: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1200: 1195: 1189: 1188: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1160: 1154: 1149: 1143: 1142: 1133: 1132: 1130: 1129: 1127: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1115: 1113: 1108: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1079: 1070: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1045: 1040: 1032: 1028: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 989: 983: 981: 971: 967: 966: 965: 964: 960: 956: 950: 947: 944: 941: 938: 933: 930: 923: 921: 920: 916: 912: 907: 902: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 876: 872: 868: 864: 859: 858: 854: 850: 845: 839: 838: 834: 830: 823: 820: 815: 814: 807: 803: 802: 801: 800: 796: 792: 788: 780: 776: 773: 768: 767: 759: 758: 757: 756: 753: 750: 742: 740: 739: 735: 731: 721: 718: 713: 712: 704: 703: 702: 699: 697: 692: 684: 679: 678: 677: 676: 673: 668: 667: 656:Article title 655: 641: 624: 620: 616: 615: 610: 607: 603: 602: 598: 595: 592: 589: 585: 573: 556: 552: 548: 547: 542: 539: 535: 534: 530: 527: 524: 521: 517: 504: 500: 494: 491: 490: 487: 470: 469: 464: 460: 457: 453: 452: 448: 443: 435: 432: 429: 425: 420: 416: 410: 406: 402: 398: 393: 392: 381: 376: 372: 370: 369: 365: 362: 358: 357: 353: 351: 350: 346: 343: 339: 338: 334: 332: 331: 327: 324: 320: 319: 315: 313: 312: 308: 305: 301: 300: 296: 294: 293: 289: 286: 282: 281: 277: 275: 274: 270: 267: 263: 262: 258: 256: 255: 251: 248: 244: 243: 239: 236: 233: 232: 227: 223: 219: 218: 213: 209: 205: 204: 203: 202:good articles 197: 196:Slipknot Demo 194: 191: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 25:Slipknot Demo 22: 18: 17: 3149: 3117: 3065: 3023: 2939: 2919: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2731: 2693: 2625: 2615: 2587: 2524: 2518: 2513: 2487: 2460: 2455: 2432: 2386: 2368: 2366: 2340: 2333: 2306: 2299:742617000027 2276: 2257: 2228: 2149: 2108: 2074: 2024: 2008: 1968: 1967: 1959: 1943: 1929: 1906: 1899: 1865: 1814: 1766: 1720: 1714: 1670: 1632: 1600: 1566: 1522: 1519: 1487: 1476: 1467: 1454: 1396: 1347: 1324: 1301: 1283: 1266:ReplyOnMine! 1262: 1261: 1259: 1255: 1249: 1227: 1218: 1205: 1186: 1175: 1165: 1164: 1140: 1102: 1077: 1073: 1060: 1034: 979: 952: 948: 945: 942: 939: 935: 932:on goolge: 928: 927: 905: 903: 870: 862: 860: 840: 826: 809: 786: 784: 762: 746: 743:Article name 730:219.89.92.47 726: 707: 686: 682: 662: 659: 612: 551:project page 544: 498: 466: 415:WikiProjects 404: 379: 366: 354:Not promoted 347: 335:No consensus 328: 316:No consensus 309: 297:Not promoted 290: 271: 252: 217:reassessment 215: 200: 199: 195: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2730:Tryptofish 2387:RfC comment 1457:transcluded 1063:transcluded 886:Xanthic-Ztk 880:—Preceding 849:Xanthic-Ztk 752:Speak to me 273:Peer review 212:renominated 148:free images 31:not a forum 3178:Categories 3116:re Black: 2891:Tryptofish 2392:Tryptofish 1252:WP:NALBUMS 906:definitely 555:discussion 373:Not listed 259:Not listed 2390:helps. -- 2275:subject. 2009:generally 1593:unnotable 1449:GA Review 1055:GA Review 88:if needed 71:Be polite 27:redirect. 21:talk page 3093:Terrence 3041:Terrence 3003:contribs 2997:talktome 2964:Terrence 2923:Terrence 2875:Terrence 2830:contribs 2824:talktome 2810:Slipknot 2806:Slipknot 2802:Slipknot 2752:Terrence 2662:Terrence 2564:Terrence 2519:Slipknot 2496:Terrence 2410:Terrence 2335:Slipknot 2311:Terrence 2260:Terrence 2189:Terrence 2118:Terrence 2059:Terrence 1984:Terrence 1958:This is 1870:Terrence 1771:Terrence 1679:Terrence 1605:Terrence 1543:Terrence 1516:Redirect 1228:Mattisse 1078:Mattisse 924:Comments 894:contribs 882:unsigned 863:slipknot 844:S/T page 474:Slipknot 468:inactive 442:inactive 434:Slipknot 405:redirect 278:Reviewed 56:get help 29:This is 3157:ngold29 3123:Nergaal 3099:Phillip 3073:ngold29 3047:Phillip 3026:Nergaal 2989:k.i.a.c 2970:Phillip 2947:ngold29 2929:Phillip 2881:Phillip 2816:k.i.a.c 2758:Phillip 2668:Phillip 2633:ngold29 2620:WP:GACR 2616:nothing 2570:Phillip 2532:ngold29 2514:Comment 2502:Phillip 2484:merging 2466:Nergaal 2416:Phillip 2317:Phillip 2266:Phillip 2195:Phillip 2124:Phillip 2065:Phillip 1990:Phillip 1876:Phillip 1777:Phillip 1685:Phillip 1611:Phillip 1549:Phillip 1502:Zeagler 1429:Nergaal 1405:ngold29 1374:Nergaal 1304:Nergaal 1206:Comment 1166:Comment 1111:ngold29 1043:ngold29 1013:Nergaal 999:Nergaal 955:Nergaal 695:ngold29 499:C-class 437:C‑class 237:Process 154:WP refs 142:scholar 3060:WP:NFC 2696:REZTER 2590:REZTER 2560:WP:GAC 2461:MERGED 2435:REZTER 2371:REZTER 2343:REZTER 2303:record 2279:REZTER 2231:REZTER 2152:REZTER 2077:REZTER 2027:REZTER 1909:REZTER 1817:REZTER 1723:REZTER 1635:REZTER 1569:REZTER 1525:REZTER 1477:itself 1327:REZTER 861:Also, 812:REZTER 765:REZTER 710:REZTER 665:REZTER 560:Albums 526:Albums 505:scale. 411:scale. 240:Result 198:was a 126:Google 3152:black 3068:black 3020:Merge 2942:black 2628:black 2527:black 2456:Merge 1459:from 1400:Black 1346:Gary 1282:Gary 1106:Black 1065:from 1038:Black 871:(sic) 806:WP:OR 690:Black 628:Metal 594:Metal 403:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3127:talk 3030:talk 2895:talk 2470:talk 2396:talk 1506:talk 1433:talk 1378:talk 1355:talk 1348:King 1320:WTON 1308:talk 1291:talk 1284:King 1245:WP:N 1234:Talk 1193:talk 1187:King 1184:Gary 1147:talk 1141:King 1138:Gary 1084:Talk 1017:talk 1003:talk 987:talk 980:King 976:Gary 970:this 959:talk 915:talk 890:talk 867:MFKR 853:talk 833:talk 795:talk 749:MOTE 734:talk 683:only 234:Date 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3096:and 3044:and 2967:and 2926:and 2878:and 2755:and 2665:and 2618:at 2567:and 2499:and 2494:. — 2413:and 2314:and 2263:and 2192:and 2121:and 2062:and 1987:and 1960:the 1873:and 1774:and 1682:and 1608:and 1546:and 1488:may 865:on 787:are 176:TWL 3180:: 3129:) 3118:IF 3032:) 3000:- 2897:) 2827:- 2550:, 2472:) 2398:) 1972:. 1905:. 1599:, 1508:) 1435:) 1380:) 1310:) 1236:) 1086:) 1019:) 1005:) 961:) 917:) 896:) 892:• 855:) 835:) 808:. 797:) 736:) 156:) 54:; 3125:( 3028:( 3006:) 2994:( 2921:— 2893:( 2833:) 2821:( 2702:ø 2596:ø 2468:( 2441:ø 2394:( 2377:ø 2349:ø 2285:ø 2237:ø 2158:ø 2116:— 2083:ø 2033:ø 1934:" 1915:ø 1823:ø 1729:ø 1641:ø 1603:— 1575:ø 1531:ø 1504:( 1500:— 1431:( 1376:( 1358:) 1352:( 1333:ø 1306:( 1294:) 1288:( 1232:( 1196:) 1190:( 1150:) 1144:( 1082:( 1015:( 1001:( 990:) 984:( 957:( 913:( 888:( 851:( 831:( 818:ø 793:( 771:ø 732:( 716:ø 671:ø 557:. 493:C 471:. 444:) 440:( 417:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

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

Index