475:
1011:. The more I dug into that, however, the more obvious it became that there are more than sufficient sources to satisfy GNG. However, I still think there is a question of where the "smart" place to discuss these particular characters is, though--and I have not yet seen a particularly compelling argument, based on context and the scope of the content, either way. I will say that is is hard to make an argument for an independent article under
821:, for example), though I could not thoroughly check the content of all of them. I'm still not sure on the issue of where the most pragmatic space is to discuss all of this, but I'm sufficiently swayed that notability is not a concern, so (until I can look into just how much material there is and whether an independent article is strictly speaking necesary/advised) I'm not opposing or supporting and changed my !vote accordingly.
491:
102:
183:
162:
81:
507:
50:
360:
1354:-cci. I first ran into the idea academically in '72 of so, and I'm not sure if I hadn't run into it before personally. It's an essay, not scripture. Useful as a guide, sometimes; utterly useless as infallible doctrine. I hope the central point is obvious: secondary work disavowed by an author and only basking in the original maker's reflected glory isn't neccesarily particularly noteworthy.
1497:
193:
432:
421:
410:
21:
1405:. I assume that neither this article nor the Maudlin one are necessarily repositories of all man's knowledge on the subject of this cartoon character. This article can and should be expanded. And that's that. I don't quite get your missionary zeal to get rid of this one. Hell, I thought I was a deletionist until the bot summoned me to this page. Crikey!
318:
286:
1584:
1139:" What might be his finest cartoon, the old Cav topkick putting his jeep out of its misery, is clearly neither Willie nor Joe, even in spirit; he was a Regular, and it was what Mauldin saw as his best piece of the era. Mauldin never saw his WWII work as "Willie and Joe" in the way that people trying to profit off his work since his death have.
691:. Further leg work could justify an independent article if the right sources are found, but that case has not yet been made, and until it is, merger is the way to go under all of the relevant policies, no matter our gut reactions that the topic "must" "definitely" be notable in encyclopedic terms, because we've heard of it.
399:
388:
1635:. It uses French quotation marks (a.k.a. double angle brackets), so I've always assumed the first printing was in France, or at least in Europe. (My Dad's copy has autographs from men in his company, so I further assume he obtained his copy in Europe.) The second book reprint was as illustrations in his memoir
1312:
Of course
Mauldin's opinion is relevant; it just isn't governing or dominant in a discussion of the notability of the film. Critics, popular opinion, boxoffice, derivative works, and so forth all would each have a much larger say. On the other hand, Mauldin, like Moore, rightly has a larger part in
1015:
when so much of the current content of this article is supported only by primary or non-RS sourcing. Until there is a stronger 1-to-1 correlation between verifiable content and sources that do indeed verify it, it's hard for me to get behind the independent article, even if (longterm) I think it may
1006:
I agree with
Argento that this is basically a NOPAGE issue. I was concerned about notability at first--that is to say, as a product of the sources; I was aware enough of both Mauldin and Willie and Joe to know their general cultural influence, but wasn't sure the right sources would be available to
1547:
exception "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I have written histories of
Peanuts for several publishers -- you can see
721:
Woops, I missed the
Library of Congress source. It's not exactly deep, but it does provide some summary of Willie and Joe as a topic of significant cultural relevance, which puts me closer to neutral on this one. I'd still like to see more sourcing before switching my !vote altogether, however;
1267:
First, no is claiming that
Mauldin is not notable; quite the opposite. Next, as mentioned above, some subjects, even if independently notable, are still best covered in a combined article. See . Next, as mentioned in all three articles, Mauldin certainly did not believe that a film was ever made
1472:
from
Benjamin L. Clark, curator of the Charles M. Schulz Museum (also an SPS, but again, clear recognized expert.) Could someone please remove the false claim, which is in both the body of the article and alluded to in the intro (with the drawing-until-1998 date)? I am carefully trying to avoid
811:
Alright, fair enough--I've struck my original !vote; the fact that one of
Maudlin's Pulitzer Prizes is specifically for a Willie and Joe cartoon changes the equation for me, and some of my own searching has turned up some additional sources which also focus on the unique role of Willie and Joe
1126:
No, Life didn't say that. You did. It's worth noting that the particular piece centered on in Patton's confrontation with
Mauldin -the USO Stage Door cartoon- seems to be Willieless and Joe-free. The Pullitzer piece isn't a "Willy and Joe" piece either, The guard might -or might not - be a
1249:. Summoned by bot. The "Willie and Joe" characters are independently notable, as is amply indicated in this article, and even were the subject of a motion picture, Bill Mauldin, the creator, had an extensive and distinguished postwar career, quite independent of these initial characters.
1363:@Anmccaff Why? Because I was summoned by bot and that's my opinion after reviewing the article. I'm not forming a coalition with other editors and the comments in other oppose !votes are irrelevant. Lastly, hassling independent editors who take the time to comment in RfCs is tacky.
755:
The
Hemmingway article wasn't intended to be a prime example of notability, just evidence that the characters are notable independent of the cartoonist. They're namedropped and Maudlin isn't, meaning the reader is expected to know them without a reference to the
687:. And while I applaud Argento for at least trying to uncover those sources, an offhand reference in an article about an entirely different topic (Ernest Hemingway) and a routine book review of a commercial reprint are not establishing the demands for
482:
296:
1046:
issue, yes. There is nothing here yet that should not be in the
Mauldin article; having two separate ones has no advantage, but has several disadvantages. This started out as a POV fork, and will doubtless swing back into one if left alone here.
498:
300:
776:
1179:
That's certainly one way of looking at it; it's equally valid, from a different POV, to say that it proves that Mauldin doesn't even have to be named, ergo he is the more noteworthy. Both ideas, I'd submit, are wrong, just confirmation bias in
1400:
What "problems"? We are all volunteers. Assuming the subject of this article is independently notable, as I believe it is, those of us interested (and I may be) can build up this article. Those not interested can do something else. There is
678:
unless substantially more sourcing can be found to establish both 1) their independent notability and 2) an argument that they are best understood, as an encyclopedic topic, separately from Maudlin. At present there is exactly one secondary
1327:
Coretheapple said that because W&J were the subject of a motion picture, which indicated they were independently notable. You responded by saying that Mauldin did not believe such a film was ever made. I assume you're unfamiliar with
983:
was two years ago, I think you should try harder to put forward an argument here. So far, you're just pointing out that W&J and Mauldin are often discussed at the same time. No one's denying that they're related. Which part of
1512:
As I detail in the prior section, the article currently includes incorrect claims that Maudlin came out of retirement to draw Willie and Joe in a Peanuts strip. I am requesting a pair of edits to correct this situation.
1529:
Mauldin retired in 1991 and drew the pair for the final time in 1998, as part of a ] strip for the popular comic ''].'' Its creator, ], was a personal friend of his. Schulz considered Mauldin a hero of his own.<ref:
1377:
My apologies for the lack of signature. No one is accusing you a forming a Sekret Cabal!!! (tinsc). (Well, at least I am not.) I'm pointing out that someone else looking at the same articles (I assume the singular
1667:
134:
1536:{{cite web|url=http://aaugh.com/wordpress/2006/09/that-schulzmauldin-collaboration/|title=That Schulz/Mauldin collaboration|website=The Aaugh Blog|last=Gertler|first=Nat|date=September 4, 2006}}</ref: -->
514:
304:
144:
1662:
1697:
1543:
I am not making this edit myself because I have a conflict of interest with it, as I am inserting my own work as a source. The blog is, yes, a self-published source, but I believe falls under the
1707:
1702:
1712:
1382:
you wrote was a slip-up) drew an entirely different conclusion, and I am asking what you saw that they presumably did not. That is, whaddaya see here that isn't, and shouldn't be, in
1682:
616:, and having the Publication history section deleted or TNT, as it appears to be more about Mauldin than Willie and Joe. I definitely think there is a need for two separate articles.
1464:(Yes, it's a self-published source, but as neither Mauldin nor Schulz is a living person, and as I'm a recognized information source regarding Peanuts, this should get around
373:
330:
1535:
Mauldin retired in 1991. The pair reappeared in a 1998 ] strip of the popular comic '']'', using art that had been copied out of a 1944 ''Willie and Joe'' panel.<ref: -->
1429:
I'd suggest having the !votes under a "survey" subsection and having chitchat in a separate "discussion" section. Jumping on people coming by to offer an opinion is cheesy.
877:"Friends of Willie & Joe" is a living history group that mostly depicts the regular "dog face" infantryman of WWII, usually as members of Bill Mauldin's 45th Division...
1538:{{cite web|url=http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1998/11/11|title=Peanuts Comic Strip, November 11, 1998 on GoComics.com|author=Charles Schulz|work=GoComics}}</ref: -->
1531:{{cite web|url=http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1998/11/11|title=Peanuts Comic Strip, November 11, 1998 on GoComics.com|author=Charles Schulz|work=GoComics}}</ref: -->
980:
31:
359:
216:
1692:
1216:
Of course. that using an organization that makes so much of its connection to Mauldin might not be the best way to show his creatures are independently notable.
1272:'s: she feels the article needs a good deal more detail to establish what she sees as their real notabilty, yet you see what is here as more than enough. Why?
222:
868:
The Hemingway book review also does nothing to assert separate notability; it's equally possible that author assumed the audience need not be told "Mauldin."
226:
1717:
1639:. I doubt either printing contains all of the cartoons that featured Willie & Joe -- although the first contains Mauldin's tribute to Ernie Pyle. --
268:
1722:
325:
291:
1677:
258:
1268:
about his characters; he thought that Hollywood had bought their names, and pissed over them. Finally, your vote seems, in a sense to counteract
1016:
be an inevitable result. Hope that makes sense; my position is nuanced because of the interplay of several related policies in this instance.
659:- The characters are definitely notable outside their creator. What this article needs is actually more detail, especially on their legacy.
1069:, but not vice-versa. Most of the W&J links are included when describing Mauldin, not independently mentioned. Their page views are also
334:
1727:
1687:
1672:
1332:. Mauldin's opinion of the film should be discussed in the article(s), but his opinion of it is irrelevant to its existence or notability.
234:
1298:
the V for Vendetta film so much he had his name taken out of the credits and refused any royalties, but we still have an article for it.
1519:
They were created and drawn by American cartoonist Bill Mauldin from 1940 to 1948, with occasional additional drawings until 1998.
683:
for this article, which supports just one statement; the rest of the sources are primary, leaving virtually the entire article un-
1560:
206:
167:
61:
568:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1448:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1118:
I did note the author in the Life article. The fact that Mauldin wrote it does not change the fact that Life thought he
896:
I did note the author in the Life article. The fact that Mauldin wrote it does not change the fact that Life thought he
548:
680:
27:
1313:
a discussion about whether a derivative work is about his created character, or someone else's bastardization of it.
230:
1503:
760:
109:
86:
1012:
1457:
This article contains the claim that Mauldin came out of retirement to draw the characters in a Peanuts strip.
1337:
1303:
1078:
997:
788:
647:
67:
49:
595:- I have read both articles and agree that this could be and should be merged into the Bill Mauldin article.
1596:
1329:
329:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
1460:
The claim is false; Schulz just copied material from a 1944 cartoon and pasted it in. This can be verified
1402:
688:
1434:
1410:
1368:
1254:
474:
816:
772:
113:. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.
1461:
722:
there's still an argument to be made that this topic is better discussed as part of Maudlin's article.
1614:
1571:
1552:] - and my writing on Peanuts and other comic strip topics have been published by reliable sources --
1478:
664:
1631:
Mauldin's cartoons were reprinted in book form. I believe the first printing was in paperback form,
1537:], creator of ''Peanuts'', was a personal friend of Mauldin's and considered him a hero.<ref: -->
819:
813:
635:
20:
1333:
1299:
1074:
1035:
993:
840:
784:
741:
710:
643:
600:
989:
1592:
1549:
1391:
1318:
1277:
1221:
1052:
887:
582:
639:
1644:
1430:
1406:
1364:
1250:
1212:
I read the description for the FoW&J, but thanks for repeating it. Did you have a point?
954:
I read the description for the FoW&J, but thanks for repeating it. Did you have a point?
1544:
1465:
985:
1610:
1567:
1474:
1269:
764:
660:
1469:
1386:, and is that enough to justify a standalone piece, with all the problems that entails?
865:
You did note the author of the Life article? Some guy named...oh, yeah. "Bill Mauldin."
771:(search for "that last" to find it quick). There's a group of war historians called the
1351:
1062:
1017:
822:
750:
723:
692:
620:
596:
1008:
684:
1656:
1387:
1314:
1273:
1217:
1048:
883:
780:
578:
198:
1553:
1640:
1383:
1070:
1066:
632:
631:- The characters are notable outside of their creator. They were referenced by the
574:
490:
1548:
one such book being cited by the Charles M. Schulz Museum And Research Center on
1007:
describe these particular cartoons as independently notable, for the purposes of
577:
article, is there any good reason why it should not to merged and re-directed?
1173:
assumed the audience knew who Willie and Joe were without naming their creator.
927:
assumed the audience knew who Willie and Joe were without naming their creator.
506:
101:
80:
192:
188:
573:
From its creation, this has been little but a reiteration of coverage in the
1137:
Willie (or is it Joe?) shuffles along beside a column of captured Germans...
881:
The only WWII U.S. Living History Group Officially Sponsored by Bill Mauldin
617:
182:
161:
768:
767:
was specifically for Willie and Joe. The cartoon in question can be seen
1527:
In the "Publication history" page, the final paragraph currently reads "
1043:
1648:
1618:
1600:
1575:
1482:
1438:
1414:
1395:
1372:
1347:
1341:
1322:
1307:
1281:
1258:
1225:
1082:
1056:
1037:
1001:
891:
842:
792:
743:
712:
668:
651:
623:
604:
586:
556:
638:
without mentioning Mauldin. The Willie & Joe book was reviewed by
211:
317:
285:
110:
related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject
1506:
by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
1491:
43:
15:
505:
489:
473:
358:
1171:
I agree with you 100% on the Hemmingway piece - the author
925:
I agree with you 100% on the Hemmingway piece - the author
210:, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
1668:
High-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles
1294:
Mauldin's opinion of the films isn't relevant. Alan Moore
1175:
That indicates they are notable independent of the author.
929:
That indicates they are notable independent of the author.
1554:
here's an article that appeared in the print edition of
221:
If you would like to participate, you can help with the
1663:
Start-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
1698:
Start-Class North American military history articles
759:
A basic search turns up other sources. According to
371:
This article has been checked against the following
1708:
Start-Class United States military history articles
1703:
North American military history task force articles
1473:
coming out of my own Knowledge (XXG) retirement. --
1131:, Samuel Hynes thinks the American figure might be
456:
370:
1713:United States military history task force articles
1591:because the source was cited on the page. Thanks,
1127:solitary Joe. So might the rightmost German. In
1561:here's one that appeared in the print edition of
988:do you think W&J fail? If you want to make a
1683:Start-Class Comics articles of High-importance
8:
1061:For the record, every article that links to
343:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history
47:
483:North American military history task force
453:
367:
280:
233:the attached article or discuss it at the
156:
125:Pritzker Military Library-related articles
75:
499:United States military history task force
775:. Willie and Joe's influence on GIs was
323:This article is within the scope of the
875:, here is how they describe themselves
282:
158:
77:
1211:
1170:
1117:
880:
876:
333:. To use this banner, please see the
1693:Start-Class military history articles
346:Template:WikiProject Military history
7:
1521:, should have its ending changed to
1517:The second sentence of the article,
564:The following discussion is closed.
204:This article is within the scope of
66:It is of interest to the following
1129:War Stories: Myths of World War II
992:argument, you need to explain it.
243:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Comics
122:Template:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAM
30:on 22 October 2015. The result of
14:
1718:Start-Class World War II articles
1723:World War II task force articles
1582:
1495:
1444:The discussion above is closed.
430:
419:
408:
397:
386:
316:
284:
191:
181:
160:
100:
79:
48:
19:
1678:High-importance Comics articles
979:Considering how lop-sided your
263:This article has been rated as
139:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1:
1576:13:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
1533:That should be replaced with
1483:15:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
1002:17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
892:16:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
843:02:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
793:21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
744:21:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
713:20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
669:17:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
652:16:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
624:13:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
605:14:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
587:19:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
119:Knowledge (XXG):GLAM/Pritzker
1619:20:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
1601:13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
326:Military history WikiProject
1728:Implemented requested edits
1688:WikiProject Comics articles
1673:Start-Class Comics articles
246:Template:WikiProject Comics
1744:
1523:additional drawings later.
391:Referencing and citation:
269:project's importance scale
1649:16:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
1439:21:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1415:14:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
1396:15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1373:13:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1342:17:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1323:15:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1308:13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1282:15:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1259:03:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
1226:04:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
1083:13:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
1057:04:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
1038:03:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
873:Friends of Willie and Joe
773:Friends of Willie and Joe
557:03:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
513:
497:
481:
452:
349:military history articles
311:
262:
176:
138:
116:Pritzker Military Library
95:
87:Pritzker Military Library
74:
1446:Please do not modify it.
566:Please do not modify it.
1330:The Death of the Author
515:World War II task force
457:Associated task forces:
402:Coverage and accuracy:
1042:Essentially this is a
675:Weak support for merge
510:
494:
478:
435:Supporting materials:
363:
56:This article is rated
1488:requested corrections
612:I am leaning towards
509:
493:
477:
362:
60:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1633:This Damn Tree Leaks
1350:count me one of the
1135:, or perhaps both: "
1122:were worth covering.
900:were worth covering.
214:on Knowledge (XXG).
981:deletion discussion
779:in a 1971 issue of
763:, one of Maudlin's
546:the proposed merge.
424:Grammar and style:
377:for B-class status:
235:project's talk page
1453:False Peanuts info
1120:and his characters
898:and his characters
681:WP:reliable source
567:
511:
495:
479:
364:
331:list of open tasks
207:WikiProject Comics
62:content assessment
1556:American Heritage
1510:
1509:
621:My Complaint Desk
565:
542:Strong consensus
532:
531:
528:
527:
524:
523:
520:
519:
448:
447:
404:criterion not met
393:criterion not met
335:full instructions
279:
278:
275:
274:
155:
154:
151:
150:
42:
41:
1735:
1590:
1586:
1585:
1499:
1498:
1492:
1031:
1028:
1025:
1022:
836:
833:
830:
827:
754:
737:
734:
731:
728:
706:
703:
700:
697:
555:
553:
464:
454:
438:
434:
433:
427:
423:
422:
416:
412:
411:
405:
401:
400:
394:
390:
389:
368:
351:
350:
347:
344:
341:
340:Military history
320:
313:
312:
307:
292:Military history
288:
281:
251:
250:
247:
244:
241:
201:
196:
195:
185:
178:
177:
172:
164:
157:
145:importance scale
127:
126:
123:
120:
117:
107:This article is
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
1743:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1653:
1652:
1629:
1583:
1581:
1496:
1490:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1270:User:TeriEmbrey
1044:standalone page
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1013:WP:SUMMARYSTYLE
834:
831:
828:
825:
765:Pulitzer Prizes
748:
735:
732:
729:
726:
704:
701:
698:
695:
657:Strongly Oppose
570:
561:
560:
559:
549:
547:
537:
462:
436:
431:
425:
420:
414:
409:
403:
398:
392:
387:
348:
345:
342:
339:
338:
294:
265:High-importance
249:Comics articles
248:
245:
242:
239:
238:
197:
190:
171:High‑importance
170:
141:High-importance
124:
121:
118:
115:
114:
90:High‑importance
89:
57:
12:
11:
5:
1741:
1739:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1720:
1715:
1710:
1705:
1700:
1695:
1690:
1685:
1680:
1675:
1670:
1665:
1655:
1654:
1628:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1604:
1603:
1541:
1540:
1525:
1508:
1507:
1500:
1489:
1486:
1454:
1451:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1334:Argento Surfer
1300:Argento Surfer
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1262:
1261:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1075:Argento Surfer
1071:very different
1065:also links to
1063:Willie and Joe
994:Argento Surfer
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
869:
866:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
785:Argento Surfer
757:
716:
715:
671:
654:
644:Argento Surfer
636:two months ago
626:
607:
571:
562:
541:
540:
539:
538:
536:
533:
530:
529:
526:
525:
522:
521:
518:
517:
512:
502:
501:
496:
486:
485:
480:
470:
469:
467:
465:
459:
458:
450:
449:
446:
445:
443:
441:
440:
439:
428:
417:
406:
395:
381:
380:
378:
365:
355:
354:
352:
321:
309:
308:
289:
277:
276:
273:
272:
261:
255:
254:
252:
203:
202:
186:
174:
173:
165:
153:
152:
149:
148:
137:
131:
130:
128:
105:
93:
92:
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1740:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1721:
1719:
1716:
1714:
1711:
1709:
1706:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1696:
1694:
1691:
1689:
1686:
1684:
1681:
1679:
1676:
1674:
1671:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1658:
1651:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1627:Print history
1626:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:Heartmusic678
1589:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1564:
1563:Hogan's Alley
1558:
1557:
1551:
1546:
1539:
1532:
1526:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1505:
1501:
1494:
1493:
1487:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1458:
1452:
1447:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:WP:NODEADLINE
1399:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1247:Oppose merger
1245:
1244:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
982:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
928:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
899:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
844:
841:
839:
838:
837:
820:
817:
814:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:Life Magazine
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
752:
747:
746:
745:
742:
740:
739:
738:
720:
719:
718:
717:
714:
711:
709:
708:
707:
690:
689:WP:Notability
686:
682:
677:
676:
672:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
630:
627:
625:
622:
619:
615:
611:
608:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
569:
558:
554:
552:
551:Winged Blades
545:
534:
516:
508:
504:
503:
500:
492:
488:
487:
484:
476:
472:
471:
468:
466:
461:
460:
455:
451:
444:
442:
437:criterion met
429:
426:criterion met
418:
415:criterion met
407:
396:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
375:
369:
366:
361:
357:
356:
353:
336:
332:
328:
327:
322:
319:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:United States
298:
297:North America
293:
290:
287:
283:
270:
266:
260:
257:
256:
253:
236:
232:
228:
224:
223:current tasks
220:
218:
213:
209:
208:
200:
199:Comics portal
194:
189:
187:
184:
180:
179:
175:
169:
166:
163:
159:
146:
142:
136:
133:
132:
129:
112:
111:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1636:
1632:
1630:
1587:
1562:
1555:
1542:
1534:
1528:
1522:
1518:
1511:
1504:edit request
1459:
1456:
1445:
1431:Coretheapple
1407:Coretheapple
1384:Bill Mauldin
1379:
1365:Coretheapple
1295:
1251:Coretheapple
1246:
1172:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1119:
1067:Bill Mauldin
1019:
1018:
926:
897:
872:
824:
823:
725:
724:
694:
693:
674:
673:
656:
633:Buffalo News
628:
613:
609:
592:
575:Bill Mauldin
572:
563:
550:
543:
372:
324:
305:World War II
264:
227:notice board
225:, visit the
217:Get involved
215:
205:
140:
108:
68:WikiProjects
35:
1611:Nat Gertler
1568:Nat Gertler
1475:Nat Gertler
1462:on my blog.
871:As for the
614:Weak Oppose
610:Convince Me
413:Structure:
58:Start-class
1657:Categories
1609:Thanks! --
1470:this tweet
661:TeriEmbrey
1550:this page
1468:) and in
990:WP:NOPAGE
879:, and as
777:discussed
751:Snow Rise
597:Parkwells
1637:Up Front
1388:Anmccaff
1315:Anmccaff
1274:Anmccaff
1218:Anmccaff
1049:Anmccaff
884:Anmccaff
685:verified
579:Anmccaff
374:criteria
28:deletion
1641:llywrch
1380:article
1348:Barthes
1180:action.
756:author.
593:Support
544:against
267:on the
143:on the
1545:WP:SPS
1466:WP:SPS
1352:Paglia
1133:either
986:WP:GNG
629:Oppose
535:Merge?
240:Comics
212:comics
168:Comics
64:scale.
1566:]. --
1502:This
1296:hated
1645:talk
1615:talk
1597:talk
1588:Done
1572:talk
1479:talk
1435:talk
1411:talk
1392:talk
1369:talk
1338:talk
1319:talk
1304:talk
1278:talk
1255:talk
1222:talk
1079:talk
1053:talk
1009:WP:N
998:talk
888:talk
789:talk
769:here
665:talk
648:talk
618:L3X1
601:talk
583:talk
259:High
231:edit
135:High
36:keep
34:was
1530:-->
1346:On
761:CNN
640:NPR
1659::
1647:)
1617:)
1599:)
1574:)
1559:,
1481:)
1437:)
1413:)
1394:)
1371:)
1340:)
1321:)
1306:)
1280:)
1257:)
1224:)
1081:)
1073:.
1055:)
1000:)
890:)
818:,
815:,
791:)
783:.
667:)
650:)
642:.
603:)
585:)
463:/
303:/
299:/
295::
229:,
1643:(
1613:(
1595:(
1570:(
1477:(
1433:(
1409:(
1390:(
1367:(
1336:(
1317:(
1302:(
1276:(
1253:(
1220:(
1077:(
1051:(
1030:w
1027:o
1024:n
1021:S
996:(
886:(
835:w
832:o
829:n
826:S
812:(
787:(
753::
749:@
736:w
733:o
730:n
727:S
705:w
702:o
699:n
696:S
663:(
646:(
599:(
581:(
337:.
271:.
237:.
219:!
147:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
