765:. You provide 15 names--but only five of those are actually on the active participant list. So I ask again, where was consensus established? Do you have a conversation where discussion was made and evaluated? A talk page? A proposal? All I see are a few people making decisions under the guise of what is being called consensus instead of taking the time to actually establish consensus. For a bit of history lesson, the project discussed this very topic about notability of games at length a number of years ago and could not reach consensus then. 15 people do not make a consensus of this magnitude without a discussion of record. A number of people will oppose it if made aware--and the reason I say that is because a number of people have opposed the idea in the past, which is why it was left hanging solid in the "no consensus" realm.--
829:: consensus does not require an !vote or a formal RfC. Consensus is usually established without any such formal polling of editors, and is often established implicitly over time by established practices. I also urge you to review the excerpts from the five guidelines I have linked above. Contrary to what Paul has asserted, even when a topic is notable per WP:GNG, that is not a guarantee of stand-alone article on the particular subject, and a separate consensus is established with each and every AfD with regard to the particular subjects under discussion. If you want to understand the thinking of the 20+ editors who participated in the most recent 24 AfDs regarding stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games (15 or more of whom are regular sports editors), I suggest you read their individual comments in the AfDs linked here:
383:. Bleacher Report (reader-contributed sports blog), 247sports.com (blog site), collegefootballbelt.com (blog site) are not reliable sources; and one and two-sentence mentions do not constitute "significant coverage" (pretty much everything you listed above with the exception of Mandell's blog). Significant coverage means exactly that: a meaningful discussion of the game's significance; the routine morning-after news articles about this game provided a greater depth of coverage than anyhting listed above. there is no reason why this game cannot be adequately covered in
647:--I may be incorrect). In any event, a number of game articles have been deleted under this guise that consensus has been reached, but I can find no place where consensus has actually defined showing how these games should be deleted. THere are AFDs, but the bulk of the reasons in the AFDs have been that consensus says so... okay, WHERE does consensus say so? We have respectful disagreement here and a third party should be involved in the iterpretation and application of
788:
trying to hide the discussion or the AfDs. Quite the contrary, in fact: it's been the most active discussion on the WP:CFB talk page since the first week of
October, as we have tried to keep everyone informed and updated, as well as encouraging their participation in the AfDs. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. If you believe that notice of these AfDs should be posted elsewherDe, please feel free to do so.
543:: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article."
211:, individual regular season games should have some historical significance for a stand-alone article. Articles regarding individual regular season games are disfavored and discouraged; content regarding such individual regular season games generally should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (see
1174:
Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on INDEPTH, CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and GNG. In that case, it could be subjective decision, as WP:N guideline says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or
881:
isn't really that detailed, but I will say that if it's deemed that every regular season game is notable, then you have 1,408 new articles per year (11 games per year Ă— 128 Division I-FBS teams), plus any
Division I FCS games and Division II / III... it becomes and endless mess that diminishes actual
806:
Do you have more discussion than that? Three dudes on a project talk page is not much of a consensus. What I see now is a handful of users nominating articles for deletion, claiming consensus, and then having the article deleted because people assume that there actually is a consensus without further
1099:
And you have yet to state a case why this subject material cannot be adequately covered as part of the two team's existing 2008 season articles and the Border War rivalry article. That's the argument in a nutshell: you're presuming notability (if, in fact, the topic is notable) equals a stand-alone
787:
was posted on the WP:CFB talk page on
October 7, 2014 --over three weeks ago. Since then, there have been 36 separate edits to the discussion section, including updates every time a new AfD has been proposed, and every time an AfD has closed (all 20 with "deletes" so far). It's not like anyone is
669:
The WP:CFB consensus, Paul, has been well-established over years by actual practice, reinforced by reference to the guidelines listed above. As for recent precedents, 21 regular season single-game articles have been merged or deleted since July 2014 by AfD discussions in which over a dozen regular
833:. A lot of arguments are being made here that have already been rejected 20 times in the last 3 weeks. Your best line of attack is to demonstrate that this game is somehow more historically significant or important to the culture and lore of the game than others that have been recently deleted.
739:
As for your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE, most editors who have actually read the full text of the guideline understand that "sports scores" is an example, not a limitation on the meaning of "routine coverage." Your very narrow reading of WP:ROUTINE would seem to be the minority interpretation.
567:
both support the notability of the article. The
Stewart Mandel coverage 4 years after the fact is not a burst article and is an independent and reliable source, nor is it routine coverage. The other articles were all well after the fact as well. Additional sources supporting the notability of the
1114:
Combining into one article would be clumsy and unweildy, leading to exceptionally large articles that would be hard to maintain. But you're not proposing that they be integrated, you're proposing that they be deleted. As near as I can tell in the previous game articles that have been deleted,
1234:
The article is reasonably well-written and sourced, receives an average of 18 views a day, and its subject clearly meets our notability guidelines as demonstrated by Falcon8765. Deleting it would serve no useful purpose. As for the claim that "the coverage at
168:
967:
says that GNG "is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This is best handled in
824:
Falcon, I never claimed that the linked CFB talk page section demonstrated "consensus"; Paulmcdonald was complaining about a lack of notice to CFB editors, which is simply not true. As for defining "consensus," I urge you to review
1100:
article; other editors are saying that this material is better covered as part of the season and rivalry articles without another forking/fragmenting of the content, and that position is supported by the guidelines. That's all.
927:
Why? Knowledge (XXG)'s front page already boasts "4 626 000+ articles" -- this is only 0.0304% of that. If we can manage over 4 million articles in the
English Knowledge (XXG), why is another 1,408 going to put us over the
1095:
the
Knowledge (XXG) community, WP:CFB, and/or the participants in this AfD may "conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article," and that the subject matter "may be better covered as part of another
413:
I am aware of the concept of significant coverage and the relevant policies, thank you. Firstly, the
Bleacher Report article is written by one of their featured columnists, not a random fan. Secondly,
162:
94:
89:
1214:
just a recap of plays? How are the rest of the sources years after the fact 'routine'? A game receiving extensive, focused coverage years after the game has actually occurred is not routine.
244:
98:
758:
417:
is not just some random blog. It is one of the Big 4 recruiting services and the article was written by one of their national analysts. Thirdly, the CFB Belt is a well-known title that has
1192:
The sources I see are merely routine coverage and addition to lists of great games. I'd like to see sources that talk specifically about the game, in more than just recap of the plays. —
81:
121:
1038:
327:
594:
If, for the sake of argument, we accept everything you said above, none of that precludes us from covering this game as part of the two teams' respective season articles (see
479:
128:
266:
281:
203:, and such individual CFB games must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion, and that also means that coverage must exceed
1149:
already rivals that of the stand-alone article in depth and detail, and is more than adequate. All that remains is to delete the stand-alone single-game article.
1015:
573:
296:
606:), consistent with the established practices of WP:CFB. Knowledge (XXG) does not need four articles that cover the same regular season college football game.
85:
395:, consistent with the way 99.9% of all regular season CFB games are treated -- absent historical significance to college football or its culture and lore.
734:), and there are another four single-game AfDs currently pending. Those 25 articles were nominated for AfD by seven different editors, including myself.
973:
599:
388:
216:
183:
208:
1019:
577:
150:
1244:
1070:
I have to agree with Falcon--this game has sticking power that far exceeds notability standards. EVENT, INDEPTH, and CONTINUEDCOVERAGE are met.--
77:
69:
444:, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".
977:
603:
392:
220:
1256:
1222:
1201:
1184:
1158:
1132:
1109:
1079:
1065:
1030:
1023:
989:
937:
922:
908:
891:
859:
842:
815:
797:
774:
749:
660:
636:
615:
581:
552:
404:
365:
319:
303:
288:
273:
258:
236:
63:
631:
I have to agree with Falcon's rationale for GNG, and I'm disturbed in this pattern of what I believe to be misapplied guidelines such as
144:
1034:
323:
877:
Of course there is a lot of coverage for any Texas v. Texas Tech football game. Of course that doesn't mean it should have an article.
1240:
1236:
1146:
969:
595:
455:: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, SPORTSEVENT states "A game that is
384:
212:
17:
140:
1119:
of the articles that were deleted have been integrated into larger all-encompassing articles. AFD is not the place to propose a
536:
190:
1046:
1003:
960:
564:
540:
335:
1027:
585:
1057:. That's multiple features by national news outlets years after the fact. How is that not continued, unroutine coverage?
1275:
40:
1239:
already rivals that of the stand-alone article in depth and detail, and is more than adequate," I strongly disagree.
1006:. It has had multiple national articles written about it years after the fact by respected national journalists like
156:
1243:
has no scoring summary, its game summary is cursory at best, and it all but completely ignores the information from
1050:
375:
Falcon8765, we need to review a couple of basic principles, including the concepts of "significant coverage" per
339:
1042:
475:
331:
483:
878:
560:
452:
200:
58:
1128:
1075:
933:
904:
882:
important games, such as bowl games or the occasional regular season game that does deserve an article. –
770:
656:
826:
207:
post-game coverage of typical individual games. Pursuant to established precedents and the consensus of
1271:
1252:
1154:
1105:
838:
793:
745:
611:
548:
400:
361:
300:
285:
270:
232:
36:
830:
784:
1248:
640:
999:
956:
851:
I have. I've provided numerous reliable sources indicating the historical significance of the game.
648:
644:
632:
509:
490:
464:
448:
204:
699:
679:
253:
176:
1197:
918:
887:
53:
1120:
995:
952:
1180:
1124:
1071:
985:
929:
900:
766:
652:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1270:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1011:
569:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1150:
1101:
834:
789:
741:
715:
687:
607:
544:
396:
357:
228:
762:
639:
and no one from that project has responded as of yet (There is, of course, a response from
437:
376:
315:
1216:
1059:
853:
809:
723:
431:- Here's a list of other guidelines that support the deletion or redirect of this article:
348:
380:
1007:
695:
691:
671:
248:
964:
1193:
914:
883:
807:
investigation. The page you have linked does not adequately demonstrate a consensus.
727:
719:
711:
707:
414:
223:). For all of these reasons, this article about a regular season CFB game should be
1176:
981:
675:
1211:
1054:
343:
115:
731:
703:
199:
Individual regular season college football games are not inherently notable per
683:
516:. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics,
637:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (events)#Requesting feedback on WP:ROUTINE
1016:
National
Football Foundation This Week in College Football History series
574:
National
Football Foundation This Week in College Football History series
568:
game, meeting the reliability and non-routine coverage requirements:
899:
what's wrong with 1,408 new articles a year, if it comes to that?--
440:: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption,
831:
WT:CFB#Articles for
Deletion: regular season single-game articles
785:
WT:CFB#Articles for Deletion: regular season single-game articles
1264:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
643:
but I don't believe that user was involved in the creation of
759:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject College football/Participant list
503:
may be better covered as part of another article, if at all
318:
coverage exceeding routine, historically significant. See
1175:
group two or more related topics into a single article."—
1039:
7th on Sporting News list of best moments of the BCS Era
635:-- I've asked for clarification on this specific one at
530:
not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia
328:
7th on Sporting News list of best moments of the BCS Era
111:
107:
103:
245:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
175:
518:
most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion
480:
2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches
189:
486:)" is probably suitable for a stand-alone article.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1278:). No further edits should be made to this page.
467:of each game, especially if the game received
1237:2008 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas Tech
1147:2008 Texas Longhorns football team#Texas Tech
8:
295:Note: This debate has been included in the
280:Note: This debate has been included in the
267:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
265:Note: This debate has been included in the
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
282:list of Events-related deletion discussions
219:) or rivalry article about the series (see
297:list of Texas-related deletion discussions
294:
279:
264:
242:
1010:. Did you look at the sources I posted?
974:2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team
913:It'll be a messy logistical nightmare. –
600:2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team
514:enduring notability of persons and events
501:, film premieres, press conferences etc.
389:2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team
217:2008 Texas Tech Red Raiders football team
1043:247 Sports top 10 CFB games of the 2000s
332:247 Sports top 10 CFB games of the 2000s
78:2008 Texas vs. Texas Tech football game
70:2008 Texas vs. Texas Tech football game
1051:Led to controversial Big 12 tiebreaker
963:. Even if one argues that GNG is met,
602:) and the series rivalry article (see
340:Led to controversial Big 12 tiebreaker
1035:ESPN: #2 Most Memorable Big 12 moment
324:ESPN: #2 Most Memorable Big 12 moment
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1247:"Aftermath" and "Legacy" sections.
1055:Stewart Mandel - Moment of the Year
472:outside of the local areas involved
344:Stewart Mandel - Moment of the Year
970:2008 Texas Longhorns football team
596:2008 Texas Longhorns football team
385:2008 Texas Longhorns football team
213:2008 Texas Longhorns football team
24:
1028:Yahoo Sports Best of the Era 2013
978:Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry
761:lists 184 active participants in
604:Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry
586:Yahoo Sports Best of the Era 2013
512:: "Knowledge (XXG) considers the
393:Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry
221:Texas–Texas Tech football rivalry
209:WP:WikiProject College football
524:on things like announcements,
354:20:39, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
1:
1024:San Antonio Express-News 2011
670:sports editors participated (
582:San Antonio Express-News 2011
1257:05:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
1223:21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
1202:19:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
1185:20:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1159:19:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1133:19:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1110:18:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1080:16:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
1066:15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
990:06:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
938:20:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
923:20:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
909:16:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
892:21:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
860:23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
843:20:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
816:19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
798:19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
775:19:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
750:15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
661:13:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
616:15:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
553:01:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
461:independent reliable sources
405:01:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
366:01:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
304:23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
289:23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
274:23:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
259:19:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
237:19:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
64:16:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
651:and the other guidelines.--
356:Signature added manually.
1295:
1143:no need to propose a merge
379:and "reliable source" per
1245:the game's main article's
1267:Please do not modify it.
484:Blood in the Water match
32:Please do not modify it.
463:to be notable, outside
537:WP:Notability (events)
522:routine news reporting
1004:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
961:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
565:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
541:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
528:, or celebrities is
476:Pacers–Pistons brawl
680:User:Bsuorangecrush
469:front page coverage
1145:: the coverage at
48:The result was
994:It fails neither
457:widely considered
368:
306:
291:
276:
261:
1286:
1269:
1219:
1062:
856:
812:
716:User:Patriarca12
688:User:Dirtlawyer1
520:. For example,
465:routine coverage
419:
418:
355:
351:
256:
251:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
34:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1276:deletion review
1265:
1217:
1141:Paul, there is
1060:
955:, with lack of
854:
810:
724:User:Spanneraol
641:User:Dirtlawyer
442:not a guarantee
349:
254:
249:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1292:
1290:
1281:
1280:
1260:
1259:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1205:
1204:
1187:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1136:
1135:
1112:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1068:
1031:BleacherReport
1008:Stewart Mandel
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
879:WP:SPORTSEVENT
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
846:
845:
819:
818:
801:
800:
778:
777:
755:
754:
753:
752:
736:
735:
696:User:GrapedApe
692:User:Ejgreen77
672:User:Arxiloxos
664:
663:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
589:
588:
561:WP:SPORTSEVENT
533:
506:
499:sports matches
495:Routine events
487:
453:WP:SPORTSEVENT
445:
433:
432:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
408:
407:
370:
369:
320:BleacherReport
308:
307:
292:
277:
262:
201:WP:SPORTSEVENT
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1291:
1279:
1277:
1273:
1268:
1262:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1230:
1229:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:Paul McDonald
1122:
1118:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:Paul McDonald
1069:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:LA Times 2009
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
966:
962:
958:
954:
950:
947:
939:
935:
931:
930:Paul McDonald
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
901:Paul McDonald
898:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
880:
876:
873:
872:
861:
858:
857:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
823:
822:
821:
820:
817:
814:
813:
805:
804:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
786:
782:
781:
780:
779:
776:
772:
768:
767:Paul McDonald
764:
760:
757:
756:
751:
747:
743:
738:
737:
733:
729:
728:User:X96lee15
725:
721:
720:User:Resolute
717:
713:
712:User:Muboshgu
709:
708:User:Jweiss11
705:
701:
700:User:JohnInDC
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
658:
654:
653:Paul McDonald
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
627:
626:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:LA Times 2009
566:
562:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
439:
435:
434:
430:
427:
426:
416:
415:247Sports.com
412:
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
353:
352:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
309:
305:
302:
298:
293:
290:
287:
283:
278:
275:
272:
268:
263:
260:
257:
252:
246:
241:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1266:
1263:
1231:
1215:
1189:
1171:
1142:
1116:
1094:
1093:
1058:
1020:NFL.com 2014
948:
896:
874:
852:
827:WP:CONSENSUS
808:
676:User:Bagumba
628:
578:NFL.com 2014
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
502:
498:
494:
471:
468:
460:
456:
441:
428:
347:
311:
301:NorthAmerica
286:NorthAmerica
271:NorthAmerica
224:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
59:
54:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1249:Iaritmioawp
1151:Dirtlawyer1
1102:Dirtlawyer1
835:Dirtlawyer1
790:Dirtlawyer1
742:Dirtlawyer1
732:User:Zeng8r
704:User:Jrcla2
608:Dirtlawyer1
545:Dirtlawyer1
397:Dirtlawyer1
358:Dirtlawyer1
229:Dirtlawyer1
163:free images
1218:Falcon8765
1061:Falcon8765
1000:WP:INDEPTH
957:WP:INDEPTH
855:Falcon8765
811:Falcon8765
684:User:Cbl62
649:WP:ROUTINE
645:WP:ROUTINE
633:WP:ROUTINE
510:WP:NOTNEWS
491:WP:ROUTINE
449:WP:NSPORTS
350:Falcon8765
255:talk to me
205:WP:ROUTINE
1272:talk page
1096:article."
1047:Belt game
482:, or the
336:Belt game
250:Jinkinson
37:talk page
1274:or in a
1194:X96lee15
1121:WP:MERGE
996:WP:EVENT
953:WP:EVENT
915:Muboshgu
897:Question
884:Muboshgu
497:such as
122:View log
55:Spinning
39:or in a
1210:How is
1177:Bagumba
1172:Comment
982:Bagumba
429:Comment
225:Deleted
169:WPÂ refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
1190:Delete
1092:Guys,
976:, and
951:Fails
949:Delete
928:top?--
875:Delete
783:Paul,
763:WP:CFB
526:sports
474:(e.g.
438:WP:GNG
377:WP:GNG
316:WP:GNG
141:Google
99:delete
381:WP:RS
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
60:Spark
16:<
1253:talk
1232:Keep
1212:this
1198:talk
1181:talk
1155:talk
1129:talk
1117:none
1106:talk
1076:talk
1002:and
998:nor
986:talk
965:WP:N
959:and
934:talk
919:talk
905:talk
888:talk
839:talk
794:talk
771:talk
746:talk
657:talk
629:Keep
612:talk
598:and
563:and
549:talk
535:5.
508:4.
489:3.
447:2.
436:1.
401:talk
391:and
387:and
362:talk
312:Keep
233:talk
215:and
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
1123:.--
559:By
493:: "
459:by
346:.
191:TWL
120:– (
1255:)
1241:It
1200:)
1183:)
1157:)
1131:)
1108:)
1078:)
1053:,
1049:,
1045:,
1041:,
1037:,
1033:,
1026:,
1022:,
1018:,
1014:,
988:)
980:.—
972:,
936:)
921:)
907:)
890:)
841:)
796:)
773:)
748:)
730:,
726:,
722:,
718:,
714:,
710:,
706:,
702:,
698:,
694:,
690:,
686:,
682:,
678:,
674:,
659:)
614:)
584:,
580:,
576:,
572:,
551:)
532:."
505:."
478:,
403:)
364:)
342:,
338:,
334:,
330:,
326:,
322:,
314:-
299:.
284:.
269:.
247:.
235:)
227:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
1251:(
1196:(
1179:(
1153:(
1127:(
1104:(
1074:(
984:(
932:(
917:(
903:(
886:(
837:(
792:(
769:(
744:(
655:(
610:(
547:(
539:/
451:/
399:(
360:(
231:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.