271:. It's expected that any play would have a large amount of coverage as far as critical reception goes. It's also expected that if a play is shown in more than one place, that each location will receive coverage. However that does not mean that we need coverage of the critical reception of every location- typically the other performances/venues should only be covered if the performances are so well covered, so notable that they'd warrant a separate section about that cast/venue. The only time we typically branch off into a new article is when the subject has received so many awards and nominations in so many notable areas that it would make sense to have a separate article - and they have to be very, very many. This play has not yet gotten that level of awards, so there's no reason for a spinoff at this point in time. I also need to note that it doesn't help that the article is liberally peppered with various POV statements like "Those who listened to readings of the script at the Scripts At Work workshop are said to have been stunned into silence." It's sourced but it's also written in such a way that it really comes across like the page was written by a very devoted fan of the play. This may not have been the case, but in the end this is just way, way overkill. We don't
1342:
on plays or other works which have had multiple performances, and proposed that one of the more basic spinout articles would be one discussing critical reception of the work and performances, and this article could reasonably be made on of that type. I guess myself the three obvious main and most justifiable articles on plays might be the main article a list of performances, including the where and when information, significant casting and performance information, awards and recognition, and that sort of thing, and a critical reception article, including the bulk of the material on the critical reception in general and maybe some extended material on particularly noteworthy performances. But that would probably best be handled at the relevant policy/guideline page.
1117:
other so much, there's tons of overlap and what doesn't overlap is overly verbose hype language. There's just no need for this; it would be excessive even when applied to all but the few most famous and extensively covered works of literature or theater in history, and it's even more so when applied to such a fringe play. This is a total puff piece created by an editor who seems to have a history of creating similarly puffed-up, promotional features for his favorite celebrities, causes, and pieces of entertainment. Arguing that other content on
Knowledge is fanboy-created puff seems like an argument to delete other similar articles, not a reason to keep this one.
1139:
actual deleting removes the history where as redirect or the more appropriate merge are the norms here. By all accounts, this is a deep examination of the play and is still a summary style presentation and worthy of inclusion. The balance and deeper examination is another reason to keep it separate - so readers of the original article can pursue the topic in more depth if they choose to. Overall it is a well developed set of articles in an imperfect and incomplete encyclopedia.
992:) .... but it isn't, so I can't. Under the circumstances present, since the title is not what I would consider a typical search term, I would go with "delete". However, I believe I should make an exception here as in this case, merging the critical response back into the main article is probably going to be a lengthy and difficult task, and destroying properly reviewed prose and sources so editors cannot retrieve them (via the history) to do the merge is unhelpful -
721:
wasn't a topic but a template, which is completely different. PresN showed that the main article, which is the play, the tour, and the critical response all make up a topic because they are all part of the same subject. If you have anymore questions about topics, please let me know. I'm just here because if this article and the tour article get deleted, merged, or both the topic is no more.
1057:
editorial determinations as to which are significant and representative. That's the opposite of what was done here. And make no mistake, many of these critical response voices are from extraordinarily minor local news sources. That it is possible to assemble a facially well-written article thus doesn't make it compliant with policy; rather, it makes it promotional.
1427:
critical response section of play or movie article in most cases will need to use the reviews themselves in discussing the critical response, but it seems that for a stand-alone article, there usually need to be secondary sources to establish notability. Is there to be an exception in the case of critical response articles?--
218:
add such a superfluous secondary article on a regional production other than SEO. Along with the article "2012 Tour of She Has a Name," it seems to be in a linking loop with the original article, which is itself of simply vast length considered the level of notability of the subject. WP:PROMOTION, WP:N
1341:
in the short term and request that policies and/or guidelines regarding the required notability for spinout articles of the type of this and its related articles are created. I said in the recently closed deletion discussion of the related article that there might be grounds for more than one article
1074:
or Merge leaning to keep. Article is of good quality, with enough sourceable information to show it warrants an article on its own. If it is deemed it doesn't then it should be merged into the main article, although i think that will make main article unwieldy. I do have concerns about the nominators
1138:
is another issue entirely. This article has over 3000 words and the original article has 4900. In terms of pure size - they could be contained within, if not for what would occur. Other editors have come to this conclusion - Like
Maclean. The deletes show that the purpose of AFD is not understood as
217:
This article is approximately double the length of the main article on Death of a
Salesman...a clear promotional puff piece that violates Knowledge's notability standards. The main article for She Has a Name already includes an arguably over-lengthy section on critical response; it makes no sense to
1098:
because if it was left in the main article it may be undue weight relative to the other sections (e.g. Plot summary, Productions, etc.). No objection to a merge because I think it is still in the realm of reasonableness in terms of weight with the other sections. Deleting because of too much detail
1056:
media subject is given this treatment elsewhere in
Knowledge; nearly every newspaper in America has some sort of film review column or section, but each film release's critical response section is not spun off into an article of its own so that each of those voices can be presented; rather, we make
1426:
If the article is about the critical response, shouldn’t there be secondary sources discussing the critical response? I looked through the entire
Reviews section, and it appears to consist entirely of primary sources, that is the sources are the critical responses themselves. I understand that a
60:
The argument that the article should not be deleted because it's a GA is not in itself sufficient, though it does point at adequate and reliable sourcing and things like that--at least four of the "keeps" use this argument. That it's a valid spinoff given the size could be a valid argument, but as
1116:
It is absurd to think that 2 whole spinoff articles are warranted for such a minor play, especially when all the content on this page is summarized in a relatively more reasonable/restrained manner on the main article for the play itself. Even a merge isn't necessary since the 3 pages repeat each
720:
Featured Topics delegate (and possibly the de facto director) here. To begin, to be considered a "good topic" less than 50% of the topic, which at minimum has to be three articles of the same topic, has to at Good
Article status. 50% and over makes it become a Featured Topic. What you displayed
1365:
regarding the notability of theatrical performances. Having not actually reviewed the references myself, the fact that others have said the article seems to be almost exclusively based on individual reviews themselves, rather than an sources secondary to the reviews, raises questions regarding
315:
Redirecting would be acceptable, but since the only mainspace links to this article are from the play and its playwright, it's not particularly critical that we do so — once those links are removed, any likelihood of this actually being a potential search topic in its own right will completely
771:
where he claims to be the 'subject of an attack'. It should be investigated if this AfD is not part of that alleged attack, certainly in light of the nominators editing record. It is a new account who started of last week by culling the content of another article which Neelix created (see
64:
On the other hand, "deletes" argue that a. the content is already covered in the main article and b. is excessive. Wobzrem points out that there is much repetition in the three articles and that the language is "hyped-up", a point made by
Tokyogirl, Squeamish Ossifrage, and others as
1444:
absurd over coverage. We sometimes do split these out for famous works, but there isn't enough here to split out. I think in practice "famous" is the right criterion for such split out articles, except in the cases where the critical response is more important than the work itself.
1047:
in the parent article. That's a (relatively) reasonable survey of critics' responses to the play, generally in line with what we expect from similar articles. There was nothing special about the critical response to this play, nothing that made the critical response
68:
A more essential question is asked by
Wikimedes: whether, if I may paraphrase, a collection of reviews adds up to a subject called "Critical Response to X". That is the more interesting philosophical question and it's a pity this mine wasn't delved into
54:. A contentious AfD, given the nominator's background and status--but this discussion has so many participants and so many arguments pro and con that we can't just close this as Speedy Keep because of a possible bad-faith nomination (WP:SK, item 2).
1408:
and dismiss calls to either delete or merge. The item is a good example of how to produce high-quality spin-off articles from high-quality main articles. Why this is continually being hounded down, I know not, perhaps someone has an agenda......
944:
Just checking in here as I see I've been mentioned on both of these articles as a possible sockpuppet. Hope you'll all disregard that. I'm just getting into editing here and have no goals on the site outside improving syntax and concision. Thanks.
370:
186:
320:, giving this play a far deeper level of coverage (BLPs of actors whose only substantive claim of notability was having been an unnamed ensemble character in a production of it, etc.) than it actually warrants. No objection to
248:
It does seem a little bit like overkill. Critical reception should be summed up for the most part and this looks like it's a blow by blow account of each and every critic's response to the play in every place it was performed.
316:
vanish. Topic is already adequately summarized in the play's main article, without the need for anything here to be merged for further expansion — and the creator does have a bit of a history of going more than a bit
392:
232:
Page includes, among other things, a lengthy "background" section regurgitating information already covered on the main page for the play as well. I can find no compelling reason for the existence of this
56:
I see a consensus to delete the article, but to appease those who were so impressed by the sourcing, I will close this as "Redirect" and save the history to give those editors the option to merge selected
440:
1245:
1036:
915:
914:). As for the notability of this article, I believe it is notable because a) I have actually read the article and see how it expands on the knowledge in the section of its main article, b) it
876:
180:
112:
107:
1223:
116:
275:
a blow by blow account of every review ever written- a brief summary is more than enough and anything other than this can and should be on a fan wikia or a website for the play.
875:
There is something suspicious going on. Putting aside for a moment the temptation to jump on the bandwagon and join others in condemning the notability of this article and the
99:
139:
1289:
1201:
521:. We have two or three articles by the same user on what is really a small local play, obviously serving as promotional fluff. I don't even think a merge is necessary. –
1179:
903:
1267:
985:
768:
1134:- Knowledge is neither macro nor micro and this level of detail is incompatible with the balance of the original article. Whether or not the "2012 tour" should be
401:
657:, the tour, and the critical response articles. Kooman himself and Ten Silver Coins are not a part of any Good or Featured topic, as they are not GA+ quality. --
146:
1311:
767:, an editor with nine years experience and many articles to his name, retired a week ago stating he was 'the target of a very high level of trolling'. See also
1157:
1002:
919:
479:
295:
Also, since this is all already fairly well summed up on the pre-existing article for the play, I don't see where any of this really needs to be merged.
706:
Sorry, I guess it's not a "good topic". But it is at the bottom of this article and the others. How can a reader tell which are in the "good topic"?
650:
627:(GA) as "among the best series of articles produced by the Knowledge community". I agree with the comments above that three articles on one play is
103:
926:(I have spot checked them). Let us not cause an injustice against an undeserved article that was improved by a respected, now former, Wikipedian.
201:
1478:
Yes, and when sections become too large to be hosted by their main article, we create a spin-off article, like this, which is of high quality.
168:
1469:
1391:- clearly notable. well sourced, and a GA status article. That says it all. This should not be deleted or merged. does not fail WP:GNG--
923:
624:
95:
87:
1571:
1544:
1528:
1510:
1487:
1473:
1456:
1436:
1418:
1400:
1379:
1351:
1325:
1303:
1281:
1259:
1237:
1215:
1193:
1171:
1148:
1126:
1108:
1086:
1066:
1025:
984:. If the main article was at least 50K, I would consider "keep", and if it was at 70K I'd probably go with "strong keep, bad nom" (eg:
954:
935:
867:
843:
789:
745:
727:
715:
670:
640:
573:
554:
534:
510:
471:
432:
375:
357:
337:
306:
286:
260:
242:
227:
81:
72:
But, to conclude, a preponderance of editors agree that the nomination is relevant, and that the content is excessive and promotional.
1362:
162:
1052:
notable or distinctive. Yet this critical response article spends several thousand words conveying the reviews written about it.
1023:
158:
530:
17:
1465:
1536:
based on too many primary sources (the actual reviews), lacking in encyclopedic tone, and for overcoverage of a minor play.
208:
1062:
383:
Also, for something that is so ridiculously in-depth, it's awfully selective about what perspectives they choose to show.
388:
238:
223:
807:
620:
802:, I also noted that Nellix has recently received warnings on his talk page for inappropriate admin actions, such as
1553:
1483:
1414:
1590:
1081:
174:
40:
1144:
1058:
586:
562:, per Cirt. 63 refs shows that there has been enough critical response to the play for a separate article. --
384:
880:
693:
234:
219:
1370:
being put together based on the material in all three articles, and any other articles directly relevant.
911:
563:
483:
444:
405:
1586:
1479:
1410:
1375:
1347:
950:
602:
350:
299:
279:
253:
36:
1567:
1076:
1021:
993:
722:
834:
though maybe he is taking a wikibreak as suggested. So please don't be quick to blame sockpuppets.
1432:
1140:
1104:
931:
879:, I am suspicious of the motivations of the nominator, who appears to be a sockpuppet (possibly of
839:
741:
711:
636:
612:
526:
194:
1001:
Upthread, a number of people have said "you can't delete this - it's a GA!" But, I also note that
1541:
1519:
863:
803:
1094:. It would be great if all Reception section/articles were this detailed. This could be a valid
346:
That's a pretty good argument for just deleting, so I wouldn't object to this getting deleted.
1122:
1095:
981:
333:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1585:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1524:
1506:
1396:
1371:
1343:
958:
946:
888:
815:
811:
607:
582:
347:
296:
276:
250:
77:
1563:
1040:
1016:
799:
785:
733:
664:
628:
317:
1428:
1366:
whether this actually does meet notability. Having said that, I sure as hell can see a
1321:
1299:
1277:
1255:
1233:
1211:
1189:
1167:
1100:
1044:
976:
970:
927:
835:
824:
737:
707:
632:
616:
594:
550:
522:
267:
50:
1035:. I'd failed to notice this one was also AFD'ed. Broadly speaking, see my comments at
61:
DGG (and others) point out, that is a result of what can be called excessive coverage.
1537:
1452:
859:
819:
598:
1518:
Not encyclopedic, reads like something a PR department would release. Well sourced
1498:
1118:
989:
884:
777:
776:, also note the preceding similar content culling by another newly created account
590:
543:, GA quality article. Significant amount of secondary source coverage over time. —
329:
980:
article sitting at only 29K of prose, I don't believe this meets the criteria for
133:
892:
1502:
1392:
907:
899:
764:
73:
795:
781:
679:
659:
1556:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1316:
1294:
1272:
1250:
1228:
1206:
1184:
1162:
895:
545:
328:
since the redirect isn't strongly needed and no content needs to be merged.
818:
where he blocked a newbie editor without warning. He was told about about
1447:
1367:
1363:
Knowledge talk:Notability (events)#Notability of theatrical performances?
1075:
motives as well, but others have went into that more than i care to.
891:) and who may have a vendetta against articles like this one and
1579:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1464:- The article about the play already has a section on this.
920:
is a good article as recognized by other competent editors
736:
for the explanation. I couldn't figure it out on my own.
441:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
1246:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
832:
829:
773:
129:
125:
121:
1010:
without prejudice to someone doing so at a future date
682:, please see this, at the bottom of the play articles.
193:
1224:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
1015:, this article with be merged with She Has a Name".
1562:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
858:- per others above, it is covered in the play. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1593:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1290:list of News media-related deletion discussions
1202:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
986:Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix
974:- others hinted at it above, but with the main
808:Knowledge:Protection_policy#Template_protection
769:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnnydowns
1180:list of Education-related deletion discussions
822:and asked for an explanation for this edit to
1361:I have started discussion at the talkpage of
1268:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
798:, per my comment on your talk page regarding
207:
8:
1310:Note: This debate has been included in the
1288:Note: This debate has been included in the
1266:Note: This debate has been included in the
1244:Note: This debate has been included in the
1222:Note: This debate has been included in the
1200:Note: This debate has been included in the
1178:Note: This debate has been included in the
1156:Note: This debate has been included in the
478:Note: This debate has been included in the
439:Note: This debate has been included in the
402:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
400:Note: This debate has been included in the
1312:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
780:). It has the hallmarks of sockpuppetry. --
1309:
1287:
1265:
1243:
1221:
1199:
1177:
1158:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
1155:
1039:. Here, more specifically, the problem is
910:and who apparently retired after enduring
477:
438:
399:
922:, and d) it is considered notable by the
480:list of Arts-related deletion discussions
906:editor and administrator who improved
1006:addressed these very concerns head on
908:other featured articles on this topic
324:— though I'd actually prefer to just
7:
625:Critical response to She Has a Name
369:, for reasons Tokyogirl elaborates.
96:Critical response to She Has a Name
88:Critical response to She Has a Name
1008:viz "I have no reason to believe,
24:
1099:is going in the wrong direction.
812:Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant
971:She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response
916:is part of a featured/good topic
268:She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response
51:She_Has_a_Name#Critical_response
924:high number of external sources
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
814:and another on 6 January, see
649:Correction: The Good Topic is
1:
1572:19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
1545:13:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
1529:11:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
1511:10:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
1488:21:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1474:21:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1457:16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1437:09:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1419:21:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1401:21:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1380:22:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
1352:19:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1326:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1304:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1282:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1260:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1238:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1216:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1194:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1172:18:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1149:16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
1127:21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1109:19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1087:19:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1067:19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
1026:16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
955:16:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
936:15:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
868:09:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
844:22:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
790:01:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
763:The creator of this article
746:22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
728:03:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
716:01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
671:01:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
641:00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
574:23:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
555:23:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
535:19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
82:20:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
621:2012 tour of She Has a Name
511:22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
472:22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
433:22:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
393:08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
376:07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
358:11:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
338:06:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
307:06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
287:06:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
261:05:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
243:05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
228:04:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
1610:
1043:. Start by looking at the
1466:Truth to the Fourth Power
1045:critical response section
877:other related AfD article
1582:Please do not modify it.
994:there's no rush to do it
904:experienced and prolific
831:He retired on 7 January,
381:Delete as per Tokyogirl.
32:Please do not modify it.
1037:the other related AFD
653:, and only includes
1059:Squeamish Ossifrage
794:(repeating myself)
605:" which identifies
810:on 4 January. See
235:Cactusjackbangbang
220:Cactusjackbangbang
47:The result was
1574:
1527:
1328:
1306:
1284:
1262:
1240:
1218:
1196:
1174:
1014:
613:young-adult novel
587:The Drover's Wife
513:
503:
500:
494:
488:
474:
464:
461:
455:
449:
435:
425:
422:
416:
410:
385:The Drover's Wife
1601:
1584:
1561:
1559:
1557:
1523:
1480:The Rambling Man
1411:The Rambling Man
1084:
1079:
1012:
947:John Bailey Owen
806:, per violating
725:
698:
692:
667:
662:
608:Ten Silver Coins
570:
567:
507:
501:
498:
492:
486:
468:
462:
459:
453:
447:
429:
423:
420:
414:
408:
354:
303:
283:
257:
212:
211:
197:
149:
137:
119:
34:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1591:deletion review
1580:
1575:
1552:
1550:
1082:
1077:
1013:(emphasis mine)
723:
696:
690:
665:
660:
568:
565:
506:
497:
491:
485:
467:
458:
452:
446:
428:
419:
413:
407:
352:
301:
281:
255:
154:
145:
110:
94:
91:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1607:
1605:
1596:
1595:
1560:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1531:
1513:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1459:
1439:
1421:
1403:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1356:
1355:
1330:
1329:
1307:
1285:
1263:
1241:
1219:
1197:
1175:
1152:
1151:
1141:ChrisGualtieri
1129:
1111:
1089:
1069:
1029:
1028:
998:
997:
977:She Has a Name
965:
964:
963:
962:
939:
938:
870:
848:
847:
846:
825:She Has a Name
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
674:
673:
655:She Has a Name
644:
643:
617:She Has a Name
611:(a stub on an
576:
557:
538:
515:
514:
504:
495:
489:
475:
465:
456:
450:
436:
426:
417:
411:
396:
395:
378:
363:
362:
361:
360:
341:
340:
312:
311:
310:
309:
290:
289:
263:
215:
214:
151:
90:
85:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1606:
1594:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1577:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1558:
1555:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1521:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1443:
1440:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1291:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1264:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1181:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1020:
1019:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1003:the GA review
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
973:
972:
967:
966:
960:
956:
952:
948:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:184.161.25.16
878:
874:
871:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
827:
826:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
792:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
770:
766:
762:
759:
758:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
730:
729:
726:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
694:Andrew Kooman
681:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
669:
668:
663:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
609:
604:
600:
599:Andrew Kooman
597:. The author
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
572:
571:
561:
558:
556:
552:
548:
547:
542:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
512:
509:
508:
481:
476:
473:
470:
469:
442:
437:
434:
431:
430:
403:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
379:
377:
374:
373:
368:
365:
364:
359:
356:
355:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
313:
308:
305:
304:
298:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
284:
278:
274:
270:
269:
264:
262:
259:
258:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
230:
229:
225:
221:
210:
206:
203:
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
156:Find sources:
152:
148:
144:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
89:
86:
84:
83:
79:
75:
70:
66:
62:
58:
53:
52:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1581:
1578:
1551:
1533:
1515:
1494:
1461:
1446:
1441:
1423:
1405:
1388:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1315:
1293:
1271:
1249:
1227:
1205:
1183:
1161:
1135:
1131:
1113:
1091:
1071:
1053:
1049:
1041:undue weight
1032:
1017:
1009:
1005:
990:Jimi Hendrix
975:
969:Redirect to
968:
912:wikihounding
898:improved by
872:
855:
851:
823:
760:
689:
658:
654:
606:
578:
564:
559:
544:
540:
518:
484:
445:
406:
380:
371:
366:
351:
325:
321:
300:
280:
272:
266:Redirect to
265:
254:
231:
216:
204:
198:
190:
183:
177:
171:
165:
155:
142:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
49:redirect to
48:
31:
28:
1520:WP:FANCRUFT
1372:John Carter
1344:John Carter
959:Johnnydowns
889:Johnnydowns
804:WP:INVOLVED
761:Investigate
583:Tokyogirl79
348:Tokyogirl79
297:Tokyogirl79
277:Tokyogirl79
251:Tokyogirl79
181:free images
1564:Randykitty
1096:WP:SPINOFF
1078:Blethering
1018:Ritchie333
982:WP:SPINOFF
734:GamerPro64
724:GamerPro64
603:good topic
1587:talk page
1429:Wikimedes
928:Prhartcom
836:EChastain
816:Pray tell
738:EChastain
708:EChastain
633:EChastain
623:(FA) and
595:Roscelese
566:Amaryllis
523:Roscelese
318:overboard
37:talk page
1589:or in a
1554:Relisted
1538:Ealdgyth
1424:Question
1368:wikibook
918:, c) it
860:DHeyward
800:this SPI
629:overkill
569:Gardener
531:contribs
322:redirect
233:article.
140:View log
57:content.
39:or in a
1119:Wobzrem
1101:maclean
885:Yaktaur
778:Yakteur
732:Thanks
593:, and
591:Bearcat
353:(｡◕‿◕｡)
330:Bearcat
302:(｡◕‿◕｡)
282:(｡◕‿◕｡)
256:(｡◕‿◕｡)
187:WP refs
175:scholar
113:protect
108:history
69:deeper.
1534:Delete
1525:NE Ent
1516:Delete
1503:Stifle
1462:Delete
1442:Delete
1393:BabbaQ
1136:merged
1114:Delete
1050:itself
1033:Delete
900:Neelix
896:others
887:, and
852:Delete
820:WP:OWN
765:Neelix
619:(GA),
601:is a "
579:Delete
519:Delete
367:Delete
326:delete
159:Google
117:delete
74:Drmies
1499:WP:SS
1453:talk
1339:Merge
957:(aka
893:a few
856:Merge
796:Wolbo
782:Wolbo
680:PresN
202:JSTOR
163:books
147:Stats
134:views
126:watch
122:links
65:well.
16:<
1568:talk
1542:Talk
1507:talk
1497:per
1495:Keep
1484:talk
1470:talk
1433:talk
1415:talk
1406:Keep
1397:talk
1389:Keep
1376:talk
1348:talk
1335:Keep
1322:talk
1317:Cirt
1314:. —
1300:talk
1295:Cirt
1292:. —
1278:talk
1273:Cirt
1270:. —
1256:talk
1251:Cirt
1248:. —
1234:talk
1229:Cirt
1226:. —
1212:talk
1207:Cirt
1204:. —
1190:talk
1185:Cirt
1182:. —
1168:talk
1163:Cirt
1160:. —
1145:talk
1132:Keep
1123:talk
1105:talk
1092:Keep
1083:Scot
1072:Keep
1063:talk
951:talk
932:talk
902:(an
873:Keep
864:talk
840:talk
786:talk
742:talk
712:talk
661:Pres
651:here
637:talk
581:per
560:Keep
551:talk
546:Cirt
541:Keep
527:talk
389:talk
334:talk
273:need
239:talk
224:talk
195:FENS
169:news
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
78:talk
1448:DGG
1337:or
988:vs
854:or
631:.
615:),
589:,
372:Pax
209:TWL
138:– (
1570:)
1540:-
1522:.
1509:)
1501:.
1486:)
1472:)
1455:)
1435:)
1417:)
1399:)
1378:)
1350:)
1324:)
1302:)
1280:)
1258:)
1236:)
1214:)
1192:)
1170:)
1147:)
1125:)
1107:)
1065:)
1054:No
953:)
934:)
883:;
866:)
842:)
788:)
744:)
714:)
697:}}
691:{{
639:)
585:,
553:)
533:)
529:⋅
505:S
502:E
499:A
496:S
493:K
490:C
487:E
482:.
466:S
463:E
460:A
457:S
454:K
451:C
448:E
443:.
427:S
424:E
421:A
418:S
415:K
412:C
409:E
404:.
391:)
336:)
241:)
226:)
189:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
80:)
1566:(
1505:(
1482:(
1468:(
1451:(
1431:(
1413:(
1395:(
1374:(
1346:(
1320:(
1298:(
1276:(
1254:(
1232:(
1210:(
1188:(
1166:(
1143:(
1121:(
1103:(
1061:(
996:.
961:)
949:(
930:(
862:(
850:'
838:(
828:.
784:(
774:1
740:(
710:(
666:N
635:(
549:(
537:`
525:(
387:(
332:(
237:(
222:(
213:)
205:·
199:·
191:·
184:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
161:(
153:(
150:)
143:·
136:)
98:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.