1484:. Ankheg is a fictional entity in a particular game which this source discusses and out of which the publisher making a living. Is that "independent"? The book is indeed (more than a bit "in-universey": in fact it's entirely about suggestions for how this game might be played. Is that "reliable"? Finally, let me quote the entire coverage (don;t worry, this isn't going to violate anyone's copyright!). It's on a page about how a plain of grass might be viewed in the game. "A knowledge check ... provides awareness of the relationship between tripweed and ankheg." "Burrowing through the ground underneath the intended target, the ankheg waits for the ideal opportunity to surprise its prey." "There is a 15% chance of enountering an ankheg while passing through a patch of tripweed." One mention in a table and the index and that's it. Three sentences. Is that "significant coverage"? Does this add up to notability supporting a free-standing article. I say no.
1299:. Regardless of the source of the complaint, I think it's still a valid concern. I am not opposed to D&D monsters having their own entry, if they are notable creations that have had a major impact on the game and through it, popular culture, such as the Drow, Beholder, or Mind Flayer. However, I don't think that this particular entry counts as one of them. This is a minor monster and I don't think Knowledge should be a repository for every single D&D creature--this is written in an in-universe style and really ads nothing else other that a sourced bibliography. I think many of the D&D monsters should be moved either to their own Wiki or turned into a list, similar to what was done with Pokemon.
822:- "Trivial name drops" sound like another way to say "independent resources"; "trivial" is in the eye of the consensus. I add merge as an option because while I think D&D creatures deserve coverage, its hard to justify separate articles without delving too deep into in-universe style. This article does have some factual publication history sort of info, but that sort of info is conveyed better, I think, in larger summary articles. While some entities are important enough to the property to warrant separate articles, ankhegs seem mostly a background feature. -
1442:
commercial interest in promoting
Ankhegs in specific, instead of just publishing RPG subjects for D20/D&D in general? While I'm not going to argue that the coverage is hugely broad, I will say this: if that's your definition of independence, then that is an insurmountable hurdle for third party
383:
is an independent encyclopedia of things that relate to the
Pathfinder Campaign Setting and is a high quality wiki, with accurate citations. If you check their sources, they have four Paizo publications that further develop the fictional monster on this page. It took me less than 10 seconds to work
262:
Most publishers and authors protect their intellectual property by means of copyrights and so forth. The publishing operation here is quite standard - there are separate authors, editors and publishing staff and numerous publications and journals. This output is sold commercially and so is not a
503:
we are applying overly stringent standards here. Applied elsewhere we'd have to delete lots of information. Something doesn't have to be hugely notable to earn a wikipedia entry. It simply needs to exist as a component of something notable. D&D is notable. It is THE role playing game. I see no
629:
No, I'm asking you a specific question about a blanket statement you made that I don't see matches reality. If there's an error of fact in your deletion rationale, it might well be discarded by the closing admin, and I wouldn't want your voice to go uncounted simply because you were too hasty in
193:, due to the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. While there are multiple citations to reliable sources, none of them are third party, all being associated with the official Dungeons and Dragons brand/game. A search engine test provides no signs of independent coverage.
998:
this article unless someone can show how this meets
Knowledge's criteria for significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources, or provide other sources which do provide such content. There seems to be an aberrant local consensus among editors of D&D articles that notability is
1343:
is not the same as notability, as notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trivial mentions in secondary sources (such as reviews of games) or detailed mentions in tertiary sources (such as gaming guides) are not evidence of notability.
760:
I merely posted the links, explicitly calling two of them "mentions"; triviality or not is something for the editors commenting here to evaluate. If you want to be a bit more verbose in the future--that is, finding such references, linking them to the discussion, and commenting on their
567:- our requirements regarding independent sources are very clear. If there aren't any, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article is sourced solely to stuff produced by people who have an interest in promoting it. There is no evidence that anyone else has taken any notice.
384:
out that Ankheg had been republished by Paizo. I'm sure that someone with more time could find other sources from other 3rd edition era publishers. I think this AFD should be scrapped and that
Wikiproject D&D should be asked to clean up the article and add more sources.
250:. Both TSR and Wizards of the Coast have owned the Dungeons and Dragons trade mark and have been the producers of Dungeons and Dragons products. There's no real editorial independence of these sources from the games, as they are essentially produced by the same companies. --
48:. After discounting the blocked sock nominator there is an (albeit narrow) consensus that the sourcing is sufficient for a standalone article. Even if one would discount some "keep" opinions as not addressing the sourcing issue, it's at least a no consensus default to keep.
967:
664:
1362:
932:
655:
958:
945:
661:
658:
1447:
deriving from primary sources. Yes, if you sell X, even though you didn't originate X, you make money from X. Music, RPGs, Pokemon, TV shows, novels, etc. I think it's clear both from policy and common sense that you're drawing the line far too narrowly.
653:
Per Reyk. A Google Books search is very instructive here, since Ankheg was entirely made up for D&D. In addition to the two independent RS that appear in the article already, I found four in
Bastion Press (not TSR or Wizards-owned) publications
483:
What about dragon magazine, dungeon magazine, third party modules, etc? The Ankheg has most definitely appeared in reliable sources, but even if it hadn't it is something every gamer knows about. Why are editors suddenly trying to delete gaming
976:
668:
1338:
game. The article is referenced with primary and tertiary sources and lacks reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume that it has notability to deserve a stand-alone article. As Reyk mentioned, random
1016:
I agree with
Sangrolu. The ankheg is a monster unique to D&D that has existed in most versions of the game, and there are enough sources to merit at least minimal coverage somewhere, whether it's on its own page or not.
1167:
I say that because blocked users such as
Claritas/Anthem are not permitted to edit, and that includes starting AFDs. This is not the first time this user has created a sockpuppet account to continue his disruption
735:
You found a bunch of trivial name-drops, and you are twisting my words. You are trying to maneuver me into a position where I either have to agree with you or admit bad faith. It's the second time I've seen you
425:. Wiki-projects which anyone can edit such as the Pathfinder Wiki are not reliable sources, and the System Reference Document is a primary source, because it is not independent of the publishers of the game.
157:
595:' website, is produced "by people who have an interest in promoting it"? I don't see anything else published by Tor in the references list, and I thought that TSR and Wizards were the vested companies.
721:
You said it must be covered by independent sources to be kept, and I entirely agree and explained why with plenty of examples. Nothing dickish about that, just AGFing that you meant what you said.
1389:
Bastion Press is owned by
Dragonwing Games, a company with a direct commercial interest in promoting D&D. The argument "keep because there's nowhere to merge it to" seems particularly weak.
371:(SRD) and used by other roleplaying game publishers (creating verifiable secondary sources of the same element of culture). I'm suprised that Anthem's "search engine test" did not throw up the
992:
Out of the three GoogleScholar sources, two just list
Ankhegs in lists of D&D creatures, and one states that the Ankheg was an inspiration for an illustration. Not significant coverage.
342:
1424:
If they have a direct commercial interest in promoting a specific piece of music, which has an article, and that article is up for discussion, then thid comment would become relevant.
263:
vanity press or free promotional material such as advertising. There is therefore no reason to discount such sources as they are satisfactory for both notability and verifiability.
375:, which is Paizo's conversion of the specific D&D monster in this article to their own upgraded (but compatible) rules. I'm also suprised that he did not stumble onto the
1462:
It has a direct interest in promoting the game which is the only place where this entity appears. However, independence is only one of the problems in my comments below.
1100:
Well, the minority can be right. Unless you specifically rebut my points, I assume that you don't have any legitimate arguments to support the reliability of the sources.
223:
The sources relating to this topic were not self-published and so are quite satisfactory for our purpose as there is editorial independence and commercial distribution.
683:
duplicates two of the Google Books entries, but adds another mention in what appears to be a fan-generated GURPS supplement that I'm unsure why they chose to include.
118:
1115:
Anthem you don't get to make the final decision here. But to your point, I think the fact that it is listed in those sources makes it a significant monster in RPGs.
284:. A better analogy would be that they are instruction manuals as how to play the game. They don't substantiate the notability of individual parts of it - they're
312:
are all protected by copyright and/or trademark, and yet the articles about them have sources independent of their creators/publishers. Obviously, I don't expect
151:
609:
You're basing your assertion of notability on a single name-drop in half a sentence in an interview with the guy who invented this fictional monster? Really?
300:
The fact that this fictional species is protected by intellectual property rights does not mean that we shouldn't expect there to be any independent sources.
460:
1036:
If by "minimal coverage" you mean one or two sentences on a list of D&D monsters, I agree with you. If so, may I ask why you're !voting keep as well ?
986:
672:
804:
per Reyk. "Trivial name drops", as he put it, do not confer notability; the topic has to actually be discussed in some detail in third party sources.
951:. The mention of "ankheg acid" in a table and a short explanation of what it is does not constitute significant coverage of ankheg, per
505:
485:
868:- Let's just go through all the sources on offer to check whether they constitute significant coverage in reliable third party sources:
1116:
1081:
1050:
879:
is not independent because it is published by TSR, who are the same company which produces
Dungeons and Dragons and owns the brand.
17:
1324:
and that which is not is merely its publication history, nothing to presume that the monster has reception or significance in
1376:
555:
547:
1049:
Anthem this seems like a lot of reliable sources have been provided. The majority clearly supports keeping this article.
761:
triviality--then we could avoid avoid such misunderstandings in the future, which I'm sure is a goal you can agree with.
525:. The place for information on a component on a notable thing is as a component of the article on that notable thing.
999:
unimportant, and unless you can find sources which support your keep !votes, that opinion of mine will be reinforced.
891:
172:
1169:
139:
91:
86:
1512:
885:
is also not independent, because it is published by TSR. It is an official magazine, containing primary coverage.
504:
reason why monsters from any of the monster manuals or from different editions couldn't have their own articles.
389:
368:
209:
95:
36:
1511:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1489:
1467:
1429:
1403:
1394:
1230:
1194:
1186:
I see no disruption here, but a civilised and sensible discussion. If there's a rule against it, then I would
1158:
920:
is just someone's internet database of monsters in the Final Fantasy series and thus is of dubious reliability.
551:
530:
447:
411:
324:
301:
268:
228:
201:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
588:
1133:- I recommend closing this AFD, as the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as yet another sockpuppet of
509:
489:
78:
1329:
1120:
1085:
1054:
809:
522:
350:
988:
makes my life difficult, but none of the first five sources are reliable or proffer significant coverage.
697:
My opinion was Delete, so when you start saying things like "keep per Reyk" you are deliberately being a
133:
1334:
1407:
902:
857:
385:
247:
205:
1300:
1485:
1463:
1425:
1390:
1304:
1226:
1190:
1154:
1080:
I did read them. I believe most of these are reliable sources and so do most of the other posters.
526:
443:
407:
321:
264:
224:
165:
129:
1365:
as significant, but do concede it is a bit "in-universey". If I get a chance I will keep hunting.
1453:
1415:
1370:
1361:- mainly because there is little to merge to and it has a 30 year history of coverage - I'll pay
1283:
1269:
1101:
1068:
1037:
1000:
827:
781:
766:
726:
688:
635:
600:
426:
289:
251:
194:
1493:
1471:
1457:
1433:
1419:
1398:
1380:
1353:
1308:
1287:
1261:
1234:
1220:
1198:
1181:
1162:
1146:
1124:
1104:
1089:
1071:
1058:
1040:
1026:
1003:
940:
address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content
860:
848:
831:
813:
784:
770:
755:
730:
716:
692:
639:
624:
604:
582:
559:
534:
513:
493:
475:
451:
429:
415:
393:
356:
327:
292:
272:
254:
232:
213:
60:
964:. The fact that the ankheg is in a list of creatures with six legs does not give it notability.
1022:
882:
805:
471:
285:
179:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1349:
1257:
777:
1340:
1208:
856:. Well sourced, interesting article, that only lacks an image for perfection. -- cheers,
372:
316:
to have as many independent sources as those characters, but they ought to have at least
676:
630:
writing your rationale. You have plenty of time to amend it appropriately, that's all.
1321:
1204:
898:
876:
748:
709:
698:
617:
575:
51:
1481:
1449:
1411:
1366:
1317:
1279:
1273:
1216:
1187:
1177:
1142:
1134:
844:
823:
762:
722:
684:
631:
596:
546:
Agree with Warden and Big Mac. Note that there was only recently a similar Afd (over
403:
190:
145:
1018:
912:
680:
467:
422:
309:
112:
1345:
1325:
1253:
952:
380:
242:
They are in fact "self-published" in that the publishers of the books cited are
82:
1410:. Are those, then, impeached as independent sources on music? I thought not.
918:
1482:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
888:
The interview with Erol Otus contains no significant coverage of the Ankheg.
741:
702:
610:
592:
568:
281:
243:
367:- The Ankheg, like many other D&D monsters has been included into the
280:
I never said that it was "vanity or free promotional material" - that's a
1212:
1173:
1138:
840:
305:
402:
Could you comment on the suitability of Pathfinder Wiki in the light of
442:
as non-notable. The sources quoted are not independent of the topic.
376:
313:
74:
66:
1406:
has a direct commercial interest in promoting music. Hmm, so does
909:
1480:
Now let's consider this source in detail against the criterion of
1505:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
973:- ankhegs are just listed in a table along with other creatures.
320:
to justify including a separate Knowledge article about them. --
1153:
I don't see why. The discussion has been perfectly sensible.
1330:
Knowledge is not a complete exposition of all possible details
1328:. I also believe that this is not an appropiate topic since
1067:
Read my comment about all the so-called "reliable sources".
839:
particularly per the arguments of Jclemens and Sangrolu.
894:
is also not independent, because it is published by TSR.
1276:
737:
343:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
108:
104:
100:
164:
901:
is also not independent, because it is published by
1316:: No evidence that the fictional monster meets the
740:in about a week. It's a cheap trick. Knock it off.
1252:clearly notable. was nominated by a sockpuppet.--
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1515:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1443:publishers to ever be considered independent on
550:) that failed to produce a consensus to delete.
373:Ankheg page in the Pathfinder Reference Document
985:Pointing at hundreds of "possible sources" at
178:
8:
459:Note: This debate has been included in the
341:Note: This debate has been included in the
1438:Wait, so you're saying Bastion press has a
1272:has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of
461:list of Games-related deletion discussions
458:
340:
1322:plot-only description of a fictional work
200:Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see
780:, you find the sources on this topic. --
982:- the ankheg is not adressed in detail.
953:the definition of significant coverage
671:. Likewise, Google News Archive shows
7:
1332:and this is a minor monster in the
1320:. The majority of the article is a
905:which is not an independent source.
1172:was the last example I recalled).
423:our guidelines on reliable sources
24:
377:Ankheg article on Pathfinder Wiki
926:Moving on to Jclemen's sources:
191:the general notability guideline
892:Monstrous Compendium Volume Two
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
548:Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)
1:
189:This fictional monster fails
1326:reliable third-party sources
1318:general notability guideline
938:. Significant coverage must
908:A user edited wiki such as
523:Notability is not inherited
1532:
1170:User:Blest Withouten Match
994:So, I remain committed to
1494:09:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1472:17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1458:15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1434:09:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1420:07:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1399:06:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1381:04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
1354:00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
1309:16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1288:02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1262:18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1235:19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1221:18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1199:18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1182:17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1163:17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1147:17:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
1125:18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1105:17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1090:17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1072:16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1059:15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1041:11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1027:11:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1004:10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
861:07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
849:03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
832:00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
814:23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
785:07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
771:00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
756:23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
731:23:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
717:23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
693:23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
640:23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
625:23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
605:23:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
583:23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
560:22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
535:09:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
514:21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
494:21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
476:20:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
452:17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
430:19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
416:19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
394:19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
369:System Reference Document
357:16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
328:15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
293:09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
273:09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
255:08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
233:08:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
214:06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
197:07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
61:20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
1508:Please do not modify it.
1404:Rolling Stone (magazine)
302:Harry Potter (character)
32:Please do not modify it.
897:A later edition of the
1335:Dungeons & Dragons
669:Computer Gaming World
1408:Billboard (magazine)
980:significant coverage
971:significant coverage
962:significant coverage
949:significant coverage
936:significant coverage
903:Wizards of the coast
587:Can you explain how
248:Wizards of the Coast
591:hosted on Tor.com,
552:Polisher of Cobwebs
44:The result was
913:unreliable source
883:Dragon (magazine)
478:
464:
359:
346:
216:
202:WP:Banning policy
59:
1523:
1510:
858:Michael C. Price
746:
707:
615:
573:
465:
355:
353:
347:
199:
183:
182:
168:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1513:deletion review
1506:
752:
742:
713:
703:
621:
611:
579:
569:
381:Pathfinder Wiki
351:
349:
286:primary sources
206:Unscintillating
125:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1529:
1527:
1518:
1517:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1486:Sergeant Cribb
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1464:Sergeant Cribb
1426:Sergeant Cribb
1391:Sergeant Cribb
1384:
1383:
1356:
1311:
1290:
1264:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1227:Sergeant Cribb
1203:Have you read
1191:Sergeant Cribb
1155:Sergeant Cribb
1150:
1149:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1030:
1029:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
993:
989:
983:
974:
965:
956:
943:
924:
923:
922:
921:
916:
906:
899:Monster Manual
895:
889:
886:
880:
877:Monster Manual
870:
869:
863:
851:
834:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
750:
711:
681:Google Scholar
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
619:
589:this interview
577:
562:
540:
539:
538:
537:
527:Sergeant Cribb
517:
516:
497:
496:
480:
479:
455:
454:
444:Sergeant Cribb
436:
435:
434:
433:
418:
408:Sergeant Cribb
397:
396:
361:
360:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
322:Metropolitan90
298:
297:
296:
236:
235:
186:
185:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1528:
1516:
1514:
1509:
1503:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1270:Anthem of joy
1268:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:User:Claritas
1132:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1014:Keep or Merge
1012:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1002:
997:
990:
987:
984:
981:
977:
975:
972:
968:
966:
963:
959:
957:
954:
950:
946:
944:
941:
937:
933:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
919:
917:
914:
911:is a classic
910:
907:
904:
900:
896:
893:
890:
887:
884:
881:
878:
874:
873:
872:
871:
867:
864:
862:
859:
855:
852:
850:
846:
842:
838:
835:
833:
829:
825:
821:
820:Keep or Merge
818:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
803:
787:
786:
783:
779:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
759:
758:
757:
754:
753:
747:
745:
739:
734:
733:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
715:
714:
708:
706:
700:
696:
695:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
677:Baldur's Gate
674:
670:
667:, and one in
666:
663:
660:
657:
652:
649:
641:
637:
633:
628:
627:
626:
623:
622:
616:
614:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
586:
585:
584:
581:
580:
574:
572:
566:
563:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
541:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
511:
507:
506:98.110.177.20
502:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
486:98.110.177.20
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
462:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
441:
438:
437:
432:
431:
428:
424:
419:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
395:
391:
387:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
362:
358:
354:
344:
339:
329:
326:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
217:
215:
211:
207:
203:
198:
196:
192:
181:
177:
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
131:
128:
127:Find sources:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1507:
1504:
1444:
1439:
1373:
1358:
1333:
1313:
1296:
1292:
1266:
1249:
1130:
1117:107.3.67.184
1114:
1099:
1082:107.3.67.184
1079:
1066:
1051:107.3.67.184
1048:
1035:
1013:
995:
991:
979:
970:
961:
948:
939:
935:
925:
865:
853:
836:
819:
806:TallNapoleon
801:
800:
775:
749:
743:
710:
704:
675:in multiple
650:
618:
612:
576:
570:
564:
543:
500:
439:
420:
364:
317:
310:Mickey Mouse
279:
241:
220:
188:
187:
175:
169:
161:
154:
148:
142:
136:
126:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1341:Google hits
421:Please see
152:free images
54:Sandstein
1188:ignore it
778:WP:BURDEN
679:reviews.
593:Tor Books
484:material?
468:• Gene93k
282:straw man
244:TSR, Inc.
1450:Jclemens
1445:anything
1440:specific
1412:Jclemens
1377:contribs
1367:Casliber
1280:Tothwolf
1274:Claritas
1209:WP:BLOCK
996:deleting
824:Sangrolu
763:Jclemens
723:Jclemens
685:Jclemens
632:Jclemens
597:Jclemens
306:Superman
119:View log
1205:WP:SOCK
1019:zorblek
978:is not
969:is not
960:is not
947:is not
934:is not
866:Comment
738:do this
673:mention
386:Big Mac
314:ankhegs
158:WP refs
146:scholar
92:protect
87:history
1346:Jfgslo
1314:Delete
1293:Delete
1254:BabbaQ
1225:Yes.
1102:Anthem
1069:Anthem
1038:Anthem
1001:Anthem
802:Delete
782:Anthem
565:Delete
440:Delete
427:Anthem
404:WP:SPS
325:(talk)
308:, and
290:Anthem
265:Warden
252:Anthem
225:Warden
195:Anthem
130:Google
96:delete
75:Ankheg
67:Ankheg
1297:Merge
1131:Close
173:JSTOR
134:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1490:talk
1468:talk
1454:talk
1430:talk
1416:talk
1395:talk
1371:talk
1363:this
1359:Keep
1350:talk
1305:talk
1284:talk
1278:. --
1267:Note
1258:talk
1250:Keep
1231:talk
1217:talk
1207:and
1195:talk
1178:talk
1159:talk
1143:talk
1121:talk
1086:talk
1055:talk
1023:talk
875:The
854:Keep
845:talk
837:Keep
828:talk
810:talk
776:Per
767:talk
744:Reyk
727:talk
705:Reyk
699:dick
689:talk
651:Keep
636:talk
613:Reyk
601:talk
571:Reyk
556:talk
544:Keep
531:talk
510:talk
501:Keep
490:talk
472:talk
448:talk
412:talk
390:talk
365:Keep
352:Meph
288:. --
269:talk
229:talk
221:Keep
210:talk
166:FENS
140:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
46:keep
1301:JRT
1295:or
1213:BOZ
1174:BOZ
1139:BOZ
841:BOZ
751:YO!
712:YO!
620:YO!
578:YO!
406:?
318:one
246:or
204:.
180:TWL
117:– (
1492:)
1470:)
1456:)
1432:)
1418:)
1397:)
1379:)
1352:)
1307:)
1286:)
1260:)
1233:)
1219:)
1211:?
1197:)
1180:)
1161:)
1145:)
1137:.
1123:)
1088:)
1057:)
1025:)
847:)
830:)
812:)
769:)
729:)
701:.
691:)
638:)
603:)
558:)
533:)
512:)
492:)
474:)
466:—
463:.
450:)
414:)
392:)
379:.
348:—
345:.
304:,
271:)
231:)
212:)
160:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
1488:(
1466:(
1452:(
1428:(
1414:(
1393:(
1374:·
1369:(
1348:(
1303:(
1282:(
1256:(
1229:(
1215:(
1193:(
1176:(
1168:(
1157:(
1141:(
1119:(
1084:(
1053:(
1021:(
955:.
942:.
915:.
843:(
826:(
808:(
765:(
725:(
687:(
665:4
662:3
659:2
656:1
634:(
599:(
554:(
529:(
508:(
488:(
470:(
446:(
410:(
388:(
267:(
227:(
208:(
184:)
176:·
170:·
162:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
137:·
132:(
124:(
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.