Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Adherer

1342:

outlined in bringing an article to AfD. The issue is one of community. If you want to improve the Knowledge (XXG) as a whole then work with in the community guidelines and WITH the community. If the article can't be improved by this method then by al means move, merge or delete. By going directly to delete, the proper vetting process is lost, the community is disrupted and the nominator comes of looking like a vandal with an axe to grind. This is supported when there is no evidence of prior constructive edits. This is the very essence of bad faith, to go in and decide that you know more than the community working on all the articles and using bullying tactics to to get a point of view across. The article may have issues, if might be saved or not, but this is not the way to find out. This is trying to overwhelm editors who do the real work so at least something sticks.

2226:, but has no single merge target"). So your argument is currently contradictory and that makes it unacceptable, an article can't at the same time meet GNG and need an exception to GNG because it otherwise doesn't meet GNG. For the sake of coherence, can you strike one of your arguments ? As to your second argument (again assuming that's the one you want us to follow), why can't we just have each creature merged to appropriate article and have redirects for each, like Brownie (D&D), Brownie (D&D 3rd), Brownie (Pathfinder)... It is perfectly possible to still have WP:GNG implemented, why this bias towards a denial of WP:GNG instead of just regular editing wich would follow WP:GNG? An exception to a guideline should remain an exception, not an excuse not to follow it that has no grounds. 775:

entirely on the Tome of Horrors as a source, and some of the responses concluded that it alone was insufficient; however, additional sources for these three turned up late in the course of the AFD, and I do not believe they were fully considered by most of the participants in determining the result. During the previous AFD, the nominator withdrew these three articles in good faith because of the additional sourcing found, and so the AFD's closer noted that they "are considered to have their nomination withdrawn". Despite this withdrawal, this AFD's nominator and

2206:(per your comments on guidelines) be notable due to the individual members being notable. This is not similar to that situation, there are no smaller elements (such as a single instance of a creature in a single book) that give notability to the larger whole. If it were the case that the 3rd edition of the Brownie, for example, were completely notable, then that logic would have a great deal of merit, as it would be "a creature article which contains an independently notable version of the creature", but that's not the case in any of these articles. - 2129:, there is no merge target for the articles, each of which incorporate content from a half a dozen or so separate games. Note that I just wrote that essay earlier today and this is the first time I've cited it, as some of the recent thoughtful views different than mine prompted some detailed thinking on the matter, unlike much of the recent discussion on the topic which simply kept repeating contested assertions as if saying them again and again would make them more convincing. 1875:(though merge relevant info to the manual articles). While Pathfinder and other RPG systems may be independent, just because they include the same creature type (a bit of OR to assume its supposed to be the same) doesn't given any type of significant coverage required by the GNG. We are not here to list out every detail of a game system for readers; that's a job much better suited to a wiki. The notability needs to be an out-of-universe facets. -- 78: 1396:. I'm of course not surprised that D&D enthusiasts might prefer confidential discussions between themselves (that is, when they're actually willing to discuss) rather than more publicized AfD that might bring more uninvolved and objective users, but that's how it works. You talk about community, but your aim is nothing less than to substract these article from examination 1441:"Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources. Please provide an explanation as to how the articles would meet policy, rather that stating they do, your current comment is not strong enough to overcome the nomination rationale. All the articles are sourced to primary sources and as such don't meet the GNG. 2175:, just like it's possible to have the same content about a non-notable band member copied into the article of each notable band to which he or she ever belonged... but longstanding consensus is to not do that, and keep the information together in one place, even if it doesn't necessarily meet notability guidelines. Why do you think notability has remained perpetually a 52:. Rough balance of numbers, whether the sources are truly independent and reliable shows no consensus in the discussion, and to my eye is pretty marginal and could reasonably be interpreted either way - as the closing admin, I can`t discount one position or the other as being ungrounded in the facts of the case. (Mergers may be appriate with local consensus 2222:, as an exception to the notability guideline. If you feel the need to create an exception to WP:N, then it means you're de facto acknowledging the articles in themselves don't meet WP:GNG and need an exception to survive (this is clearly stated in the essay you wrote: "One well-established exception to the general notability guideline is the issue of when 2183:? Because there are exceptions that are logically necessary to make the encyclopedia cover some topics smoothly, and I believe this to be one of them. Oh, and as has been argued above, either Pathfinder is or is not D&D. If it's not D&D, then including Pathfinder monsters in a central list of D&D monsters would be inappropriate. 912:

articles would never survive an AfD per this consensus, and that a redirect was a logical and time-saving solution. I thus ask BOZ not to indulge in further misrepresentation of my actions and motivations, and to be careful to respect our tradition of discussion rather than inconsiderate actions if more bold redirects are implemented.

2056:

an official D&D magazine or extension, and not being another game that is just making primary use of a creature). We're only saying D&D creatures must have significant coverage from secondary independent sources, and D&D modules or other games that make primary use of the creature are neither secondary nor independent.

2098:

party or not is, they still fail to establish any sort of notability for these fictional elements. The information contained within the sources pretty much only contain in-universe information, and do nothing to establish any of the creatures having any sort of real world notability. I would not be opposed to a selective

780:

discussions on talk pages could proactively determine consensus for any and all similar type of articles and allow a user to redirect dozens of articles without engaging in further discussion. Even if that were true, this argument does not apply to every article that Folken de Fanel has redirected recently; for example,

1657:"Requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook® Third Edition, published by Wizards of the Coast" (p.1) and is thus a primary source not independent of D&D , and White Dwarf is already addressed in the nomination as non-significant content, as you don't adress the nomination and don't explain 801:

of the articles he has redirected is blatantly misleading. My concern is that if this AFD results in "redirect" or "delete", this will only result in more of the same behavior. Please consider the argument that independent publishers do add to the notability of published material from TSR/WotC. Thank you.

1782:

Have you actually read any of these sources? Do you know what they contain? If not then you are just guessing. I spend hours looking this stuff up, finding sources, unless you are willing to do some of the work as well then you are only making commentary from a point of view of no actual knowledge.

800:

have all been subsequently restored (each by a different user), and sources were added; in the case of the first two, independent sources already existed in the articles before they were redirected. Therefore, clearly, the argument that the results of the "Death watch beetle" should be applied to all

2197:

But it's not the same content. Each piece of the article has a place in a notable article, whereas these articles themselves are completely without notability. I don't think it's logical to say that that notability does not apply just because we cannot copy and paste the entirety of the article into

2040:

Question: if it wasn't discussing the Brownie of D&D then it wouldn't count as a source. If it does discuss it, it's not independent. Could you explain what kind of source you _would_ consider acceptable for this type of thing? And could you distinguish how, say, a baseball player need not be

1813:

The main argument in the AfD is about the nature (ie primary/secondary and affiliated/independent) of sources. Believe it or not, I really appreciate the good faith effort that was done in finding source, but my comment is not on your effort or you as a contributor. It is on the nature of the source

1341:

Given statements the nominator has made on Boz's page, this looks like a retribution AfD for not getting his way. Plus this nominator has a history of only tagging articles and not actually taking anytime to work to improve any of them. By my reading of policy he is skipping over many of the steps

2097:

specifically meant to be the exact same creatures, then they would not fall within the scope of the articles in question as they would not be the D&D specific versions of these creatures, thus the references to them would be invalid. Additionally, whatever the status of the sources being first

2055:

It seems you're confusing the area in which a topic might be notable with the actual elements that build this notability. D&D creatures don't have to exist outside D&D to be notable, but the sources used to establish notability sure have to be completely independent of D&D (ie not being

1696:

A strong argument satisfyingly addresses the nomination, yours don't. And your wrong, requiring the use of official books only means it's a primary affiliated source and doesn't meet GNG criteria for sources. The publisher is not independent since it is publishing a D&D product. Please cease to

1605:

Don't see any reason to do that, sources in Brownie don't adress the nomination and don't indicate any individual merit to the article. Brownie is not the only article sourced to primary sources, I don't see any difference with the others. Actually providing secondary independent sources would help

1535:

No norms of conducts were violated, at least not by us. And of course, valid argumentation based on actual policies/guidelines and supported by several AfD outcomes, suddenly becomes "wikilawyering". You're always quick to claim that we're "pursuing one particularly narrow interpretation", and that

1515:

Look, you and Folken have repeatedly violated Knowledge (XXG) conduct norms, in ways listed above and in others I've enumerated elsewhere, not the least of which has been trying to wikilawyer away good-faith efforts to answer your objections. It's not really anyone's fault but your own that people

911:

from BOZ and his companions on these 3 articles than from me, and my reasoning wasn't that "the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well", but that a consensus was reached in these AfD as to the qualification of the sources used, and that similarly sourced

431:

commercially published supplements/extensions to the D&D game, thus primary sources of original D&D material and fiction (and not of criticism/analysis as secondary sources are) and not "independent of the subject" (since they have licencing agreement from D&D copyright holders and they

1732:

your disagreeement. You're free to refuse, but it also means you have to accept your views are likely not to weigh much in the discussion. Your interpretation has been repeatedly rejected by previous consensus at AfD, calling it fringe is pure fact and it is relevant in a debate in which arguments

729:

1) This user has been intimately to the point of rabidly involved in the previous AfD and the post coital discussion about what to do with these crappy articles and has has all three of the articles on this users watch list, and so any intimation that this user would not have been involved in this

1503:

if the "keep" !votes were actually based on policies or didn't include claims of independence of sources that the !voters either don't know (or are ignoring) have been repeatedly refuted; then there would be no reason to address each one. However, since those issues keep appearing in every "keep"

1471:

Yes, you're right, "Per BOZ" killed my parents when I was a child so I swore to have my revenge on it one day... Now that we're done with such nonesense, can you drop ad-hominen attacks, and other assumptions of bad faith, or are you going to keep using them to hide your complete absence of valid

2003:

in the context of D&D monsters. Both publish modules for the D&D system, and in fact Pazio uses many of the monsters (barring those that are the direct property of the spooky wizards who live on the coast, like Beholders) in their own Pathfinder game. These are not secondary sources that

653:

the articles were withdrawn by the nominator from a previous mass AfD as a goodwill effort when blips of new content had been added during the AfD. However, the blips of new content are still insufficient to constitute any reading of "significant coverage by independent third party sources." per

774:

as an indictment to indicate that all fictional element articles related to D&D are non-notable and thus should be redirected or deleted, when in fact AFD discussions are not normative and all topics should be considered separately. Note that the majority of that previous discussion focused

1589:

the fact that the brownie article like all the other articles in this mass afd is still lacking in any third party sources means that it is still identically situated as all the other articles in this afd (and all the other articles in the previous AfD from which it was removed) in its blatant

1797:

If there were actually anything of substance within these sources, one would have to assume that someone who had spent hours and hours looking it up would have actually included the substantial information and commentary and analysis within the article to support their claims that substantial

779:

persisted in edit-warring to keep these three aticles as redirects, insisting that the AFD decision on the other articles applied to the three withdrawn articles as well. This faulty reasoning has led Folken de Fanel to redirect dozens of other articles on the basis that a few AFDs and a few

1072:

Per "Designers & Dragons: A History of the Roleplaying Game Industry" by Shannon Appelcline, Mongoose Publishing, 2011. White Dwarf / were the licensed publishers of D&D content in the UK up to mid 1980, hence their contribution of Adherer in 1978 is inherently NOT third party. --

1371:

is hardly surprising. This seems, unfortunately, to be another typical example of a user whose obvious personal passion for a topic made him lose sight of the encyclopedic aim of Knowledge (XXG), and this obstinate refusal to see this kind of article questionned could eventually be seen as

2119:

First, because I believe that the coverage is sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG, despite the large volumes of text from those who disagree. But most originally, and specifically speaking to Bushranger's and Rorschacma's merge and oppose, is because there is

2093:- If the creatures appearing in the other publications are meant to actually be the same creature, ie they were officially licensed or borrowed from TSR/Wizards, then the sources would not be independent. These would be first party sourcebooks on the creatures. If they are 1758:

also fails "primary" source designation. It is a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it being used solely to show that there was a piece of paper with the word "brownie" on it. And the White Dwarf is being treated in the same way. They provide no significant content

1679:

I'm well aware this isn't a "vote", and I provided a suitably strong argument. Requiring the use of official books merely confirms it is definitely coverage about that exact version of the creature, and it's different, independent publisher. Please cease your badgering.

474:

that is a short summary of the creature's in-game characteristics and of the ways to play it as written in Monster Manual, it is devoid of any criticism/analysis and would only allow to write "half a paragraph or a definition of the topic", thus it is not significant, per

858:

If by some convoluted interpretation, you continue to insist that Pathfinder and Necromancer are completely independent, then the critters in those game systems are NOT the D&D critters and so independent sourcing for the subjects of these articles still fails.--

1227:

Well, yes, I think that based on your nomination statement absolutely no one is confused that that's your belief about these articles. Why you felt the need to restate that in an ambiguous manner in the middle of a different conversation is a mystery to me, though.

821:

There has been some question as to the reasoning why I consider these sources independent, although I will admit that I am not as articulate as some other users when it comes to that sort of thing. I am basing my reasoning primarily on that which was proposed by

1486:

Excuse me, but badgering every single keep vote, calling others' positions "fringe interpretations", etc, is a a lot closer to ad hominem attacks and bad faith accusations than what Hobit said. In fact, your behavior here is becoming borderline disruptive.

1520:

pursuit of one particularly narrow interpretation of notability policy. Fact is, a lot of editors in good standing who contribute to many areas of the encyclopedia don't believe your arguments, see the sources as adequate, and see the articles as notable.

1400:. Editors are not "overwhelmed" in any way, D&D enthusiasts have seen from previous AfDs and discussions at the D&D Wikiproject over a month ago that this would be coming, and if they see it as overwhelming, then maybe they should have considered 893:) already identified the "Tome of Horrors" and "Pathfinder Bestiary" as primary sources and thus ruled them out as elements establishing notability. I have already explained that in my nomination. BOZ's insistance in advancing a fringe interpretation of 871: 1150:

That's an interesting proposition, Cas, and one which I disagree with. When we're dealing with both serious and fictional topics, merging them together seems to irritate the serious folks, who resist fictional additions to the "real" topic.

539:

Each of these three different creatures has differing sources, as has been shown by the various sourcing efforts on similar creatures that have happened over the past few days. As such, lumping dissimilar creatures together is unreasonable.

2041:

notable outside of baseball but this does? I can sort of see the point, but it does feel a lot like "because I said feel that way" and the same argument could be applied to a ton of things that we accept as notable (actors, authors, etc.)

1590:

failure to meet the basic GNG. The only difference is that there is while the other article topics are not even notable within the fictional gaming universe, now perhaps there is a tangential claim that the brownie is perhaps notable

995: 886: 835: 771: 572: 461: 445:

official books from other role-playing games not related to D&D, that happen to publish their own, different fiction on creatures that happen to have the same name, thus primary sources not dealing with the topic (the creatures

1727:

You're of course entitled to disagree, but considering this is a discussion that will be evaluated through strength of arguments, I'm merely giving you opportunities to actually demonstrate the validity of your claims, rather than

1814:

presented, that doesn't adress the reason I opened this AfD, and what makes me say that is written in p.1 of the source. On a side note, "Mine is bigger than yours" comment don't belong in AfD (nor anywhere else on WP, I guess).

1021:

Adherer and Caryatid Column - it is an interesting one as they were submissions to White Dwarf that was then adopted by TSR (itself a secondary source at the time) as was almost everything else that ended up in the Fiend Folio.

1286:

or analysis showing how the brownie (folklore)'s appearanc in RPG games such as D&D is notable or encyclopedic. Just the primary sources that have the in game stats. If there were any significant third party commentary

897:

that has been expressedly rejected by the community has me concerned that his behavior -if pursued- might eventually not be seen as constructive if no effort is made on BOZ's part to consider community consensus. And the

614:, where all the TSR/WotC sources would become non-primary and could be used as examples of modern adaptations of the concept. You should take a broader view of the situation instead of focusing on removing content. — 906:

requires "multiple source", and "significant content allowing to write more than a definition of a topic", which the specific WD coverage is not. On a side note, there was more examples of edit warring and actual

554:

Agree with Jclemens, but I wasn't sure how to describe the position that these should be three separate nominations, as even a similar basic result (e.g. redirect) would have potentially different targets.

281: 998:. Ask the closing admin if you doubt it. Several articles were sourced to multiple D&D sourcebooks and have been redirected per the admin, which couldn't have happened if they weren't primary sources. 2124:

for these creatures. "Dungeons & Dragons" is at least five separate product lines, and Pathfinder and other D&D-alike games are separate entities entirely. So, since there's no such thing as a

838:, voices of reason which may have been drowned out by other users trying to shout their opinions above all others over and over so that only theirs could be heard. If that discussion was tl;dr, and you 2143:

I don't think that the ability to split content across multiple appropriate pages somehow means an article cannot be merged. The articles are already split into edition, and fortunately each edition

2198:

another article. The band consensus you refer to is the opposite of this situation, that if two or more people are notable outside of a band, that the band is also notable (also sometimes known as a

1050:

the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy". TSR is obviously not a secondary nor independent source on D&D, has never been and never will be.

1404:

letting all these articles proliferate in the first place. I see no reasons for D&D articles to be treated any differently than any other type of article which notability is questionned at AfD.

1268:

Yes. Like Centaurs, Dragons, Minotaurs, and the rest, many of the 1st Ed. Monster Manual creatures were based on previous folklore. How they've been handled in Knowledge (XXG) has varied widely.

2218:

Jclemens, there's a huge flaw in your argument. First you claim in your recommandation that the content is "sufficiently reliable and independent to meet the GNG", then you claim it's a case of

496: 2152: 380: 375: 384: 417:

in that they have no "significant coverage from several secondary independent reliable sources". These are all creatures from Dungeons & Dragons, and all the sources in the article are

1536:"a lot of editors dont believe our arguments", how come then that your views were systematically shot down at AfD (remember Death watch bettle) and RS/N ? Aren't you indulging in a fit of 980:

No, it hasn't. You keep stating that is has, but then you can't point to a single discussion, closed by an uninvolved administrator, that adjudicated things in such a manner, can you?

367: 1472:

argumentation to oppose my nomination ? We've already had an AfD on this topic and the fact is that consensus rejected this interpretation. Turning a blind eye to it won't change that.

1380:, "redirecting to an existing article" has already been attempted, some have reverted the redirects and when I opened a thread to discuss the lack of notability of these articles at 85: 870:

For those not familiar with the complex publishing and licensing relationships of the Dungeons and Dragons franchise and related gaming source material, you may find a primer here

762:

despite the strident and repeated objections of the nominator. Additionally, White Dwarf is an independent publisher granting additional notability to the Brownie. Failing that, a

236: 1163:

articles to cover fictional and other popular culture adaptations of notable encyclopedic topics, and that's essentially what I see these and other similar articles as being.

334: 329: 338: 1388:

is the right venue for that and no one is forbidden to recommand a merge/redirect instead of a deletion, whenever someone try to redirect a D&D article we're told to

575:

where a grouped AfD on similar creatures from the same D&D franchise was accepted by an uninvolved admin. The three articles have the same potential redirect target (

321: 1540:? Jclemens, what you're doing is the very definition of "ad hominem", intentionally portraying us in a bad light, so that you can avoid actually answering arguments. 1914:- Per the post-1980 White Dwarf source, if another non-sourcebook, independent source could be found for that article, I'd have no issue changing that to a keep. - 516: 1282:

But even in the Brownie (folklore) "In popular culture" section, you would be in trouble because there is only the primary sources of the D&D sourcebooks and

275: 1252:

really a "serious" topic? It's an imaginary creature either way. I could see the D&D information being laid out as type of modern participatory folklore. —

1711:

I disagree with your interpretation, and I take exception to your continued description of my position as "fringe". It's frankly insulting and inappropriate. —

1906:. These articles have zero third-party independent sources, the sourcebooks are all rule books designed for the games themselves; that's not independence. 371: 699:

1) this is a false allegations of canvassing, notifications were neutrally distributed between opposers and supporters, user BOZ has also been notified 2)

2147:

for the redirect target. It is already conveniently centralized and divided by edition, so that the merge can put the first edition of a creature into

685:

since all three articles are sourced and have multiple possible merge targets, and should be accorded no weight as it is not a policy-based argument.

1999:. Boz's argument falls flat on its face in that Necromancer Games and Pazio Publishing - or White Dwarf, or Avalanche Press in the case cited here - 479:. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar for each of the 3 articles gave no results. Not notable subjects, unsuitable for stand-alone articles. 468:, which led to all articles nominated being redirected. The only non-primary source, which happens to be in the Brownie article, is an article from 1570:

has now been edited and more refs added. Including refs that detail playing this creature as a character, which makes it unique in this mass-AfD.

2148: 1574:

The issues are different and to pass a verdict on three without looking at the individual merits of each article is a serious breech of protocol.

767: 576: 2016:

any secondary sources, as these creatures are wholly unnotable outside of D&D and D&D-based games. That said, mentioning of the monsters

1899: 363: 2159:, if that alternative is not possible, then the article would then be deleted. A deletion without an alternative is a deletion, not a keep. - 241: 2070:

Hi Folken, I realize that it can be unclear, but that question wasn't addressed to you. I was hoping to hear what The Bushranger had to say.

1594:

the ficitonal game as having been assigned player character stats, but there is no serious claim that there is any real world notability.--

707:, it only proposes alternatives ("could be merged" and not "should be merged"). All three articles are not proprerly sourced according to 325: 94: 1159:

are one example that comes to mind. The issue with literature/folklore vs. physics may be less extreme, but there's large precedent for

1697:

expect you can advance fringe interpretations that have already been shot down by consensus at previous AfD without being contradicted.

678: 124: 17: 2126: 681:, and as such his opinion should be stricken as the result of partisan recruitment. 2) The "delete" outcome is incompatible with 789: 1911: 1718: 1687: 1644: 1494: 1259: 621: 607: 562: 317: 2144: 1996: 1141: 1033: 730:

discussion and taken this position is ABSURD. 2)this user questions "Merge" as an option. WTF content is there TO MERGE? --

110: 1432: 793: 781: 440:, which "...requires the use of the Dungeons and Dragons® Player’s Handbook Revised, published by Wizards of the Coast®" 2283: 1327:

Can you be a bit more verbose? I really don't know that your statement is enough for the closing admin to understand.

40: 451: 296: 209: 204: 263: 213: 966:"Per BOZ" has been identified as a fringe interpretation going against established community consensus on sources. 872:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Death_watch_beetle_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Publication_and_licencing_history

83:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

2245: 2231: 2061: 1955: 1819: 1803: 1764: 1738: 1702: 1670: 1611: 1595: 1545: 1505: 1477: 1446: 1409: 1292: 1218: 1182: 1105: 1074: 1055: 1003: 971: 931: 917: 875: 860: 731: 720: 663: 635: 593: 524: 504: 484: 1368: 156: 2029: 1428: 758:

are indeed independent sources, and thus I believe they constitute sufficient independent coverage to meet the

196: 1846: 1798:

coverage existed. Because the only other option would be to assume that the researcher was incompetent, and

140: 114: 2244:

exactly what type of content from these articles is "mergeable" anyway? i am just seeing trivial crap. --

1156: 776: 470: 1213:

articles aren't exempted from being notable themselves, if that's how you want to protray these articles.

1043: 257: 99: 2279: 1977: 1938: 36: 2024:

they may very well scrape by on notability, and so merging them to the lists is what should be done. -

831: 2227: 2057: 1951: 1815: 1788: 1734: 1698: 1666: 1607: 1579: 1541: 1473: 1442: 1405: 1347: 1318: 1214: 1178: 1101: 1051: 999: 967: 913: 785: 716: 631: 589: 520: 500: 480: 1930: 1662: 674: 655: 414: 253: 2210: 2163: 2107: 2025: 1918: 289: 2250: 2235: 2213: 2192: 2166: 2138: 2111: 2079: 2065: 2050: 2035: 1981: 1959: 1942: 1921: 1887: 1867: 1850: 1823: 1808: 1792: 1769: 1742: 1722: 1706: 1691: 1674: 1648: 1615: 1600: 1583: 1549: 1530: 1510: 1498: 1481: 1466: 1450: 1436: 1413: 1377: 1351: 1336: 1322: 1297: 1277: 1263: 1237: 1222: 1204: 1186: 1172: 1145: 1109: 1079: 1059: 1037: 1007: 989: 975: 961: 936: 921: 880: 865: 851: 810: 736: 724: 694: 668: 639: 625: 597: 566: 549: 528: 508: 488: 61: 2199: 2188: 2134: 1842: 1526: 1332: 1273: 1249: 1233: 1200: 1192: 1168: 1135: 1127: 1027: 985: 690: 611: 545: 146: 77: 1364: 926:

You can apparently even count Jclemens amongst the users who agree Pathfinder/Necromancer et al

460:

For complementary information, these three kinds of primary sources have all been analysed in a

630:

Unconclusive, some articles from the previous AfD didn't have the same redirect target either.

303: 1863: 751: 437: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2278:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2219: 2121: 1537: 894: 890: 476: 418: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1973: 1934: 755: 455: 2156: 1903: 1799: 1626: 1385: 1373: 1360:, and seems to get openly hostile with those pointing out to problems in articles he likes 1210: 1160: 903: 759: 708: 700: 682: 465: 410: 2075: 2046: 1883: 1784: 1763:

the subject of the article- they are merely being used as proof of their own existance.--

1575: 1572:

I request that either the AfD for this article be removed or seperated from the other two.

1462: 1343: 1314: 957: 952:

per BOZ. And yes, I realize there is a long discussion above, and yes I agree with BOZ.

56: 842:

require me to spell it out further, I can try to take my time to articulate my feelings.

2207: 2160: 2103: 1915: 1713: 1682: 1639: 1489: 1254: 616: 557: 2180: 1313:

I am calling this a bad-faith nomination. This and the other AfDs should be ignored.

1042:

You are not giving arguments that would substanciate your recommandation to keep. Per

712: 704: 659: 2184: 2130: 1522: 1328: 1269: 1229: 1196: 1164: 1131: 1023: 981: 902:

source in itself, contrary to BOZ's claim, is not enough to "grant notability" since

847: 827: 823: 806: 686: 541: 269: 2012:

secondary sources, only primary ones; and it is very, very unlikely that there will

426:

the D&D official books themselves (everything from TSR/ Wizards of the Coast),

1972:

Apparently you have problems reading and like hearing the sound of your own voice.

1859: 1629:

with multiple mentions in reliable independent secondary sources, specifically the

1381: 1097: 908: 432:

are only inteded to be used as part of the D&D franchise). That is the case of

200: 174: 162: 130: 1384:

a month ago and no one replied. When there is disagreement on article notability,

401: 355: 230: 772:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons)

109:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

1902:- Sourcebooks are not independent sources for the game they are written for per 1152: 1085: 464:

on similar D&D creatures and were found as not matching the criteria set in

1950:

doesn't explain why the sources would be secondary, independent or significant.

2071: 2042: 1876: 1458: 953: 53: 1661:

WD would be significant instead of merely saying it is. Please don't forget

1504:!vote, then apparently the clarifications DO need to keep being repeated.-- 885:

As for BOZ's initial "keep" arguments, the consensus at the 21-participants

1665:, you should provide strong arguments if you want your opinion to prevail. 715:, last time I checked it's a guideline, so perfectly valid as an argument. 843: 802: 797: 1895: 579:), the notability of each of these article was challenged a month ago, 192: 67: 1655:

Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts

1631:

Celtic Age: Role-Playing the Myths, Heroes & Monsters of the Celts

2202:). The consensus you refer to is that an otherwise non-notable group 1517: 450:) and that don't provide criticism/analysis. That is the case of the 1457:

No, it's been identified that you don't like it. That's about it.

770:

is a reasonable alternative. The nominator has used the results of

1356:

Coming from someone who calls those who dare to disagree with him

2272:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1376:. I will just say that I have respected each and every step of 1096:

as published by TSR, have both been edited by the same person,

1841:- due to lack of significant coverage in independant sources. 72: 2153:

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters

2149:

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

1092:

sections in which the creature originally appeared, and the

768:

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

577:

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters

103:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1783:

Your ignorance is not as good as my knowledge as they say.

2020:

of D&D monsters is both approprate and reasonable, as

602:

No, they do not have the same potential redirect target.

1858:

The articles don't explain why the topics are notable. --

93:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

1393: 1389: 1361: 1357: 927: 586: 583: 580: 497:

list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions

397: 393: 389: 351: 347: 343: 226: 222: 218: 288: 1392:

so that's what we do, and that's the actual practice

2102:if others felt that would be appropriate, however. 302: 312:I am also nominating the following related pages: 928:" just because they're not D&D creatures ..." 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2286:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2008:. Between all three of these articles, there is 2006:primary sources that simply use the same monster 1291:the RPG brownie, we wouldn't be at this AfD.-- 2127:list of monsters in fantasy role playing games 1516:don't seem to want to be associated with that 123:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 515:Note: This debate has been included in the 495:Note: This debate has been included in the 754:and the Pathfinder "Bestiary" series from 517:list of Games-related deletion discussions 514: 494: 97:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 1800:I wouldn't want to do that without proof. 1997:Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters 1900:Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) 1195:is not a notable topic? Please clarify. 364:Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) 117:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 703:doesn't prevent deletion for a lack of 588:, so you had time to look for sources. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 1130:as they are about the same critter. 750:all, as the "Tome of Horrors" from 24: 2224:content is not separately notable 2004:discuss the monsters - these are 790:Basilisk (Dungeons & Dragons) 1929:per BOZ. Don't bother with your 1912:Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) 1177:But they are not notable topics. 608:Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) 318:Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons) 76: 2155:, and so on. As merging is an 794:Nymph (Dungeons & Dragons) 782:Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons) 1: 113:on the part of others and to 62:08:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC) 421:, that is, they are either : 2251:10:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 2236:09:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 2214:08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 2193:08:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 2167:07:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 2139:07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 2112:17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 2080:21:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 2066:11:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 2051:03:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 2036:23:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 2001:are not independent sources 1982:19:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC) 1960:18:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1943:18:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1922:22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1888:22:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1868:21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1851:20:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1824:22:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1809:21:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1793:21:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1770:19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1743:15:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 1723:14:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 1707:18:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1692:18:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) 1675:19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1649:18:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1616:19:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1601:18:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1584:18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1550:17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1531:16:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1511:15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1499:14:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1482:13:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1467:13:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1451:09:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1437:06:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC) 1414:16:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1352:04:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1337:04:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1323:04:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1298:20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1278:01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1264:00:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 1248:Well hold on a second. Is 1238:23:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1223:23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1205:22:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1187:22:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1173:22:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1146:20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1110:22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1100:. No independence possible. 1080:21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1060:21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1038:20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 1008:22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 990:22:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 976:21:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 962:20:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 937:20:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC) 922:19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 881:18:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 866:18:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 852:13:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC) 811:17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 737:23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 725:22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 695:22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 669:17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 640:00:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC) 626:23:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 598:22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 567:17:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 550:17:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 529:11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 509:11:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 489:10:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC) 452:Pathfinder Roleplaying Game 2303: 2179:rather than a policy like 2151:, the second edition into 1394:when redirects don't stick 1363:, such obvious display of 1398:by the community at large 1284:no third party commentary 889:(and several inputs from 2275:Please do not modify it. 1606:validating your opinion. 32:Please do not modify it. 2157:alternative to deletion 1191:You are asserting that 155:; accounts blocked for 125:single-purpose accounts 95:policies and guidelines 2122:no single merge target 1625:Brownie, as it passes 1369:battleground mentality 1157:Dark matter in fiction 996:Death watch beetle AfD 887:Death watch beetle AfD 909:refusal of discussion 610:could be merged with 571:Disagree. We have a 786:Bruenor Battlehammer 777:User:TheRedPenOfDoom 409:These articles fail 2247:The Red Pen of Doom 1995:to the appropriate 1805:The Red Pen of Doom 1766:The Red Pen of Doom 1597:The Red Pen of Doom 1507:The Red Pen of Doom 1429:Polisher of Cobwebs 1294:The Red Pen of Doom 1076:The Red Pen of Doom 933:The Red Pen of Doom 877:The Red Pen of Doom 862:The Red Pen of Doom 733:The Red Pen of Doom 665:The Red Pen of Doom 107:by counting votes. 86:not a majority vote 2145:has a main article 1733:are to be weighed. 1663:AfDs are not votes 1250:Brownie (folklore) 1193:Brownie (folklore) 1128:Brownie (folklore) 612:Brownie (folklore) 48:The result was 2018:as part of a list 752:Necromancer Games 711:. TRPOD mentions 673:1) This user was 531: 511: 438:Necromancer Games 188: 187: 184: 111:assume good faith 2294: 2277: 2248: 2032: 1880: 1806: 1767: 1598: 1508: 1295: 1077: 994:Yes it has, see 934: 878: 863: 756:Paizo Publishing 734: 666: 456:Paizo Publishing 405: 387: 359: 341: 307: 306: 292: 244: 234: 216: 182: 170: 154: 138: 119: 89:, but instead a 80: 73: 59: 34: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2284:deletion review 2273: 2246: 2228:Folken de Fanel 2058:Folken de Fanel 2034: 2030: 1952:Folken de Fanel 1878: 1816:Folken de Fanel 1804: 1765: 1735:Folken de Fanel 1721: 1699:Folken de Fanel 1690: 1667:Folken de Fanel 1647: 1608:Folken de Fanel 1596: 1542:Folken de Fanel 1506: 1497: 1474:Folken de Fanel 1443:Folken de Fanel 1406:Folken de Fanel 1293: 1262: 1215:Folken de Fanel 1179:Folken de Fanel 1102:Folken de Fanel 1075: 1052:Folken de Fanel 1000:Folken de Fanel 968:Folken de Fanel 932: 914:Folken de Fanel 876: 861: 732: 717:Folken de Fanel 677:to participate 664: 632:Folken de Fanel 624: 590:Folken de Fanel 565: 521:Folken de Fanel 501:Folken de Fanel 481:Folken de Fanel 434:Tome of Horrors 378: 362: 332: 316: 249: 240: 207: 191: 172: 160: 144: 128: 115:sign your posts 71: 57: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2300: 2298: 2289: 2288: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2114: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2028: 2026:The Bushranger 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1924: 1890: 1870: 1853: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1717: 1686: 1643: 1619: 1618: 1603: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1493: 1454: 1453: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1390:"start an AfD" 1358:"dick editors" 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1258: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 868: 856: 855: 854: 840:really, really 814: 813: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 620: 561: 552: 533: 532: 512: 459: 441: 427: 422: 407: 406: 360: 310: 309: 246: 186: 185: 81: 70: 65: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2299: 2287: 2285: 2281: 2276: 2270: 2269: 2252: 2249: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2123: 2118: 2115: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2031:One ping only 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1920: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1874: 1871: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1854: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1843:GraemeLeggett 1840: 1837: 1836: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1807: 1801: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1771: 1768: 1762: 1757: 1754: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1620: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1604: 1602: 1599: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1519: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1491: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1309: 1299: 1296: 1290: 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1256: 1251: 1247: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1120: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1084:Exactly, per 1083: 1082: 1081: 1078: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1020: 1017: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 979: 978: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 951: 948: 947: 938: 935: 929: 925: 924: 923: 919: 915: 910: 905: 901: 896: 892: 888: 884: 883: 882: 879: 873: 869: 867: 864: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 812: 808: 804: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 778: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 746: 738: 735: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 697: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 671: 670: 667: 661: 657: 652: 649: 641: 637: 633: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 618: 613: 609: 605: 601: 600: 599: 595: 591: 587: 584: 581: 578: 574: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 559: 553: 551: 547: 543: 538: 535: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 513: 510: 506: 502: 498: 493: 492: 491: 490: 486: 482: 478: 473: 472: 467: 463: 457: 453: 449: 444: 439: 435: 430: 425: 420: 416: 412: 403: 399: 395: 391: 386: 382: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 340: 336: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 314: 313: 305: 301: 298: 295: 291: 287: 283: 280: 277: 274: 271: 268: 265: 262: 259: 255: 252: 251:Find sources: 247: 243: 238: 232: 228: 224: 220: 215: 211: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 189: 180: 176: 168: 164: 158: 152: 148: 142: 136: 132: 126: 122: 118: 116: 112: 106: 102: 101: 96: 92: 88: 87: 82: 79: 75: 74: 69: 66: 64: 63: 60: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2274: 2271: 2223: 2203: 2176: 2172: 2116: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2000: 1992: 1947: 1926: 1907: 1892: 1872: 1855: 1838: 1760: 1755: 1729: 1712: 1681: 1658: 1654: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1622: 1591: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1488: 1424: 1401: 1397: 1382:Talk:Adherer 1310: 1288: 1283: 1253: 1138: 1123: 1098:Don Turnbull 1093: 1089: 1047: 1044:WP:AFDFORMAT 1030: 1018: 949: 899: 839: 836:previous AFD 763: 747: 675:WP:CANVASSed 650: 615: 603: 556: 536: 469: 462:previous AfD 447: 442: 433: 428: 423: 408: 311: 299: 293: 285: 278: 272: 266: 260: 250: 178: 166: 157:sockpuppetry 150: 139:; suspected 134: 120: 108: 104: 98: 90: 84: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 1974:CallawayRox 1935:CallawayRox 1933:badgering. 1908:Weak delete 1785:Web Warlock 1637:magazine. — 1635:White Dwarf 1576:Web Warlock 1518:Javertesque 1344:Web Warlock 1315:Web Warlock 1209:I'm saying 1153:Dark matter 1126:Brownie to 1094:Fiend Folio 1090:White Dwarf 1086:Fiend Folio 1046:, "explain 900:White Dwarf 832:Web Warlock 662:delete. -- 604:For example 471:White Dwarf 276:free images 2200:supergroup 2171:Sure it's 2091:Delete All 2022:as a group 1931:WP:UNCIVIL 1856:Delete all 1756:Celtic Age 1365:uncivility 705:notability 656:WP:POKEMON 448:in D&D 415:WP:SOURCES 91:discussion 2280:talk page 2177:guideline 2104:Rorshacma 1993:Merge all 1714:Torchiest 1683:Torchiest 1640:Torchiest 1633:book and 1490:Torchiest 1427:per BOZ. 1378:WP:BEFORE 1374:ownership 1255:Torchiest 617:Torchiest 573:precedent 558:Torchiest 147:canvassed 141:canvassed 100:consensus 37:talk page 2282:or in a 2185:Jclemens 2173:possible 2131:Jclemens 2117:Keep all 1523:Jclemens 1329:Jclemens 1270:Jclemens 1230:Jclemens 1197:Jclemens 1165:Jclemens 1142:contribs 1132:Casliber 1034:contribs 1024:Casliber 982:Jclemens 828:Jclemens 824:Sangrolu 798:Marilith 687:Jclemens 542:Jclemens 237:View log 179:username 173:{{subst: 167:username 161:{{subst: 151:username 145:{{subst: 135:username 129:{{subst: 39:or in a 2220:WP:NSMT 1948:per BOZ 1896:Adherer 1860:Stefan2 1730:stating 1653:Rebut, 1568:Brownie 1538:WP:IDHT 895:WP:PSTS 891:WP:RS/N 834:in the 477:WP:WHYN 419:primary 381:protect 376:history 335:protect 330:history 282:WP refs 270:scholar 210:protect 205:history 193:Adherer 143:users: 68:Adherer 1904:WP:RSN 1893:Delete 1873:Delete 1839:Delete 1627:WP:GNG 1592:within 1386:WP:AfD 1211:WP:IPC 1161:WP:IPC 1088:, the 904:WP:GNG 830:, and 796:, and 760:WP:GNG 709:WP:GNG 701:WP:ATD 683:WP:ATD 651:delete 466:WP:GNG 411:WP:GNG 385:delete 339:delete 254:Google 214:delete 2211:Ghost 2204:might 2164:Ghost 2100:merge 2072:Hobit 2043:Hobit 1919:Ghost 1761:about 1719:edits 1688:edits 1645:edits 1495:edits 1459:Hobit 1289:about 1260:edits 1124:merge 954:Hobit 764:merge 622:edits 563:edits 537:Sever 454:from 436:from 402:views 394:watch 390:links 356:views 348:watch 344:links 297:JSTOR 258:books 242:Stats 231:views 223:watch 219:links 121:Note: 16:< 2232:talk 2208:Sudo 2189:talk 2181:WP:V 2161:Sudo 2135:talk 2108:talk 2076:talk 2062:talk 2047:talk 1978:talk 1956:talk 1939:talk 1927:Keep 1916:Sudo 1910:for 1898:and 1879:ASEM 1864:talk 1847:talk 1820:talk 1789:talk 1739:talk 1703:talk 1671:talk 1623:Keep 1612:talk 1580:talk 1546:talk 1527:talk 1478:talk 1463:talk 1447:talk 1433:talk 1425:Keep 1410:talk 1367:and 1348:talk 1333:talk 1319:talk 1311:Keep 1274:talk 1234:talk 1219:talk 1201:talk 1183:talk 1169:talk 1155:and 1136:talk 1122:I'd 1106:talk 1056:talk 1028:talk 1019:keep 1004:talk 986:talk 972:talk 958:talk 950:keep 918:talk 848:talk 807:talk 748:Keep 721:talk 713:WP:N 691:talk 679:here 660:WP:N 658:and 636:talk 594:talk 546:talk 525:talk 505:talk 485:talk 413:and 398:logs 372:talk 368:edit 352:logs 326:talk 322:edit 290:FENS 264:news 227:logs 201:talk 197:edit 54:Wily 2095:not 1802:-- 1659:how 1402:not 1048:how 930:-- 874:-- 844:BOZ 803:BOZ 766:to 304:TWL 239:• 235:– ( 175:csp 171:or 163:csm 131:spa 105:not 2234:) 2191:) 2137:) 2110:) 2078:) 2064:) 2049:) 2014:be 2010:no 1980:) 1958:) 1941:) 1886:) 1866:) 1849:) 1822:) 1791:) 1741:) 1705:) 1673:) 1614:) 1582:) 1548:) 1529:) 1480:) 1465:) 1449:) 1435:) 1412:) 1350:) 1335:) 1321:) 1276:) 1236:) 1221:) 1203:) 1185:) 1171:) 1144:) 1108:) 1058:) 1036:) 1006:) 988:) 974:) 960:) 920:) 850:) 826:, 809:) 792:, 788:, 784:, 723:) 693:) 638:) 606:, 596:) 585:, 582:, 548:) 527:) 519:. 507:) 499:. 487:) 443:c) 429:b) 424:a) 400:| 396:| 392:| 388:| 383:| 379:| 374:| 370:| 354:| 350:| 346:| 342:| 337:| 333:| 328:| 324:| 284:) 229:| 225:| 221:| 217:| 212:| 208:| 203:| 199:| 181:}} 169:}} 159:: 153:}} 137:}} 127:: 2230:( 2187:( 2133:( 2106:( 2074:( 2060:( 2045:( 1976:( 1954:( 1937:( 1884:t 1882:( 1877:M 1862:( 1845:( 1818:( 1787:( 1737:( 1701:( 1680:— 1669:( 1610:( 1578:( 1544:( 1525:( 1487:— 1476:( 1461:( 1445:( 1431:( 1408:( 1346:( 1331:( 1317:( 1272:( 1232:( 1217:( 1199:( 1181:( 1167:( 1139:· 1134:( 1104:( 1054:( 1031:· 1026:( 1002:( 984:( 970:( 956:( 916:( 846:( 805:( 719:( 689:( 634:( 592:( 555:— 544:( 523:( 503:( 483:( 458:. 404:) 366:( 358:) 320:( 308:) 300:· 294:· 286:· 279:· 273:· 267:· 261:· 256:( 248:( 245:) 233:) 195:( 183:. 177:| 165:| 149:| 133:| 58:D

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Adherer - Knowledge (XXG)

Index