540:
trade with the rest of the unconquered world,during a cold war of some duration, while exploiting the colonies of the conquered
European powers in Africa, Central America and the Carribbean towards eventual preparation of bases in the Americas for attacking or dominating the U.S. Perhaps the Reich had a file drawer full of plans for which railroad bridges the German paratroopers would seize to allow troops to cross the Mississippi from Mexican bases, or where the amphibious landings would be from their eventual bases in the British Carribean possessions. The U.S certainly had 20th century plans for attacking Mexico and Canada, and for defending against combinations of Mexican-Canadian-Japanese-German-British forces. The one book and the History Channel seem to appeal to the popular imagination with improbable long-range high-tech direct assault from Europe, rather than a cross-Atlantic convoy like the one which went East from the U.S to invade North Africa in 1942. In other words, Axis invasion prospects for invading the Americas and ultimately the U.S. were a concern of WW2 U.S. leaders. General
902:, per Piotrus above. It is not unlikely that there were plans -- & to say otherwise would fall into the logical trap of attempting to prove a negative. However, there has been lots of speculation over exactly what these plans were, far more than whatever evidence of them exists; this is a subject that has fascinated Americans since the 1940s. Deletion would seem, in effect, to send the message that this topic is not notable; perhaps stubbifying the article -- or reducing it to a paragraph (I could furnish a couple examples of "Axis plans for the invasion ofthe US in Popular Culture") -- would be a better choice. --
183:
in a desk drawer, and of course there were dozens of plans for invading Iraq over the years using different means. Germany's military certainly had "plans" for attacking and/or invading the US and there were "plans" for creating Roman-style colonies across
Eastern Europe (the areas needing "Germanization") and there were "plans" for divvying up South America into occupation zones (Ian Fleming, I think, obtained a map). But intent was never quite there and capability in logistical terms not even close. On the other hand some of Germany's technology, such as the V-2, obviously had eventual uses in mind, and there was the
965:" what you are suggesting is against Knowledge (XXG) policy. In the 7 days that this AfD, has been open -- and as you can see above it has been very widely advertised -- not one reliable source that could be used to write a summary introduction for an article stub has been presented. Knowledge (XXG) policies are quite clear that if no sources can be found there should not be a Knowledge (XXG) article about it. Of course if someone comes up with
247:, first there are no sources for the facts "Operation Ikarus" and the assertion that they would have been bases for an invasion of the USA. As I said above if it is deleted and someone comes along with new references that can be used for an article with citations then it can be recreated. But as it stands at the moment if the uncited material was deleted it would be a blank article. --
406:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
818:. If this is a notable subject there should be several books and scholarly articles (reliable sources) and Knowledge (XXG) editor who know enough about the subject to put in some more reliable sources. At the moment if all of the unsourced material is removed there is not enough left for this to be even a stub of an article: see
1061:. The topic is, without question, notable. Undoubtedly, there are sources which could document plans for the invasion of the continental United States (and Canada?) during WWII. However, the existing article consists of the date on which Germany declared war (Covered already in multiple articles), and a mention of the
921:
but it does not have a source to support it. As I said above if there were contingency plans for the invasion of the US (and most major armed forces have contingency plans for every eventuality) then when someone comes up with a reliable source that documents them we can recreate this article. But at
539:
Somewhere in my political science notes from decades ago is where the professor discussing the Nazis dealt with what would have followed a victory over
Britain and Russia. He said that no immediate invasion of the U.S. was likely or necessary. Instead, the Axis would economically dominate the U.S. in
1044:
an interesting note - not a debunk though - is that Hitler in "Mein Kampf" implies that he does not seek war with UK or US - he considers the
British to be dangerously stubborn fighters - and goes on with painting a picture of US as an ideal state, ranting on how wise they were to "take care" of the
420:
Maybe I did "hear it somewhere", but I also wrote a Pol.Sci. primary course paper on the frequent assertion that Japan was not a "clear and present danger" to the U.S. in the run-up to Pearl Harbor. (Uh, my position was neutral to skeptical. Many of my sources differed.) I am not against pruning the
182:
I know this has been written about and there are sources, and if I can tomorrow I'll go look for some. The framing of the article is problematic, as there is a world of difference between "plan" and "intent" and "capability". The saying goes that the
Pentagon has a plan for invading Canada somewhere
562:
If we prune out all the unsourced information as it stands at the moment we will end up with one factual sentence about WWII: "Although Hitler declared war on the United States of
America on 11 December 1941". Better to delete it and when an editor comes along with a reliable source the article can
192:
et al.) But the fears were real and continue to be part of the lore and mythos of the war, that we had to "stop" Hitler before that happened. Anyway, I'm more confident than you that there's available citable material and that there's notability (i.e. not just wargeek wankery). I'd like to see this
398:
When an editor has such a book and wants to write the article then good luck to them, but if by the end of this AfD process no cited references have been provided this article should be deleted because a blank page is not desirable. Or are you suggesting that we should keep text in
Knowledge (XXG)
276:
But there is not one paragraph that carries a citation. There is nothing to keep. As I said above if in the future someone writes an article that is properly sourced on this subject then it can always be recreated, but currently it does not meet the criteria of a notable article -- if it did there
548:
with the promise that even if the
Japanese and Germans conquered the rest of the world including Canada and Mexico, that the U.S. could still win if he succeeded in building atomic bombs. So keep this, prune it of unsourced speculation, reference it to at least the book , and find more historical
187:
project (mainly on paper). Finally, we have the angle the article doesn't even touch on, which is exaggerated
American fears of a Nazi invasion. For now-quotidian reasons (production capacity, etc.) it was never a serious consideration; after a certain date sometime between June 1940 and December
1003:
is non-negotiable. If there are sources, and someone has the initiative to get them, they can recreate the article. As it stands right now, the article is less than a stub. The section about
Germany is one line, and only states that Germany declared war on the US on 11 Dec. We don't need another
738:
should be cut entirely, I can probably find sources to back me up that they had planned on a quick strike at Pearl Harbor concurrent with a land grab betting on America to sue for peace right away. They were so sure we wouldn't fight that they went a bit beyond their initial plan. IF Midway had
162:
The topic is fascinating along the lines of a "what-if". Undoubtedly, there were small teams inside Japan, Germany and (perhaps) Italy brain-storming further plans had things gone extremely well for them, most of which were likely impractical & would never have been actually presented for
188:
1941 the tipping point was already reached and Germany could only have won in the long run if they'd settled for some sort of temporary European hegemony and bided their time. So the fears were never justified. (Some would argue they were just as unjustified during the Cold War; see
1065:, which is already covered in depth in its own article. There is no remaining material for this article, so it should be deleted. As noted, I would have no objection to a properly sourced article on this topic - but the existing text is unsalvageable.
522:
From December 1941 until June 1943 when the German high command shelved it, Major Maier and his staff worked on a contingency plan to invade the US via Siberia and Alaska" (J. Smith (1995) "Nazi contingency planning and all that", academic press, ISBN
600:
The article seems to have only minor sourcing, so I'd suggest a major cleanup, removing unsourced information. If that leaves the article without sufficient relevant information, or if the cleanup is not performed in a timely manner, I'd suggest
241:(Fall Felix) and Operation Sealion, planned the occupation of Ireland and Operation Ikarus, would have provided some support bases for installing the Wehrmacht and Kriegsmarine infantry seaborne or Luftwaffe Airborne forces for the invasion.
1047:). Nope - no firm German invasion plan comes to my mind - only a stub in another article :) . Last, but not least, the weak contribution over the years seems to say something about this issue, right? "Find it, then show it." My regards, --
936:. Even if no sources of the actual plans exist, even if no plans to invade were ever made, the newspapers at the time and various media to the present day have commented on the idea of the planned invasions. Citations can be found for the
1084:
Yes, the Zimmerman Telegram was WWI - which is my point, it has no bearing on WWII in this context. Its existance does not prove or disprove the existance of similar plans during WWII - it just fudges up the issue, and should be removed.
1026:. (I was requested to state my opinion here). Today, 9 Oct 2007, I see no text contents whatsoever on the subject. I remember reading somewhere about the note on the offer to Mexico, but it's from WW1. Info seems to have been merged into
376:
Hitler's Plan to Attack the United States] and the forum just reaffirmed my memory of the History Channel having a show on the topic. One thing I will say is that the article should be renamed to not have the WWII abbreviation, i.e.
87:
82:
91:
742:
Then there's the assertion that Japan would have attacked America around the end of WWI to help Germany. Japan and Germany weren't to chummy at the time, Japan having relieved Germany of all territory in the Pacific, for example
74:
805:
It is now 2 days since this AfD was made. Several editors have said that they can/will add citations, but so far the only one we have for a fact is that Hitler declared war on the USA. We also have one from a book entitled
834:- heavily edit down the article to the referenced parts even if this leaves the article as a stub. Perhaps some edittors from can keep an eye on the article to prevent a rebloom of unreferenced additions. --
193:
article reflect that. And yes, this is separate from the actual attacks article, which is "real" history as opposed to "what-if". There's a relationship but not so close that this belongs in that article. --
525:, then there would be a case for keeping it. But at the moment there is nothing like that in the article so it can be deleted until such time as that sort of information becomes available. --
263:, but a complete overall. I mean there's no sources for this? I've seen like two different History Channel docs on it. This is a total disaster of a page, but it shouldn't be deleted entirely
132:
some of which have been on the article for more than six months. If in the future new information from a reliable source is found, then the article can be recreated citing the new sources. --
509:? Those visions of fallschirmsjägers paradropping in Vermont or kamikazes smuggled through the Mexican railroad network via Clipperton are nothing but unhinged hallucinations.--
114:
335:
917:
about any Axis invasion plans of the USA has been included in the article. I have now removed all the paragraphs and sections that did not have citations. I have not yet
686:
767:. Has a few sources, and the topic is notable. Unless it is shown to be full of hoax info or some terrible bias, just tag it with 'refs needed' and similar templates.--
698:
1095:
1075:
1051:
1016:
985:
976:
944:
926:
906:
893:
870:
852:
838:
826:
797:
781:
757:
715:
674:
625:
584:
567:
553:
529:
513:
478:
468:
458:
429:
415:
389:
363:
346:
322:
299:
281:
267:
251:
220:
201:
173:
136:
56:
848:
because the introduction assertion is not referenced, nor is the introduction a summary of the rest of the article, so what do you suggest we do in this case? --
318:
before the end of the AfD process, then you would be in favour of deleting it? If not how long should an article go without cited sources before it is deleted? --
1031:
1027:
815:
660:
494:
157:
378:
493:
would have been, as anybody with the slightest inkling of military logistics understands (which one would presume includes the Axis general staffs).
150:
146:
142:
78:
70:
62:
659:
into these articles, in order to be discussed and referenced there, or dismissed as hoax. I'm not sure about merging such an overview into
229:
If cited sources had been provided this would be an obvious keep, but non have been provided in 2 years of the articles existence despite
885:
549:
documents. There had to at least be Axis propaganda books and films showing their ultimate conquest of the U.S. for public consumption.
160:
which covers similar ground to this article but is a better name for what actually happened. As one contributor to the talk page says "
1091:
1071:
17:
1034:, and the "References" could be moved from here to there? I've read a lot on the Axis - particularly Nazi Germany. I can't remember
383:
340:
753:
section has 1 ref to Nazi Uboat attacks on the East Coast, but none about Italian plans discussed in the rest of the section.
878:-- certain articles, such as this one, are interesting SPECULATIONS and should be labeled as such to facilitate discussion.
334:
concerns a major historical topic during our planet's most terrible war that even the History Channel had a program on. See
497:
are one thing (and the the nominated article is nothing but a sub-par duplicate of it), invasions another. Weapons like the
863:
356:
963:
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it.
845:
819:
1112:
36:
958:
49:
973:
923:
849:
823:
564:
526:
412:
360:
319:
278:
248:
170:
133:
1111:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1038:
having stumbled upon anything significant regarding an invasion of US. From what I gather this was way, way,
889:
867:
881:
608:
814:) covers attacks by a U-Boats (not an invasion) on New York harbour. This subject is already covered in
663:
as we want to keep done deeds apart from failed attempts, abandoned preparations and pure proposals. --
520:
As I said above if someone comes up with a reliable source and can create an entry something like this "
209:
if sourced. I gave a superficial try online without much success., but it needs a more thorough search
169:
to cover these contingency plans then the article can always be recreated relying on those sources. --
982:
941:
954:
1062:
705:
664:
1048:
794:
708:
667:
426:
239:
requests. To give example of the problems with this article: At the moment paragraphs like this "
198:
1012:, and a vague statement that Hawaii could be used to stage attacks on the west coast of the US.
1086:
1066:
774:
726:
the article about actual attacks as a blurb on plans for more. I stand by what I said before,
644:
618:
545:
295:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
312:
581:
510:
452:
264:
1030:, and this is IMO a good decision. Maybe (if applicable) this can become a stub section in
244:
48:
Although article was stripped down to a single statement, the remnant still fell short of
969:
922:
the moment there are NO RELIABLE SOURCES at all in this article to justify keeping it. --
914:
866:. But I really doubt that there will be much left afterwards, so just delete it. Cheers,
811:
315:
166:
1013:
754:
506:
505:
are not an invasion plan in themselves. Or did the US invade Japan in 1942 through the
498:
184:
1000:
966:
862:- unless there this a major rework, with getting all the speculations out, and adding
790:
400:
309:
541:
502:
422:
233:
216:
194:
129:
53:
903:
810:". There are two others. One for a First World War plan and the second (from a non
770:
651:
might fit better in that regard. The whole matter is notable as such, so we should
605:
108:
550:
448:
122:
808:
What If? The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
373:
835:
475:
211:
189:
793:
material in this article. Once that has been deleted, its non-viable. --
399:
that has no references because in the words of Jimbo Wales quoted on
421:
article, but a good portion of it can be sourced, as I wrote above. --
379:
Axis plans to invade the United States of America during World War II
572:
I don't mean to be flippant, but the article's title (and topic) is
153:(Jul- Aug 2007) explain why others two think it should be deleted.
128:, in that time not one reference has been cited despite the use of
640:
277:
would be third party sources available to include as citations. --
1105:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
744:
125:
1004:
article to tell us this. The section on Japan deals with pre-WW
816:
Attacks on North America during World War II#U-Boat operations
490:
143:
Talk:Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII
710:
669:
655:
that should link to the weapons or persons involved, then
739:
turned out differently, they MIGHT have targeted Hawaii.
156:
Note also there is already a much better article called
71:
Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII
63:
Axis plans for invasion of the United States during WWII
918:
104:
100:
96:
338:
forum for some additional discussion. Sincerely, --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1115:). No further edits should be made to this page.
580:. I could vote "weak keep" to that myself too.--
293:... providing that it is sourced correctly. --
308:Can I take that to mean that if there are no
8:
1032:Attacks on North America during World War II
1028:Attacks on North America during World War II
661:Attacks on North America during World War II
643:for a full scale invasion (as the cancelled
495:Attacks on North America during World War II
158:Attacks on North America during World War II
578:"...in a contra-factual post-WWII scenario"
489:, like any axis invasion without help from
372:Books have also been written on the topic:
447:and cleanup, per above. Notable topic. —
165:". If someone comes up with one of more
972:then article can always be recreated. --
697:: This debate has been included in the
685:: This debate has been included in the
467:: This debate has been included in the
771:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
961:policy. Among other things it says "
381:would be more formal. Sincerely, --
163:consideration, let alone implemented
151:This article is actually a disaster
820:User:Philip Baird Shearer/Sand box
687:list of Military-related deletions
145:and specifically these sections:
24:
699:list of Germany-related deletions
724:Delete, merge some content to...
544:was reportedly recruited to the
934:Delete but allow for recreation
487:Sink to the bottom of the ocean
469:list of Japan-related deletions
1:
959:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
385:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
342:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
57:14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
1096:14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
1076:14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
1052:11:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
1017:11:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
986:22:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
977:11:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
945:02:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
927:18:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
907:17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
894:08:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
871:13:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
853:19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
839:16:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
827:09:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
798:08:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
782:23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
758:23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
716:18:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
675:18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
626:17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
585:16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
568:16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
554:16:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
530:13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
514:12:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
479:10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
459:20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
430:19:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
416:18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
390:18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
364:18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
347:17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
323:18:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
300:17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
282:18:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
268:16:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
252:16:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
221:13:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
202:11:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
174:10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
137:10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
121:The page has existed since
1132:
1045:"Native American Question"
789:as there is just too much
1042:down on the Nazi agenda (
728:the article is a disaster
657:cleanup by moving details
1108:Please do not modify it.
653:keep as overview article
503:Maiale midget submarines
32:Please do not modify it.
846:It is less than a stub
876:Keep with reservation
647:) is the wrong word,
974:Philip Baird Shearer
924:Philip Baird Shearer
850:Philip Baird Shearer
824:Philip Baird Shearer
637:concepts for attacks
565:Philip Baird Shearer
527:Philip Baird Shearer
413:Philip Baird Shearer
361:Philip Baird Shearer
320:Philip Baird Shearer
279:Philip Baird Shearer
249:Philip Baird Shearer
171:Philip Baird Shearer
134:Philip Baird Shearer
1063:Zimmermann Telegram
1094:
1074:
896:
884:comment added by
718:
702:
690:
645:Operation Sealion
546:Manhattan Project
481:
472:
1123:
1110:
1090:
1070:
970:reliable sources
919:removed the lead
913:to date not one
879:
864:reliable sources
779:
777:
713:
703:
693:
681:
672:
613:
563:be re-created --
473:
463:
388:
386:
357:reliable sources
345:
343:
316:reliable sources
298:
243:" fall foul of
238:
232:
167:reliable sources
112:
94:
34:
1131:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1113:deletion review
1106:
915:reliable source
812:reliable source
780:
775:
769:
711:
670:
609:
384:
382:
374:TARGET: AMERICA
355:Forums are not
341:
339:
294:
236:
230:
141:The talk page
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1129:
1127:
1118:
1117:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1079:
1078:
1055:
1054:
1020:
1019:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
981:You're right.
948:
947:
930:
929:
910:
909:
897:
873:
856:
855:
842:
841:
829:
800:
784:
768:
761:
760:
748:
740:
736:Japanese plans
732:
731:
720:
719:
691:
678:
677:
629:
628:
590:
589:
588:
587:
570:
557:
556:
533:
532:
517:
516:
507:Doolittle raid
499:Amerika Bomber
483:
482:
461:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
409:
408:
407:
393:
392:
367:
366:
350:
349:
328:
327:
326:
325:
303:
302:
287:
286:
285:
284:
271:
270:
257:
256:
255:
254:
224:
223:
204:
185:Amerika Bomber
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1128:
1116:
1114:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1008:plans, not WW
1007:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
987:
984:
980:
979:
978:
975:
971:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
951:
950:
949:
946:
943:
939:
935:
932:
931:
928:
925:
920:
916:
912:
911:
908:
905:
901:
898:
895:
891:
887:
886:24.205.55.219
883:
877:
874:
872:
869:
865:
861:
858:
857:
854:
851:
847:
844:
843:
840:
837:
833:
830:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
804:
801:
799:
796:
795:Gavin Collins
792:
788:
785:
783:
778:
772:
766:
763:
762:
759:
756:
752:
751:Italian plans
749:
746:
741:
737:
734:
733:
729:
725:
722:
721:
717:
714:
709:
707:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
679:
676:
673:
668:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
630:
627:
624:
623:
621:
616:
615:
612:
607:
604:
599:
595:
592:
591:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
569:
566:
561:
560:
559:
558:
555:
552:
547:
543:
542:Leslie Groves
538:
535:
534:
531:
528:
524:
519:
518:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
485:
484:
480:
477:
470:
466:
462:
460:
456:
455:
450:
446:
443:
442:
431:
428:
424:
419:
418:
417:
414:
410:
405:
404:
402:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
387:
380:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
344:
337:
333:
330:
329:
324:
321:
317:
314:
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
301:
297:
292:
289:
288:
283:
280:
275:
274:
273:
272:
269:
266:
262:
259:
258:
253:
250:
246:
242:
235:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
218:
214:
213:
208:
205:
203:
200:
196:
191:
186:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
172:
168:
164:
159:
154:
152:
148:
144:
139:
138:
135:
131:
130:template:Fact
127:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
50:verifiability
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1107:
1104:
1058:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1023:
1009:
1005:
996:
962:
953:Please read
937:
933:
899:
875:
859:
831:
807:
802:
786:
764:
750:
735:
727:
723:
694:
682:
656:
652:
648:
636:
632:
622:
619:
614:
610:
602:
597:
593:
577:
574:"...in WWII"
573:
536:
521:
486:
464:
453:
444:
331:
296:Floaterfluss
290:
260:
240:
210:
206:
179:
161:
155:
149:(May 2006 )
140:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
938:speculation
880:—Preceding
639:as precise
582:Victor falk
511:Victor falk
332:Strong Keep
291:Strong Keep
265:Doc Strange
123:18 November
1049:Dna-Dennis
983:SolidPlaid
967:verifiable
957:, part of
955:WP:PROVEIT
942:SolidPlaid
791:unverified
310:verifiable
1014:Parsecboy
900:Weak keep
765:Weak keep
755:Anynobody
537:Weak keep
207:Weak keep
1092:Evidence
1072:Evidence
882:unsigned
706:Matthead
665:Matthead
603:deletion
423:Dhartung
195:Dhartung
190:Red Dawn
115:View log
54:Aarktica
904:llywrch
803:Comment
594:Cleanup
501:or the
180:Comment
147:Rename?
88:protect
83:history
46:delete.
1059:Delete
1024:Delete
997:Delete
860:Delete
787:Delete
649:dreams
633:Rename
606:Charon
598:Delete
576:, not
551:Edison
245:WP:NOR
92:delete
868:MikeZ
822:. --
776:talk
641:plans
313:cited
261:Keep'
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1036:ever
1001:WP:V
890:talk
836:Whpq
832:Keep
745:Truk
712:O
695:Note
683:Note
671:O
620:talk
523:...)
491:UFOs
465:Note
454:talk
445:Keep
427:Talk
401:WP:V
336:this
234:fact
217:talk
199:Talk
126:2005
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
52:. --
1040:way
701:.
689:.
635:to
596:or
476:Fg2
471:.
449:RJH
212:DGG
113:– (
1087:ZZ
1067:ZZ
1010:II
999:.
940:.
892:)
704:—
457:)
425:|
411:--
403::
359:--
237:}}
231:{{
219:)
197:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
1089:~
1069:~
1006:I
888:(
806:"
773:|
747:.
730::
617:/
611:X
474:—
451:(
215:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.