402:, so I did, did some research, and I guess it boomeranged on him because I can't find quality sourcing and no one has provided them in this discussion or the article. In this instance, I just don't find any references from sources that are INDEPENDENT from the subject matter. WP:N clearly requires verification from sources that are independent of the subject matter, and that isn't satisfied in any way here. If a dog fight happens, and only dogfight.com and dogfighting.com cover it, that dog fight isn't notable. Once it gets multiple coverage in the New York Times, CNN, a well known biographer, ABC news, or at least a newspaper that
935:. While the reasoning for disregarding them could be debated (as they are proof of the high profile of this event among followers of this sport), the point becomes moot when independent and reliable sources as those detailed above are available. It is nevertheless a strong indication of this event's significance among those familiar with the subject, akin to the coverage given to a championship boxing match by that sport's specialized press.
442:
especially in
Britain, a country which our government, media and majority number of the public has slammed MMA more times than Rampage in slammed opponents in PRIDE for being 'barbaric'. I really do wish that the BBC, ITV, and Sky News teams covers MMA more in a good light, and hope that it will do soon, but until then the fact that the event is showing the biggest main event fight expected for UK MMA this year between
1202:
Opposing views seemed to be the usual pre-fight coverage, the short Daily Mirror article was on Jack
Marshman with a cursory mention of BAMMA 9, the Luton article was a daily training diary of one of the participants (hardly independent coverage), and the Dunstable "article" was a the same diary as the Luton one. Hence, IMO there still seems to be a lack of independent sources covering BAMMA 9.
281:. Here we go again, another pointless nomination of a clearly notable MMA event being made by the usual user. This event is being headlined by the promotion's World Middleweight Champion and their British Middleweight Champion, both of which are extremely notable fighters and hugely popular within UK MMA. This event has been receiving loads of attention over the last few months, at one point
1254:. I'm happy that someone has at least taken the time to review the sources I've provided with a constructive attitude, instead of shooting the messenger or refusing to discuss alltogether. I truly appreciate it and I thank you for that; and I concede that although said sources are good, they're not as perfect and uncontestable as to pass
952:. Reversing the example given by one of said editors, the absence of the President at a Superbowl game does not make such event unnotable. As repeatedly shown above by the quality and quantity of reliable, independent sources, the notability of this event does not stem from the absence of this athlete: on the contrary, the fact that
1426:. I can't help but to notice the sharp contrast between the 14 minutes it took you address the !vote above and your seemingly entire lack of interest in engaging in constructive debate for 9 days (as some of the proponents of the deletion of this article indeed have). Perhaps this is an indication that you will deign to do so now?
869:. Leaving aside the somewhat unrealistic list of desired sources (which is clearly made merely for illustrative purposes), I'm surprised that nobody so far (not the advocators for this article's permanence, nor its detractors) has stumbled upon the many reliable, high profile and independent sources that do exist on this event.
1142:
I can't help but to observe the silence regarding the coverage given by other sources I've linked to, which gives the impression that they all fall under the two arguments above. Alas, this is not the case, as can be seen by examining them thoroughly. I also take note that other points I raised (i.e.
1102:
at the same comment! However, I wish to make it very clear that I don't blame you, Ravenswing: been there and done that, many times, a long time ago. Guilty until proven innocent, but that's not your fault nor mine: the things that can be witnessed at AfD can surpass imagination, so that's the way it
996:
of my comment may be questioned by scrutinizing my edit's history, allow me to swear that I have never, ever, been involved in any way nor at any time with any martial arts related article, not under any other username nor as an anonymous editor. I only saw this AfD's entry at the log when nominating
838:
events are not routine in itself: they are a set of out-of-ordinary championship fights, scheduled long in advance for an outstanding event well above ordinary or routinary bouts or matches, by a sports organization whose notability is beyond question. The best comparison would be between a regular
1129:
The link that "blatantly" prints "press release" is not from the BAMMA site, nor from any source primarily associated to this event; but from a well know, reliable and secondary source that has picked it, reviewed it, reprinted it and distributed it via its own website as part of their coverage of
1067:, their own prominence has no effect on this article. One links that does mention the event has "PRESS RELEASE" blatantly printed on it, which anyone knowledgeable in Knowledge policies and guidelines would know isn't acceptable as a source. Nor is Athilea's "Nothing MMA is notable" smear either
1201:
First, I'm happy to welcome a new editor who believes in doing research. I do have issues with your sources. The Yahoo article is from the contributor's network, so there's no indication of how reliable the source is. Zimbio is a press release (regardless of who issued it) so it's not reliable,
493:
That being said, let's assume your charge is true, and MMA events aren't covered in
Britain because the British government, media and public uniformly hate them. So stipulated, so what? The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't get to say that the GNG doesn't
450:
means that this event is already notable, and with the articles already out along with the articles that will definitely be released next week (which is the fight week) and after the event, no-one will question notability after this. This AfD, just like the many recently on MMA events, is nothing
441:
All I got to say about that is LOL, you don't seriously think that everything that is notable must be on a paper like The New York Times, or a news programme like CNN? If that was the case, then most things on
Knowledge would be put on AfDs right now, what you are asking for is beyond impossible,
956:
is merely another indication (albeit not proof by itself) of the event's inherent notability (even tho he's ultimately absent from it due to unrelated circumstances that do no act in detriment of the event's high profile). Following the line of reasoning of the users who commented above on this
1062:
In reviewing
Athilea's links, I'm not at all convinced (not least at our natural suspicion when a SPA's first and only edits are on AfDs). First off, those links which could be considered reliable discuss not this event, but one or another of the various fighters scheduled to appear. Since
1369:
par Why on earth would it be deleted? I think the people campaigning to get it removed are from rival MMA groups. There are plenty of articles on far more minor sports and entertainment events that are on wikipedia. BAMMA is the biggest MMA promotion in
Western Europe, and its events are
948:'s link to this event has been misinterpreted by other editors, who have insisted on the absence of this athlete as proof of unnotability (and this is both attributable to the ambivalence of such statement, and to the unfamiliarity with this sport of those who commented on it). That is a
896:
775:'s edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --
1321:. All the credit for this sensible idea goes to Dennis, and as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to work in order to see it come to fruition. That is, of course if both the proponents of the keep and delete alternatives are willing to assume such compromise. Best regards,
1180:. It is however the duty of everyone responsible to analyze case by case, with all the information and circumstances that surround it, and not let a blanket belief be your main guide. The fact that so far only you, of all participant at this debate, has taken the time to
465:
You are correct in that many, many articles on
Knowledge don't pass this criteria and need to be deleted, but there are only so many hours in a day to research and delete them. They are getting created faster than they can be deleted. But the criteria at
1117:
Those links that discuss the various fighters scheduled to attend, do so only in their role as participants of this event, not in their role as prominent MMA fighters. Not a single one of external articles linked above fails to mention BAMMA 9 as
1093:
I expected my comment to be taken with a pinch of salt for my very recent edit history, which is the reason why I said I was aware of it and tried to clear any doubts in that sense. What I didn't expect was to be so openly told that said fact is
376:
I find it confusing that all the other MMA events have been categorised, yet this one hasn't and yet the votes for delete are rolling in? A bit strange that? If someone tells me how I will add it to the same one the other MMA events use.
1122:, and the main aspect discussed at them is the event itself first, and as result of it, the athlethes in question. It was me who said it first: if they event was not mentioned at all, or merely passingly, that would fall under
930:
On top of that, I've been able to count no less than 15 different, unrelated, independent online magazines or specialized websites dedicated to this sport that grant significant coverage to the event, most of which could pass
976:
Please take note that I don't endorse indiscriminate inclusion of MMA related articles, as some of the participants in this debate do (and at other MMA related AfD discussions, where lack of notability is a clear issue, like
494:
count so long as a subject "deserves" an article. The answer to a lack of reliable, significant coverage isn't that we let a subject have an article anyway. The answer is that the subject doesn't qualify for an article.
179:
1176:
Yet it is the attitude that speaks for itself. I'm the first to say that, indeed, judging from my investgation, there are/have been many articles that deserve/d that fate, as they are/were nothing but
326:
it seems pretty clear what the correct answer is. If the biggest thing about this event is a person who won't be there, I think it speaks volumes about the event's notability (and not in a good way).
839:
NFL match and a given
Superbowl game. This is also the reason why each and every BAMMA event, from its first edition to BAMMA 8, have received considerable attention and coverage from the media
1168:(amazing all you can learn about a topic in mere four days of investigation, isn't it?) And of course nobody would openly say that: you don't see anyone running around at AfD debates screaming
355:
says that there needs to be "significant coverage" of the event for it to be notable; at best "significant coverage" of the event is debatable at worst lacks significant coverage, thus fails
863:"Once it gets multiple coverage in the New York Times, CNN, a well known biographer, ABC news, or at least a newspaper that isn't about only fighting, then a case would have been made"
68:
The idea to merge all these into a main article is something that should be explored further, that would resolve the issues with the notability of the individual events rather nicely.
1405:
based !vote will likley ignored by the closing admin, if you think it should be kept you need to address how this article addresses the lasting historical significance of the event.
1106:
I am however somewhat baffled that the sources listed above are dismissed so quickly, and my knowledge of policies and guidelines elliptically put in question when in fact it was
733:. The fact that both sources are concerned with a person who won't be there is a little like saying the local PTA bake sale is notable because the Presdient won't be attending.
970:
246:
140:
664:
421:
Changed to a keep based on the sourced provided lower in the discussion. Half of them are borderline at best, but there are enough that aren't to pass the bar.
173:
807:
to be slightly amusing but entirely irrelevant, and I think that the article itself could use better prose and sourcing. However, I also think it does pass
513:. Wikiprojects' opinions are just that: a general, unofficial guideline. We all agree on that. Yet the persistance in asking for sources that comply with
645:, because there really just doesn't seem to be an reason not to. So, keep, if for no other reason, then for the fans! Yeah, do it for the fans! :) --
1297:
in order to compile the best available sources in summary style, leaving the possibility of eventually moving such content into a potential and unified
957:
particular issue, we would be able to say that BAMMA 9 is notable merely by the presence of other athletes who have confirmed their participation (i.e.
1184:
seems to be an indication of this. I appreciate that, and I thank you for it, even if I believe your own arguments regarding said sources to be wrong.
1164:
is brought up by you, perhaps a choice of words on your part would have been in adviseable?). It would have been more accurate for me to say that,
978:
1440:
FINALLY, someone who sees it as well. so Mtking, are you going to engage in properly sorting this out or continue to show yourself up like this?
604:
591:
576:
1342:
per above, as is (or at least should be) standard when you have a topic of questionable notability that falls under a notable parent topic.
1276:
1114:
here in the first place. But let's stay focused. Regarding the arguments used to disregard the significance of the afforementioned sources.
997:
another article for the deletion process and got intrigued by it, so I tried to do my homework... whether I'm right or wrong. Best regards,
840:
1258:
without discussion. I tend to agree with you and Dennis Brown that the main flaw of this series of articles is that they tend to fall into
1289:
Following an exchange with Dennis Brown, I have personally come to the conclusion that the best solution would be to at least temporarily
904:
1131:
1133:
1386:
1018:
888:
776:
753:
702:
646:
612:
580:
919:
17:
487:
Well, come to that, the MMA Wikiproject's opinion is that MMA event articles don't belong on
Knowledge, given the section of
314:
thats says routine sports coverage is not notable is unclear to those who want to keep these articles. When articles fail
470:
and subsets is pretty clear about what it takes to be "notable", thus eligible for inclusion if you bother to read them.
1416:
1352:
260:
236:
1229:. There's nothing to show that this event will have the "lasting effects" or "duration of coverage" required to pass
194:
113:
108:
909:
161:
517:
as if they had not been provided at all, when they already have at this very debate and your objections addressed (
117:
1474:
608:
595:
572:
559:
40:
1402:
1098:
a negative factor when analysing my arguments themselves. This is specially true if being acussed of breaching
100:
857:
accurately stated above, regarding the merits of the event when confronted with the requirements outlined at
1071:
or helpful; no Delete proponent has said anything of the sort, and some are active on the MMA Wikiproject.
966:
347:
for article about notable sporting events. The potential sources for the article appear to simply contain
1123:
1111:
1064:
671:
568:
555:
475:
426:
411:
1270:
842:
155:
1470:
1382:
1306:
1262:
to receive actual attention and coverage, which would eventualy give them enough factic support to pass
1225:
In addition to my above comments about sources, there's no indication that the coverage is anything but
1171:
1022:
812:
780:
757:
706:
650:
344:
215:
36:
1378:
285:
was linked to this event. The fact that this page is being nominated for deletion is a complete joke.
1374:
1298:
958:
443:
78:
892:
151:
331:
187:
1449:
1435:
1427:
1418:
1390:
1359:
1330:
1322:
1242:
1211:
1193:
1185:
1081:
1049:
1026:
1006:
998:
844:
784:
761:
742:
710:
695:
675:
654:
632:
599:
563:
530:
522:
504:
479:
460:
430:
415:
368:
335:
294:
262:
238:
82:
1310:
1238:
1207:
1177:
1148:
1045:
816:
364:
219:
1278:. The myriad of articles that consequently result are far easier to challenge on the grounds of
1233:. I also think it would be better to not create articles on events that haven't happened yet.
201:
1445:
1431:
1326:
1318:
1259:
1226:
1189:
1002:
854:
824:
730:
667:
526:
471:
456:
422:
407:
382:
348:
323:
307:
290:
223:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1469:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1411:
1348:
900:
738:
691:
628:
488:
255:
231:
1302:
1279:
1230:
1161:
1099:
1072:
1068:
949:
808:
726:
551:
495:
319:
303:
278:
211:
74:
590:
by default as article does not and cannot pass any
Knowledge policies or guidelines. --
1143:
notability established at other BAMMA events by significant coverage by sources such as
1152:
945:
623:
Actually the fact that it meets no guidelines or policies is why it should be deleted.
327:
282:
1314:
1283:
1263:
1234:
1203:
1041:
993:
962:
932:
880:
876:
858:
820:
547:
514:
467:
447:
360:
356:
352:
274:
167:
1370:
well-attended, more so than many UFC events. Of course the article should stay up!
1441:
1255:
941:
911:(used uncontestedly as reliable source at a huge number of unrelated articles; see
452:
396:
378:
286:
104:
1139:
that has considered the event notable enough to do so, not its organizers or fans.
451:
more than just the nominator's opinion that MMA events don't belong on Knowledge.
134:
1406:
1343:
772:
734:
687:
624:
315:
311:
250:
226:
921:(used uncontestedly as reliable source at many other unrelated articles; see
981:). However, I do feel compelled to disagree with the opposite attitude of
1160:
I'd also wish to apologize for the "smear" above (small point aside, as
1273:
1267:
985:
that is so evident here, when we do have enough RS that show otherwise.
96:
88:
1136:
884:
1166:"second tier MMA related articles are questioned on a regular basis"
1401:
That does not address the issue of the events notability, and as a
521:
the two comments above were made), is rather puzzling and strange.
1292:
1040:
A very similar IP (63.3.19.130) has already !voted in his AfD. --
847:
835:
554:
They are significant events. There is more to MMA than just UFC!--
210:
Non notable MMA event, no lasting historical significance, fails
65:
in this debate, please cool it, all of you. You know who you are.
1463:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1144:
58:
Valid (and completely invalid) arguments are made by both sides.
805:"keep by default as it does not pass Knowledge's guidelines"
969:, to name a few), whose own notability is beyond question.
343:
The article lacks "well-sourced prose" that is required by
1266:
without these inconvenients. Such is the case of at least
63:
unacceptable amount of ad hominem/personal attack comments
799:. I find arguments in favor of keeping this article like
491:
explicitly declaring individual events to not be notable.
1182:
at least comment on the many reliable sources that exist
992:
As a side note, and foreseeing the possibility that the
922:
912:
400:
130:
126:
122:
186:
1130:this event, along with several other announcements
399:was advertising/canvassing for people to come here
247:list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1477:). No further edits should be made to this page.
665:Knowledge:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129
395:Actually, the only reason I found this is that
200:
8:
245:Note: This debate has been included in the
983:"nothing that is related to MMA is notable"
1291:merge all the events series into the main
244:
1126:. However, this is clearly not the case.
725:There's no indication this event meets
387:(tag added by dennis brown for clarity)
940:I believe the statement made by user
752:Another invalid reason to delete. --
406:, then a case would have been made.
302:Another MMA event article that fails
7:
1017:per the thorough analysis above. --
848:uncontested inclusion in Knowledge
24:
1103:is. I understand and I accept it.
686:Another invalid reason to keep.
1155:issue) have not been addressed.
1120:the reason why they are covered
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
973:, and neither is unnotability.
1:
310:. I'm not sure what part of
1135:. It is the editor staff of
1065:notability is not inherited
971:Notability is not inherited
306:and whose coverage will be
1494:
1450:16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1436:04:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1419:03:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1391:03:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
1360:15:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
1331:05:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
1301:that unequivocally passes
1243:23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
1212:23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
1194:17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
1082:05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
1050:15:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
1027:13:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
1007:13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
846:, enough to warrant their
785:01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
762:01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
743:21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
711:01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
696:21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
676:23:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
655:18:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
633:21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
600:13:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
564:10:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
531:17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
505:05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
480:14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
461:10:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
431:00:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
416:17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
369:18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
336:17:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
295:10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
263:10:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
239:10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
83:00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
954:he was to take part in it
404:isn't about only fighting
1466:Please do not modify it.
663:- striking comments per
32:Please do not modify it.
448:Jack 'Hammer' Marshman
351:fight announcements.
613:few or no other edits
581:few or no other edits
1299:List of BAMMA events
801:"do it for the fans"
615:outside this topic.
583:outside this topic.
1149:Sports Illustrated
48:The result was
1403:WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT
1394:
1377:comment added by
1357:
1355:So let it be done
1350:
1052:
918:Dunstable Today:
616:
584:
444:Tom 'Kong' Watson
388:
265:
1485:
1468:
1414:
1409:
1393:
1371:
1353:
1349:
1170:"Delete because
1078:
1036:
901:The Daily Mirror
602:
566:
501:
386:
258:
253:
234:
229:
205:
204:
190:
138:
120:
34:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1475:deletion review
1464:
1412:
1407:
1372:
1356:
1172:I don't like it
1124:WP:NOTINHERITED
1112:WP:NOTINHERITED
1110:who brought up
1074:
950:logical fallacy
605:172.130.252.250
592:172.130.252.250
569:Fightloungemike
556:Fightloungemike
497:
256:
251:
232:
227:
147:
111:
95:
92:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1491:
1489:
1480:
1479:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1396:
1395:
1363:
1362:
1354:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1307:WP:SPORTSEVENT
1287:
1246:
1245:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1153:Nate Marquardt
1140:
1127:
1104:
1085:
1084:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1031:
1030:
1010:
1009:
989:
988:
987:
986:
974:
946:Nate Marquardt
937:
936:
928:
927:
926:
916:
906:
898:
893:Opposing Views
890:
882:
871:
870:
851:
829:
828:
813:WP:SPORTSEVENT
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
746:
745:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
681:
680:
679:
678:
638:
637:
636:
635:
618:
617:
585:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
482:
436:
435:
434:
433:
389:
371:
345:WP:SPORTSEVENT
338:
297:
283:Nate Marquardt
267:
266:
216:WP:SPORTSEVENT
208:
207:
144:
91:
86:
72:
71:
70:
69:
66:
59:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1490:
1478:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1461:
1460:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1410:
1404:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1358:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1341:
1338:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1294:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1173:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1077:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
991:
990:
984:
980:
975:
972:
968:
964:
963:Jack Marshman
960:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
938:
934:
929:
924:
920:
917:
914:
910:
908:Luton Today:
907:
905:
902:
899:
897:
894:
891:
889:
886:
883:
881:
878:
877:Yahoo! Sports
875:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
849:
845:
843:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
794:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
721:
720:
713:
712:
708:
704:
701:LOlWUT!?! --
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
682:
677:
673:
669:
666:
662:
659:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
620:
619:
614:
610:
606:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
541:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
502:
500:
490:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
464:
463:
462:
458:
454:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
437:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
398:
394:
390:
384:
380:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
264:
261:
259:
254:
248:
243:
242:
241:
240:
237:
235:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
203:
199:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
153:
150:
149:Find sources:
145:
142:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
90:
87:
85:
84:
80:
76:
67:
64:
60:
57:
56:
55:
54:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1465:
1462:
1423:
1373:— Preceding
1366:
1344:
1339:
1290:
1251:
1222:
1198:
1181:
1169:
1165:
1119:
1107:
1095:
1090:
1075:
1073:
1059:
1037:
1014:
1013:
982:
953:
866:
865:. Such case
862:
855:Dennis Brown
804:
800:
796:
768:
767:
751:
722:
700:
668:Dennis Brown
660:
642:
641:
587:
543:
518:
510:
498:
496:
492:
484:
472:Dennis Brown
423:Dennis Brown
408:Dennis Brown
403:
392:
391:
373:
340:
299:
270:
209:
197:
191:
183:
176:
170:
164:
158:
148:
73:
62:
61:There is an
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1379:HappHazzard
1311:WP:MMAEVENT
1019:63.3.19.129
967:Jason Jones
817:WP:MMAEVENT
777:63.3.19.130
773:User:Mdtemp
754:63.3.19.130
703:63.3.19.130
647:63.3.19.130
611:) has made
579:) has made
220:WP:MMAEVENT
174:free images
1319:WP:ROUTINE
1260:WP:TOOSOON
1227:WP:ROUTINE
1076:Ravenswing
994:good faith
959:Tom Watson
944:regarding
825:WP:ROUTINE
731:WP:ROUTINE
661:Sockpuppet
499:Ravenswing
349:WP:ROUTINE
324:WP:ROUTINE
308:WP:ROUTINE
224:WP:ROUTINE
75:Beeblebrox
1471:talk page
489:WP:MMANOT
328:Astudent0
37:talk page
1473:or in a
1387:contribs
1375:unsigned
1303:WP:EVENT
1280:WP:EVENT
1235:Papaursa
1231:WP:EVENT
1204:Papaursa
1178:fancruft
1162:WP:CIVIL
1100:WP:CIVIL
1091:Comment.
1042:TreyGeek
809:WP:EVENT
727:WP:EVENT
577:contribs
552:WP:EVENT
361:TreyGeek
320:WP:EVENT
304:WP:EVENT
279:WP:EVENT
212:WP:EVENT
141:View log
39:or in a
1442:BigzMMA
1428:Athilea
1424:Comment
1323:Athilea
1295:article
1268:BAMMA 1
1252:Comment
1199:Comment
1186:Athilea
1060:Delete:
999:Athilea
942:BigzMMA
523:Athilea
453:BigzMMA
397:BigzMMA
379:BigzMMA
374:Comment
287:BigzMMA
180:WP refs
168:scholar
114:protect
109:history
97:BAMMA 9
89:BAMMA 9
1345:Xymmax
1315:WP:GNG
1284:WP:GNG
1264:WP:GNG
1223:Delete
1151:, the
1137:Zimbio
1096:per se
933:WP:WEB
885:Zimbio
867:exists
859:WP:GNG
821:WP:GNG
735:Mdtemp
723:Delete
688:Mdtemp
625:Mdtemp
548:WP:GNG
519:before
515:WP:GNG
485:Reply:
468:WP:GNG
393:Delete
357:WP:GNG
353:WP:GNG
341:Delete
322:, and
300:Delete
277:, and
275:WP:GNG
152:Google
118:delete
1340:Merge
1293:BAMMA
1256:WP:RS
1069:civil
1038:Note:
965:, or
853:User
836:BAMMA
511:Reply
359:. --
195:JSTOR
156:books
135:views
127:watch
123:links
16:<
1446:talk
1432:talk
1413:king
1383:talk
1367:Keep
1327:talk
1317:and
1282:and
1272:and
1239:talk
1208:talk
1190:talk
1147:and
1145:ESPN
1046:talk
1023:talk
1015:Keep
1003:talk
979:here
923:here
913:here
834:The
823:and
797:Keep
781:talk
769:Note
758:talk
739:talk
707:talk
692:talk
672:talk
651:talk
643:Keep
629:talk
609:talk
596:talk
588:Keep
573:talk
560:talk
550:and
546:per
544:Keep
527:talk
476:talk
457:talk
446:and
427:talk
412:talk
383:talk
365:talk
332:talk
316:WP:N
312:WP:N
291:talk
273:par
271:Keep
257:king
233:king
188:FENS
162:news
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
79:talk
803:or
729:or
202:TWL
139:– (
52:.
1448:)
1434:)
1408:Mt
1389:)
1385:•
1329:)
1313:,
1309:,
1305:,
1241:)
1210:)
1192:)
1174:!"
1108:me
1048:)
1025:)
1005:)
961:,
903::
895::
887::
879::
861:,
819:,
815:,
811:,
783:)
771::
760:)
741:)
709:)
694:)
674:)
653:)
631:)
603:—
598:)
575:•
567:—
562:)
529:)
478:)
459:)
429:)
414:)
385:)
367:)
334:)
318:,
293:)
252:Mt
249:.
228:Mt
222:,
218:,
214:,
182:)
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
81:)
1444:(
1430:(
1381:(
1325:(
1286:.
1274:6
1237:(
1206:(
1188:(
1044:(
1021:(
1001:(
925:)
915:)
850:.
827:.
779:(
756:(
737:(
705:(
690:(
670:(
649:(
627:(
607:(
594:(
571:(
558:(
525:(
474:(
455:(
425:(
410:(
381:(
363:(
330:(
289:(
206:)
198:·
192:·
184:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
154:(
146:(
143:)
137:)
99:(
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.