1117:– this is a necessary fork from the fire article because of the sheer amount of information about what went on the past few years. I worked on the fire article when Grenfell Tower was a redirect and it was just too much. The reason it is currently seems redundant is that the details about the building on the fire article needs to be reduced to summaries. The fact that there was an action group desperately trying to raise the alarm about problems with this building adds to its notability. The eventual inquiry will result in even more info about things that occurred prior to the fire. There are four decades of this building's history, its management and occupants that are going to be put under a microscope.
1203:, and stop meddling with editors who are actually trying to develop Knowledge (XXG) coverage of topics. Leave it to "local" editors to choose to split out material or merge it back in. It seems, per Wikimandia that they want to keep stuff split out and develop it further, and also to reduce any redundancy in the event article by editing down to summary information there. But the rest of the world needs to back the hell off and let the active developing editor(s) do what they want. --
1524:- Doubtless this wouldn't have been made were it not for the fire. Ignoring that the question is 'is it notable'? Looking through Knowledge (XXG) there are pages on similar tall but pretty unremarkable buildings. I am inclined to say that it has a history, local notability and comparable notability with other pages. Maybe more similar blocks will have pages like this, we'll see.
52:. Going by strict headcount, "keep"s outnumber "redirect"s, but the keep arguments are strongly dependent on either "it's notable" without much evidence offered, "other things have articles as well" or on notability that occurred because of the fire. So no consensus, perhaps leaning somewhat towards "keep". Merger arguments should be handled in a dedicated discussion, most likely
821:. That article is being worked on and it can be justified to spin out the information about the tower itself and its history into a separate article. In considering notability of working class communities it seem ridiculous that you have to fight your corner, but for one house not 3 miles away occupied by couple of nonagenarians and a few corgies that is never challenged.
1328:
For those saying this is a needed fork, I think the answer is to trim the fire article, rather than make two separate articles. Just because something has been reported in the media about the tower, does not mean it has to be noted on
Knowledge (XXG). It has to tie somehow into the fire. Also, there
764:
it is notable; it is even one of the best known
British buildings in the world. (Otherwise, you could as well argue that the article on Theresa May must be changed to "Political career of Theresa May", because she was not notable before that.) There is enough standalone information on this building,
610:
What a ridiculous AFD. We have articles on tons of buildings, big and small, but this one shouldn't have an article -- why, because it is currently in the news? Nonsensical on its face. You're saying notability of a subject has an inverse relationship to events that happen to it. With that logic, we
345:
Why not? It should be even more notable - Titanic had barely any history beyond the iceberg as it was the maiden cruise and it just sank. This building had over 40 years of history between the fire and repercussions will last far longer. These two topics: the bulding and the fire - are far more
1575:- such a highly referenced building and with no guideline really putting a president towards deletion I see no reason for it. The article is in a good condition as well with good sources. I am more surprised that no one had made an article about this block before.--
876:
notable now!! The history of the building and planning decisions leading up to the fire is as important as the fire itself! There's no question that this is a notable building – even this debate about the deletion of its article is becoming notable!
578:
to the fire, then the article would likely have already existed — and as it stands, almost everything in the building's article is a straight cut and paste of content from the fire article anyway. So we don't really need two separate articles here.
972:- if an object is known primarily for one event, consensus is that the article should focus on that. If the fire had never happened, the building would be non notable and an article on it would probably have been deleted or merged.
1293:
to the article about the fire. Not notable before the fire. We have an article about the estate it's on now (which could do with more on subsections on specific buildings); we do not need a separate article about this
1064:
Before the fire, I could see the reason for deletion however this is now probably one of the most notable tower blocks in the United
Kingdom and this page could be used to house information that is unsuitable for the
170:
942:
There's no doubt in my mind that the structure is notable. The article about the fire should briefly touch upon the relevant historical information, with fuller information being contained in this article.
1329:
is a tendency to go into too much detail about recent events. Information that wouldn't be terribly interesting to people years or decades from now. This information can be trimmed or condensed.
783:
855:
The article about the fire is getting pretty long. There's a lot of info in it about the building not directly related to the fire that could be transferred to the article about the building.
1419:
1610:
But the before and after argument is irrelevant. Someone could have made an article about the tower years ago but simply have not. That it is made now is not relevant to the fire itself.
446:
1350:
both would benefit a trim, and size in the fire article can not be saved as the building is crucial to the topic, so there's downsides of splitting the topic with no upside.
921:. This is a very major disaster with highly significant consequences. The article will continue to grow and it makes sense to have a separate article for the building. Meets
1631:
Both the building and the fire are independently notable. We have plenty of articles on tall buildings, and need more - have done several, but can't create them all myself!
622:
Before anyone says "apartment towers aren't notable," there are literally hundreds of articles on apartment/condo towers. Why, for example, do we not delete the article for
123:
782:
Article is well put and has prospects for expanion (i.e. post fire demolition works etc). Now, what if this article existed before the fire? Would it still be sent to AFD?
164:
482:
1541:. There is no adequate case for deletion. There is indeed a sensible discussion to be had on redirecting or merging but that is far better handled on the talk page.
1648:- See little point in forking content development effort about one topic across two articles. At present and going forward the one matter that dominates this topic
799:
Acceptable as a spin off article from the one about the fire, which currently stands at 128KB. Sadly because of the fire the building itself is notable and passes
1592:- The Grenfell Tower is not notable on its own, even though the fire is notable. If it didn't need an article before the fire, then it doesn't need one now.
1265:
We go by consensus, and non ownership of articles. A fork may or may not aid readers, having a magnet for non-RS based second article doesn't help IMHO.
593:
Yes, from now on we should delete all the new articles about events and buildings more than one year old because "they should have existed". Bravo.
1354:
there will be more details, but offset against less RECENTISM, so best evaluated then, and the outcome of this AfD should not prejudice that then.
525:. That article is long enough that it can be justified to spin out the information about the tower itself and its history into a separate article.
1097:
130:
1558:
Both the building and the fire are notable, and there seems to be plenty of information about both to have two articles on them. Thanks.
1105:
429:
96:
91:
1152:
The topic scope is 99% overlap - the focus of the fire topic is currently about the building, so it only hinders readers to split it
787:
17:
1423:
504:
468:
100:
61:
611:
should delete all the arena pages and instead have articles on all the concerts that happened there. Yet, I don't see any AFD for
1258:
980:
669:
83:
1236:
rules, 'cos HE'S A LOCAL and ONLY HE KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING. So, if you don't live in
Kensington, stay away from the article!
185:
152:
1399:
1214:
546:
How does that work if the RSed content just duplicates the fire topic, with no chance to remove it from the main article?
965:
1680:
1069:
article. There are also other tower blocks/estates less notable than
Grenfell Tower that also have articles, including
40:
1100:
990:
Two weeks ago, the building probably wouldn't have been notable. Now it's one of most well-known in whole London. --
325:
1137:
1032:
597:
416:
394:
350:
272:
146:
205:. A standalone article on the building (fork) is unnecessary. The building was not notable prior to the fire.
1311:. This building is notable for only one event, and one event only. The fire is notable, the building is not.
433:
57:
1661:
1640:
1619:
1601:
1584:
1567:
1550:
1533:
1515:
1494:
1473:
1448:
1427:
1410:
1366:
1338:
1320:
1303:
1277:
1260:
1245:
1219:
1195:
1172:
1129:
1109:
1084:
1056:
1035:
1020:
999:
982:
952:
934:
909:
864:
847:
830:
791:
774:
748:
731:
705:
671:
654:
600:
588:
558:
534:
510:
474:
437:
420:
400:
377:
353:
340:
307:
293:
276:
259:
237:
214:
142:
65:
1597:
1185:
1094:
1016:
930:
808:
411:- per above, all the relevant information of the building is already included in the article on the fire.
233:
1676:
1141:
1044:
818:
499:
463:
386:
36:
1250:
I can't speak for anyone else, but I generally prefer one decent article to two shit ones. Just my 2c.
192:
1529:
1334:
1316:
1256:
1029:
978:
883:
826:
728:
667:
594:
412:
391:
347:
268:
1157:
918:
1563:
1299:
1181:
1149:
1066:
1008:
905:
900:
This fire will be long memorable, and as the subject of said fire, the tower is inherently notable
736:
The main focus of the fire topic is currently the building, so that would remove the crucial part.
631:
627:
522:
247:
225:
202:
178:
87:
1511:
1486:
1455:
1440:
1081:
1052:
860:
530:
53:
1436:
1028:
This is a perfectly notable, brutalist building. The recent fire only increased its importance.
639:
320:
Saying that notability is solely due to the fire topic is crucial though. It's not notable like
1657:
1636:
1593:
1546:
1389:
1362:
1273:
1209:
1168:
1012:
995:
926:
804:
744:
701:
584:
554:
336:
255:
229:
228:
covers this topic in more detail already, I don't think any content merging needs to be done.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1675:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1461:
623:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1615:
1580:
1490:
1444:
612:
487:
451:
389:. There is much about the building that is not overly relevant to the fire. All the best:
289:
158:
922:
800:
658:
1525:
1330:
1312:
1251:
1118:
1074:
973:
879:
822:
725:
662:
1145:
720:
As for the duplicative content in the event-based article, that content should be placed
1559:
1469:
1295:
1241:
901:
635:
210:
79:
71:
1507:
1078:
1070:
1048:
948:
856:
843:
770:
543:
526:
303:
298:
Saying that X is more notable than Y does not mean that Y in itself is not notable.
1653:
1632:
1542:
1377:
1357:
1268:
1231:
1204:
1163:
991:
739:
724:
and the event article should reference it. That would make organizational sense. -
697:
580:
549:
371:
331:
251:
1011:
editors appear to be using this as a sub-page now, so it should be kept for now.
117:
1611:
1576:
969:
961:
285:
284:
to article about the fire; the event is more notable than the building itself.
1418:: per above reasons, the tower itself was notable before last week's tragedy.
1480:
1465:
1237:
206:
944:
891:
839:
766:
299:
1047:
is also notable. Between those two articles, this one seems redundant.
574:
article from the event. If the building had any independent notability
321:
619:
than it was as itself. But it gets a pass, because.... why exactly?
1669:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
428:, given that the correct destination is not entirely clearcut.
765:
which makes sense to be outsourced from the fire article. --
760:
It doesn't matter if the building was notable in the past.
1184:. No extensive coverage outside of the fire's coverage. --
1148:
and primaries plus ones for the fire topic. Duplicate of
570:. I'm not seeing a strong case that the building needs a
250:
per Power~enwiki, which is the right place for this. --
201:
There is sufficient coverage of the building history in
113:
109:
105:
177:
1485:
Do I pay extra for the abuse or is it complimentary?
1376:this building was already notable before the fire.
191:
1092:Notable in its own right, even without the fire.
1007:I suspect this will eventually be merged, but the
688:. They are not comparable to an event venue that
447:list of Architecture-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1683:). No further edits should be made to this page.
638:? Literally hundreds. Why? Because above all,
1156:. Better together. If/when needed, split per
8:
483:list of England-related deletion discussions
481:Note: This debate has been included in the
445:Note: This debate has been included in the
617:is now better known for what happened to it
480:
444:
346:seperate than Titanic and its incident.
676:The building and the event are not two
784:2A02:C7D:C59:4500:F536:A500:C284:621B
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1420:2601:8C:4001:DCB9:C33:D17F:2859:92CF
615:, which, just like this building,
24:
1150:Grenfell Tower fire#The building
817:as an acceptable sub-article of
521:as an acceptable sub-article of
248:Grenfell_Tower_fire#The_building
226:Grenfell_Tower_fire#The_building
1043:. The fire is notable, and the
1:
1140:to fire (or better target is
966:MS Herald of Free Enterprise
1506:– per Oddbodz's rationale.
692:had preexisting notability
1700:
1144:) - sourcing is poor with
680:notability loci — they're
326:Sinking of the RMS Titanic
1662:20:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1641:19:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1620:19:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1602:16:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1585:07:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1568:00:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1551:16:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
1534:13:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
1516:21:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
1495:09:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1474:02:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1449:20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
1428:15:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
1411:11:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
1367:00:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
1339:23:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
1321:23:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
1304:16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
1278:18:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
1261:14:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
1246:06:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
1220:22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1196:19:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1173:17:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1130:16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1110:15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1085:15:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1057:14:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1036:12:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
1021:18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
1000:18:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
983:15:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
953:07:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
935:05:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
910:02:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
865:23:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
848:17:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
838:It's a notable building.
831:17:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
792:16:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
775:14:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
749:02:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
732:07:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
706:04:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
672:15:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
601:07:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
589:02:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
559:17:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
535:23:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
511:21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
475:21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
438:15:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
421:13:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
401:12:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
378:12:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
354:07:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
341:20:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
308:07:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
294:10:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
277:10:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
260:05:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
238:03:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
215:02:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
66:22:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
1672:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
696:to the bombing attack.
653:So why don't we create
1142:Lancaster West Estate
1045:Lancaster West Estate
819:Lancaster West Estate
657:? Because above all,
655:The Panorama, Ashford
387:Lancaster West Estate
267:to main article. . .
1646:Redirect & Merge
1005:Administrative Close
684:locus of notability
1182:Grenfell Tower fire
1075:The Barbican Estate
1067:Grenfell Tower fire
1009:Grenfell Tower fire
632:Market Square Tower
628:Presidential Towers
523:Grenfell Tower fire
383:Redirect and merge'
369:Per all the above.
203:Grenfell Tower fire
1439:to the nominator.
1178:Redirect and Merge
958:Redirect and merge
426:Merge and disambig
409:Redirect and merge
1409:
513:
477:
404:
1691:
1674:
1484:
1459:
1406:
1405:
1396:
1395:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1365:
1360:
1276:
1271:
1235:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1192:
1189:
1171:
1166:
1138:WP:REDUNDANTFORK
1126:
1103:
894:
889:
747:
742:
613:Manchester Arena
557:
552:
507:
502:
494:
490:
471:
466:
458:
454:
413:Inter&anthro
399:
374:
339:
334:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1681:deletion review
1670:
1478:
1453:
1401:
1400:
1391:
1390:
1379:
1378:
1356:
1355:
1267:
1266:
1229:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1190:
1187:
1162:
1161:
1119:
1108:
1093:
1030:aegis maelstrom
887:
878:
738:
737:
595:aegis maelstrom
548:
547:
509:
505:
500:
492:
488:
473:
469:
464:
456:
452:
372:
348:aegis maelstrom
330:
329:
269:Mean as custard
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1697:
1695:
1686:
1685:
1665:
1664:
1643:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1605:
1604:
1590:Redirect/Merge
1587:
1570:
1553:
1536:
1519:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1430:
1413:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1323:
1306:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1223:
1222:
1198:
1175:
1132:
1112:
1104:
1087:
1059:
1038:
1023:
1002:
985:
955:
937:
917:An acceptable
912:
895:
867:
850:
833:
812:
794:
777:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
726:Keith D. Tyler
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
646:
645:
644:
643:
636:Panorama Tower
605:
604:
603:
564:
563:
562:
561:
538:
537:
515:
514:
498:
478:
462:
441:
440:
423:
406:
405:
380:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
313:
312:
311:
310:
279:
262:
241:
199:
198:
135:
80:Grenfell Tower
74:
72:Grenfell Tower
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1696:
1684:
1682:
1678:
1673:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1571:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1482:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:back at you.
1463:
1457:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1407:
1404:
1397:
1394:
1385:
1382:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1359:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:Comment: size
1342:
1341:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1324:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1279:
1275:
1270:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1257:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1233:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1127:
1125:
1124:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:Keeling House
1068:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
986:
984:
981:
979:
977:
976:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
954:
950:
946:
941:
938:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
913:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
893:
885:
881:
875:
871:
868:
866:
862:
858:
854:
851:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
776:
772:
768:
763:
759:
756:
750:
746:
741:
735:
734:
733:
730:
727:
723:
719:
718:
717:
716:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
670:
668:
666:
665:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
618:
614:
609:
606:
602:
599:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
573:
569:
566:
565:
560:
556:
551:
545:
542:
541:
540:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
516:
512:
508:
503:
497:
496:
495:
484:
479:
476:
472:
467:
461:
460:
459:
448:
443:
442:
439:
435:
431:
430:89.101.50.203
427:
424:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
402:
397:
396:
393:
388:
384:
381:
379:
376:
375:
368:
365:
364:
355:
352:
349:
344:
343:
342:
338:
333:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:contributions
59:
55:
54:Jo-Jo Eumerus
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1671:
1668:
1649:
1645:
1628:
1594:Calicodragon
1589:
1572:
1555:
1538:
1521:
1503:
1432:
1415:
1402:
1392:
1380:
1373:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1325:
1308:
1290:
1252:
1200:
1186:
1177:
1153:
1134:
1122:
1121:
1114:
1089:
1061:
1040:
1025:
1013:Power~enwiki
1004:
987:
974:
957:
939:
927:AusLondonder
914:
897:
886:) 2017-06-19
873:
869:
852:
835:
814:
805:This is Paul
796:
779:
761:
757:
721:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
663:
616:
607:
575:
571:
567:
518:
491:
486:
455:
450:
425:
408:
390:
382:
370:
366:
281:
264:
243:
230:Power~enwiki
221:
220:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1160:, not now.
970:Piper Alpha
962:Ronan Point
880:James Haigh
165:free images
1652:the fire.
1526:Mtaylor848
1331:Harizotoh9
1313:Harizotoh9
1253:Ritchie333
1158:WP:SPINOUT
1146:unreliable
975:Ritchie333
919:WP:SPINOFF
823:ClemRutter
664:Ritchie333
395:Farmbrough
1677:talk page
1560:Mike Peel
1352:In future
1348:currently
1296:Zigzig20s
1294:building.
1188:Amaryllis
493:Quidditch
457:Quidditch
328:, is it?
37:talk page
1679:or in a
1508:Carbrera
1403:Contribs
1309:Redirect
1291:Redirect
1191:Gardener
1123:Мандичка
1079:Commyguy
1049:Shritwod
925:itself.
890:23:56:03
857:Canuck85
686:together
678:separate
640:WP:PAPER
572:separate
568:Redirect
544:Robofish
527:Robofish
367:Redirect
282:Redirect
265:Redirect
244:Redirect
222:Redirect
124:View log
39:or in a
1654:Gosgood
1633:Edwardx
1543:Thincat
1381:Oddbodz
1358:Widefox
1326:Comment
1269:Widefox
1232:Doncram
1164:Widefox
992:Voyager
740:Widefox
698:Bearcat
690:already
624:Olive 8
581:Bearcat
550:Widefox
373:Lugnuts
332:Widefox
322:Titanic
252:Lockley
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
1612:BabbaQ
1577:BabbaQ
1487:Amisom
1460:And a
1456:Amisom
1441:Amisom
1228:Yeah,
1082:(talk)
1041:Delete
923:WP:GNG
902:SOXROX
801:WP:GNG
659:WP:GNG
286:331dot
143:Google
101:delete
1437:TROUT
1374:Keep:
1346:Yes,
1135:Merge
1106:email
870:Keep.
780:Keep.
762:Today
758:Keep.
694:prior
608:Keep.
576:prior
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1658:talk
1637:talk
1629:Keep
1616:talk
1598:talk
1581:talk
1573:Keep
1564:talk
1556:Keep
1547:talk
1539:Keep
1530:talk
1522:Keep
1512:talk
1504:Keep
1491:talk
1481:WWGB
1470:talk
1466:WWGB
1462:DICK
1445:talk
1435:and
1433:Keep
1424:talk
1416:Keep
1393:Talk
1363:talk
1335:talk
1317:talk
1300:talk
1274:talk
1242:talk
1238:WWGB
1201:Keep
1169:talk
1115:Keep
1090:Keep
1073:and
1062:Keep
1053:talk
1026:Keep
1017:talk
996:talk
988:Keep
968:and
960:per
949:talk
940:Keep
931:talk
915:Keep
906:talk
898:Keep
884:talk
861:talk
853:Keep
844:talk
836:Keep
827:talk
815:Keep
809:talk
797:Keep
788:talk
771:talk
745:talk
722:here
702:talk
585:talk
555:talk
531:talk
519:Keep
434:talk
417:talk
392:Rich
337:talk
324:and
304:talk
290:talk
273:talk
256:talk
234:talk
211:talk
207:WWGB
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
58:talk
1398:) (
1211:ncr
1180:to
1154:now
1128:😜
945:CLW
872:It
840:Deb
767:PM3
682:one
385:to
300:CLW
246:to
224:.
193:TWL
122:– (
1660:)
1650:is
1639:)
1618:)
1600:)
1583:)
1566:)
1549:)
1532:)
1514:)
1493:)
1472:)
1447:)
1426:)
1386:-
1361:;
1337:)
1319:)
1302:)
1272:;
1244:)
1216:am
1206:do
1167:;
1077:.
1055:)
1019:)
998:)
964:,
951:)
933:)
908:)
874:is
863:)
846:)
829:)
803:.
790:)
773:)
743:;
704:)
661:.
634:?
630:?
626:?
587:)
553:;
533:)
489:WC
485:.
453:WC
449:.
436:)
419:)
335:;
306:)
292:)
275:)
258:)
236:)
213:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
60:,
1656:(
1635:(
1614:(
1596:(
1579:(
1562:(
1545:(
1528:(
1518:.
1510:(
1489:(
1483::
1479:@
1468:(
1458::
1454:@
1443:(
1422:(
1408:)
1388:(
1333:(
1315:(
1298:(
1240:(
1234::
1230:@
1120:—
1101:M
1098:C
1095:W
1051:(
1033:δ
1015:(
994:(
947:(
929:(
904:(
892:Z
888:T
882:(
877:—
859:(
842:(
825:(
811:)
807:(
786:(
769:(
729:¶
700:(
642:.
598:δ
583:(
529:(
506:✎
501:☎
470:✎
465:☎
432:(
415:(
403:.
398:,
351:δ
302:(
288:(
271:(
254:(
232:(
209:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.