1004:- what is "further detail"? A birthdate? If this is the only reason articles are deleted, then heaven help the rest of the project. If extraneous information was added, then this would be seen as unnecessary... Perhaps we just delete every article which only has a link to CI and/or CA... Perhaps, as I've stated above, we delete every Test cricketer article who doesn't have any external links and/or references added.
593:. It's possible that articles exist that deal with Dass in a little more depth in the local press - I know, for example, that it's possible to find fairly in depth coverage of Norfolk players, although that would tend to be those who have played much more frequently for the county side than Dass did for Bedfordshire. Given the lack of sources beyond statistical ones (there is also a
936:. Clearly meets WP:CRIN by playing at the highest domestic level. Those who go through the same routine of attempting to force through change on CRIC A). Don't even contribute to the project. B). Have no idea about cricket. The project already reached a consensus to delete articles on players where only their initials were known, resulting in the deletion of hundreds of articles.
855:
controlled than it is now, and
Knowledge has never had enough people doing deep research to monitor new articles. The article creation process we have now with submissions for creation helps, but since we do not require people to go that route, we get lots of submissions that do not come close to meeting inclusion criteria.
721:
I'd say that was reasonable. In cases where there are lots and lots of apps in minor counties matches there may be more of a case for a stand alone article, depending on sources. At the same time, there may be people with 2 or 3 LA apps who played few other matches and about whom we only have limited
691:
There are 95 players who have played List A cricket for
Bedfordshire, with just under half (43) playing a single game for them. Cricket archive only shows initials (not forenames) on scorecards, so may take a while to determine who is who on here. I'm certainly not suggesting information is deleted,
525:
I've not checked the scorecard, but if, as the article claims, he was a wicketkeeper, then he will have been the most involved player in the game whilst his team was fielding. As to the 11 year gap in the nomination, I'm not aware of any limit on this, particularly for such stubby articles that have
854:
Just hope we do not get some of the editors who have commented on the most recent
Kennedy article up for deletion, since there it was argued that existing for 15 years should default an article to notability. I guess some people do not realize that 15 years ago the article creation process was less
376:
a subject-specific guideline. You have conclusively claimed your placing on AfD is null and void as soon as you have done it by noting that he, in fact, did play. There is no such thing as "squeaking" past a guideline - and if you wish to alter this guideline yourself in a way that would affect all
739:
So hang on now... we've gone from discussing the eligibility of someone who clearly passes CRIN, to discussing the eligibility of people who are "a little bit more eligible than others", despite not being eligible by CRIN? Well if that's not hypocrisy.... One moment you're painting me out like an
597:
with less information than at
CricketArchive) and the limited Minor Counties career he had, I'm minded to delete here. Note that I would have no objection to a solely Minor Counties player with substantial coverage in reliable sources being included in the encyclopaedia - there are plenty that I
434:
notable if it meets the subject-specific guideline. A presumption is not a guarantee. In this case there is no significant coverage in reliable sources, which is a powerful indication of non-notability and suffices to rebut the weak presumption of notability arising from a single first-class
954:
Ironically, as I have stated above, the article title was under initials only for a year and a half before this information was added to CA. Where was everyone back then to complain..? If this individual had reached CRIN for the first time today, even if only his initials were available, this
392:- how has it taken you over 11 years to "find" this article and decide it doesn't suit your randomly made up standards, by the way? I'm suspicious. As for our use of the "exhaustively complete" CA database, please indicate to us a secondary source we could use which would fit your liking.
898:
If he meets the cricket notability guidelines they are clearly flawed. We should be able to know more information about someone who played so recently. One of
Knowledge's biggest flaws is inclusion of articles on clearly non-notable sports people who have never received any significant
1255:
Because it is impossible to have a bright-line criteria which accurately predicts which subjects will be notable and which will not. The best we can do is provide a guide which will be right 99% of the time, and accept that in the other 1% of cases, that prediction will be wrong.
453:"Weak notability" is still notability. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use, and demonstrate how they would be more suitably "reliable" to come to your standards, if the ones we have used for the last 15 years do not fit your liking.
798:
Not a clue, but I know that there are two
Norfolk cricketers with more than 100 minor counties appearances who never played a FC, LA or T20 match. I think there's a chance that I may be able to find enough sources about both in the EDP archives and other sources
1118:. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. Could be redirected to a Bedfordshire list if there is one, as mentioned above.
1310:
possible to have brightline criteria we can apply and that is what we have had for all these years. Want to suggest a change to the brightline criteria? Sure. Just make it so that it's universally applicable in all instances.
82:. In other words, meeting NCRIC is not, in and of itself, demonstration of notability. Therefore, there is clear consensus here that the subject is not notable; redirecting as a reasonable search term, as some have suggested.
842:, as a milestone). Not an attack by the way - this is a problem which has been around for at least the 15 years since I've been a member here. I'm just guessing that these Test cricketers attract more traffic than others.
281:. There are simply no sources that go into any depth about him anywhere that I could find (hell, there aren't even any that mention him in passing, aside from the exhaustively-complete stats database Cricket Archive).
706:
28 of the 43 single appearances for Beds made no other top-flight appearances (according to WP); I'd say most of these should be redirected to a list. There is also at least 1 England international amongst the 43.
598:
think could be found - and would have no issue with the article being recreated at some point in the future if substantial sources, perhaps from a local
Bedfordshire newspaper from 2001, were to be discovered.
238:
621:
This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
288:, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match." It's been 18 years - let's face it, he's not going to play any more cricket, and he's not going to become any more notable. ♠
1194:
defers to the notability guideline- not vice versa- and if CRIN allows the unrestrained creation of these virtually empty microstubs then the fault is with CRIN and not our deletion procedures.
60:
is a basic standard for notability; meeting it is sufficient, in and of itself, for inclusion. There are some subject-specific notability guidelines that are explicitly alternatives to WP:GNG;
1243:
No. Please don't distract from my question once again. Why has nobody come up with adaptations to CRIN - which people have attempted to do for the last 15 years, and still have failed to do?
990:. Directly, yes, but in detail: no. Further Google searches reveal no additional information. How long the article has existed is irrelevant; its notability is being discussed here and now.
770:
If you truly believe that to be the case it's proof of how pathetic this project has become. If we're not working to black-and-white criteria, there is no point ever creating articles.
649:
list - say of "Foo cricketers", not just the odd name based on other users' boredom. In the past when we have created these pages based on randomly deleted articles, people have added
1466:
1437:
574:
53:
834:- While we're complaining about the lack of or suitability of certain sources and/or external links, and pulling out random guidelines from nowhere, can someone please fix all the
412:, and clicking on it led me to this AfD. Either way I'm not sure what your "suspicions" have to do with this AfD; you seem to be needlessly personalizing an editorial issue.
304:
636:
535:
284:
He appeared in exactly one game that meets the NCRIC guideline and then apparently never did anything else of note in his rather limited "career". He didn't even really
191:
232:
716:
557:
342:
323:
701:
674:
1448:
notability, not guaranteed. The important information (that Dass played a List A match for
Bedfordshire) will be retained, just as a list entry, not a stub. –
138:
123:
1170:
1150:
1216:
If the fault is with CRIN then why, in the last 15 years, has nobody been able to come up with a logical alternative that is universally applicable?
1032:
You have asked this question in multiple locations, and I have answered it. That you don't like the answer does not change it. My answer remains
665:
I'm going through the 27 List-A games (as listed on
CricketArchive) played by Bedfordshire to see how many players this should encompass.
1396:. Sadly I can't find substantial coverage of this cricketer in any sources. Merging to a list would be a comfortable alternative, but as
198:
917:
To say "there is a problem" when we are going to be, once again, unable to fix the problem, is a worthless and time-wasting process.
839:
409:
624:
756:
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Notability is a matter of judgement, not something which is always black or white.
734:
686:
660:
586:
118:
111:
17:
582:
1457:
164:
159:
941:
350:
331:
312:
293:
253:
168:
1474:
804:
761:
730:
603:
220:
132:
128:
151:
1495:
1123:
904:
860:
786:
So tell me, which
Bedfordshire cricketers who have not made List A appearances would be allowed under this rule?
590:
578:
40:
744:"arch-inclusionism" aside by inventing another, which will be completely and entirely based on nothing but POV?
623:
I see this as being a suitable case to merge a number of short articles into a longer list of related topics.
544:
I've looked up the scorecard, and he took 2 catches and made 2 stumpings as keeper, so he clearly did "really
1470:
979:
937:
800:
757:
726:
599:
346:
327:
308:
289:
722:
biographical information who might be better off being redirected. But those can be dealt with as required.
214:
1424:
1491:
496:
470:
440:
88:
36:
1061:
712:
697:
670:
632:
553:
531:
210:
1272:
1119:
900:
856:
1478:
1460:
1428:
1411:
1360:
1341:
1329:
1318:
1301:
1282:
1262:
1250:
1238:
1223:
1207:
1174:
1154:
1127:
1106:
1090:
1042:
1027:
1011:
996:
962:
945:
924:
908:
884:
864:
849:
808:
793:
777:
765:
751:
607:
500:
486:
474:
460:
444:
418:
399:
384:
353:
334:
315:
296:
93:
246:
679:
Half of which I have no doubt I created... why do I get the feeling I'm being victimized again..?
1407:
260:
594:
479:
I repeat. Please suggest alternate sources which you would consider appropriate for us to use.
1453:
1420:
1338:
1315:
1279:
1247:
1220:
1164:
1144:
1103:
1075:
1067:
1024:
1008:
959:
921:
881:
846:
790:
774:
748:
683:
657:
483:
457:
396:
381:
377:
sports, please suggest how you would do so, or better still, do so in the appropriate places.
278:
107:
73:
64:
is one such. Meeting such a guideline is enough, in and of itself, to demonstrate notability.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1490:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
653:
the names which people have put up for AfD, and these articles have been swiftly dealt with.
627:
and its sub-cat contains 240 players, though not all of them played List A cricket for them.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
983:
492:
466:
436:
413:
84:
1441:
1085:
708:
693:
666:
628:
549:
527:
270:
65:
1351:
1201:
1191:
226:
155:
61:
1074:. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of
1403:
1347:
1229:
1071:
274:
57:
692:
but a list serves the purpose better than a set of microstubs that no-one maintains.
1449:
1355:
1335:
1324:
1312:
1296:
1276:
1257:
1244:
1233:
1217:
1160:
1140:
1100:
1037:
1021:
1005:
991:
956:
918:
878:
843:
787:
771:
745:
680:
654:
480:
454:
393:
378:
185:
1065:
430:. Bobo192 is the editor needing familiarisation with WP:N. It says an article is
1136:
616:
365:
1402:
has pointed out these lists assmebled after AfDs are often poorly maintained.
1080:
1469:
that Spike created. At some point the rest of that list will get filled out.
838:
cricketers with zero references or external links? (There are seven alone in
56:. There seems to be some misunderstanding of our notability guidelines here.
1419:. Really non-notable other than by the most pedantic criteria imaginable.
1195:
740:
arch-inclusionist because I'm sticking to one rule, the next you're kicking
491:
Newspaper articles that discuss Dass and his career are an obvious example.—
147:
99:
1392:
79:
standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline
435:
appearance. The nomination is valid and correct, and I agree with it. --
526:
no incoming links that someone is unlikely to stumble upon by chance.
523:, according to the article: "He did not bat or bowl during the match."
277:, which is still required for subjects whose notability falls under
1099:
GNG is directly contradicted by N. What is the point of either?
1486:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
408:
Probably the same way I did—this article is top of the list of
1398:
1334:
If you cannot supply an alternative then that is pointless.
1271:
brightline criteria is exactly that. There is no "will be".
1287:
Sorry, poor semantics; I should have said "which subjects
577:) - I can find passing mentions, but nothing in depth, at
465:
Significant coverage in reliable sources. Not just stats.—
725:
Any chance that you could create the list at some point?
1467:
List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players
1438:
List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players
1033:
575:
List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players
181:
177:
173:
54:
List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players
1275:. Oh but, wait, I forgot, WP:N is only a guideline...
1078:
in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.
245:
1440:. Despite the claims of the article creator, meeting
1066:
no subject-specific notability guideline, including
573:to a suitable list if it were created (there is no
1354:as a guide. No bright-line criteria is necessary.
305:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1498:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1273:Knowledge:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary
372:GNG - a random, woolly, POV-biased, guideline -
368:- it clearly states that an article has to meet
341:Note: This discussion has been included in the
322:Note: This discussion has been included in the
303:Note: This discussion has been included in the
273:with that List A appearance, he does not meet
1190:per Blue Square Thing. As pointed out above,
877:As opposed to articles like this which do..?
410:Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009
259:
8:
1159:I've added a fourth source to the article --
343:list of England-related deletion discussions
324:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
139:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1465:FWIW - I've added an entry for him on the
340:
321:
302:
1295:not". Aside from that, my point stands.
1070:is a replacement for or supercedes the
955:conversation would not be happening...
620:
518:
77:
986:. What is provided clearly does not "
645:If we do this we will have to make a
7:
364:- Please familiarize yourself with
24:
840:Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers
988:the topic directly and in detail
625:Category:Bedfordshire cricketers
269:Although the subject squeaks by
124:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1323:I disagree with the premise.
615:to suitable list as per BST.
1072:General Notability Guideline
982:above. Research provides no
1064:has already confirmed that
419:15:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
114:(AfD)? Read these primers!
94:02:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
1515:
1479:13:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
1461:04:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
1429:00:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
1412:18:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1361:18:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1342:16:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1330:16:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1319:15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1302:15:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1283:15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1263:15:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1251:15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1239:15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1224:14:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1208:12:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1175:12:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1155:10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
1128:23:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1107:13:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1091:12:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1043:15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1028:15:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
1012:10:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
997:10:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
963:08:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
946:08:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
925:07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
909:06:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
885:07:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
865:06:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
850:03:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
809:19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
794:18:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
778:19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
766:19:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
752:18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
735:17:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
717:17:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
702:14:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
687:13:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
675:13:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
661:13:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
637:12:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
608:09:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
558:09:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
536:09:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
501:09:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
487:09:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
475:09:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
461:09:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
445:09:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
400:08:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
385:08:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
354:08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
335:08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
316:08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
297:08:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
415:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1488:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1060:per Blue Square Thing.
76:states explicitly that
519:He didn't even really
112:Articles for deletion
72:such an alternative;
984:significant coverage
1068:Notability (sports)
587:Northants Telegraph
1291:notable and which
1471:Blue Square Thing
1393:Blue Square Thing
1306:In that case, it
1173:
1153:
980:Blue Square Thing
901:John Pack Lambert
857:John Pack Lambert
801:Blue Square Thing
758:Blue Square Thing
727:Blue Square Thing
600:Blue Square Thing
356:
337:
318:
129:Guide to deletion
119:How to contribute
1506:
1401:
1395:
1390:or redirect per
1358:
1327:
1299:
1260:
1236:
1168:
1148:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1040:
994:
416:
264:
263:
249:
201:
189:
171:
109:
92:
34:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1496:deletion review
1397:
1391:
1356:
1325:
1297:
1258:
1234:
1206:
1120:No Great Shaker
1086:
1081:
1038:
992:
567:Probably delete
414:
206:
197:
162:
146:
143:
106:
103:
83:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1512:
1510:
1501:
1500:
1482:
1481:
1463:
1431:
1414:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1267:The beauty of
1211:
1210:
1200:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1171:old fashioned!
1151:old fashioned!
1130:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1094:
1093:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1015:
1014:
999:
968:
967:
966:
965:
949:
948:
930:
929:
928:
927:
912:
911:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
870:
869:
868:
867:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
723:
640:
639:
610:
595:CricInfo entry
563:
562:
561:
560:
539:
538:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
448:
447:
424:
423:
422:
421:
403:
402:
387:
358:
357:
338:
319:
267:
266:
203:
142:
141:
136:
126:
121:
104:
102:
97:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1511:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1394:
1389:
1386:
1385:
1362:
1359:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1300:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1176:
1172:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1084:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1051:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1003:
1000:
998:
995:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
969:
964:
961:
958:
953:
952:
951:
950:
947:
943:
939:
935:
932:
931:
926:
923:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
906:
902:
897:
894:
893:
886:
883:
880:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
866:
862:
858:
853:
852:
851:
848:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
829:
810:
806:
802:
797:
796:
795:
792:
789:
785:
779:
776:
773:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
750:
747:
743:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
688:
685:
682:
678:
677:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
659:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
642:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
611:
609:
605:
601:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
524:
522:
517:
514:
513:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
485:
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
459:
456:
452:
451:
450:
449:
446:
442:
438:
433:
429:
426:
425:
420:
417:
411:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
398:
395:
391:
388:
386:
383:
380:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
355:
352:
348:
344:
339:
336:
333:
329:
325:
320:
317:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
291:
287:
282:
280:
276:
272:
262:
258:
255:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
208:Find sources:
204:
200:
196:
193:
187:
183:
179:
175:
170:
166:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
125:
122:
120:
117:
116:
115:
113:
108:
101:
98:
96:
95:
90:
86:
81:
80:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1487:
1485:
1452:
1445:
1433:
1421:RobinCarmody
1416:
1387:
1307:
1292:
1288:
1268:
1202:
1196:
1187:
1183:
1132:
1115:
1057:
1053:
1001:
987:
975:
971:
938:StickyWicket
933:
895:
835:
831:
741:
650:
646:
612:
570:
566:
545:
520:
515:
431:
427:
389:
373:
369:
361:
285:
283:
268:
256:
250:
242:
235:
229:
223:
217:
207:
194:
105:
78:
69:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1444:only gives
1228:They have.
579:Luton Today
493:Mkativerata
467:Mkativerata
437:Mkativerata
362:Speedy keep
233:free images
1076:WP:NSPORTS
583:Radlett CC
279:WP:NSPORTS
74:WP:NSPORTS
1492:talk page
899:coverage.
709:Spike 'em
694:Spike 'em
667:Spike 'em
629:Spike 'em
619:states :
550:Spike 'em
528:Spike 'em
148:Dean Dass
100:Dean Dass
85:Vanamonde
37:talk page
1494:or in a
1446:presumed
1442:WP:NCRIC
1434:Redirect
1404:Ajpolino
1188:redirect
1062:This RfC
1058:redirect
1020:Anyone?
976:Redirect
647:complete
613:Redirect
591:WH Times
589:and the
571:redirect
432:presumed
271:WP:NCRIC
192:View log
133:glossary
66:WP:NCRIC
50:redirect
39:or in a
1399:Bobo192
1357:Harrias
1352:WP:CRIN
1350:, with
1346:I did.
1326:Harrias
1298:Harrias
1259:Harrias
1235:Harrias
1192:WP:CRIN
1169:Become
1161:Dweller
1149:Become
1141:Dweller
1039:Harrias
1002:Comment
993:Harrias
832:Comment
516:Comment
390:Comment
239:WP refs
227:scholar
165:protect
160:history
110:New to
62:WP:PROF
1417:Delete
1388:Delete
1348:WP:GNG
1269:having
1230:WP:GNG
1184:Delete
1135:Meets
1116:Delete
1054:Delete
972:Delete
896:Delete
428:Delete
370:either
351:(talk)
332:(talk)
313:(talk)
294:(talk)
275:WP:GNG
211:Google
169:delete
58:WP:GNG
569:- or
254:JSTOR
215:books
199:Stats
186:views
178:watch
174:links
16:<
1475:talk
1450:Tera
1425:talk
1408:talk
1336:Bobo
1313:Bobo
1277:Bobo
1245:Bobo
1218:Bobo
1197:Reyk
1165:talk
1145:talk
1139:. --
1137:WP:V
1133:Keep
1124:talk
1101:Bobo
1034:this
1022:Bobo
1006:Bobo
978:per
957:Bobo
942:talk
934:Keep
919:Bobo
905:talk
879:Bobo
861:talk
844:Bobo
836:Test
805:talk
788:Bobo
772:Bobo
762:talk
746:Bobo
731:talk
713:talk
698:talk
681:Bobo
671:talk
655:Bobo
651:only
633:talk
617:WP:N
604:talk
554:talk
546:play
532:talk
521:play
497:talk
481:Bobo
471:talk
455:Bobo
441:talk
394:Bobo
379:Bobo
366:WP:N
286:play
247:FENS
221:news
182:logs
156:talk
152:edit
89:Talk
1454:tix
1436:to
1293:are
1289:are
1203:YO!
1186:or
1082:Dee
1056:or
974:or
548:".
347:PMC
345:. ♠
328:PMC
326:. ♠
309:PMC
307:. ♠
290:PMC
261:TWL
190:– (
70:not
68:is
52:to
1477:)
1427:)
1410:)
1308:is
1232:.
1167:)
1147:)
1126:)
1087:03
1036:.
944:)
907:)
863:)
807:)
764:)
742:my
733:)
715:)
700:)
673:)
635:)
606:)
585:,
581:,
556:)
534:)
499:)
473:)
443:)
374:or
349:♠
330:♠
311:♠
292:♠
241:)
184:|
180:|
176:|
172:|
167:|
163:|
158:|
154:|
1473:(
1458:₵
1423:(
1406:(
1339:.
1316:.
1280:.
1248:.
1221:.
1163:(
1143:(
1122:(
1104:.
1025:.
1009:.
960:.
940:(
922:.
903:(
882:.
859:(
847:.
803:(
791:.
775:.
760:(
749:.
729:(
711:(
696:(
684:.
669:(
658:.
631:(
602:(
552:(
530:(
495:(
484:.
469:(
458:.
439:(
397:.
382:.
265:)
257:·
251:·
243:·
236:·
230:·
224:·
218:·
213:(
205:(
202:)
195:·
188:)
150:(
135:)
131:(
91:)
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.