101:
It's unclear where we draw the line in relation to descendants of royalty. This person is not royal, she does not have the title "Her Royal
Highness", or any other title, not even "Lady" or "The Honourable". My own view is that I would be prepared to treat all children and grandchildren of monarchs
44:
The result was: in this AfD there is a larger majority for deletion than in other AfDs for sub-stub biographies just above this entry on the line of royal succession, but I believe this is more due to the randomness of participation rather than because we're getting close to some magical limit on the
1456:
as I have said previously, there has to be some sort of cut off point beyond which distant relatives of royalty are not inherently notable. Knowledge is not paper, but there are limits. I previously suggested a cut off point of regarding the grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, but not
706:
To suggest so is also POV pushing, so quit it :)! Also that makes every other person highly notable then because there in line for the throne? Look its obvious to me you areant going to provide anyhing useful or concrete to this AfD except repeat she is notable because she n-th in line to the throne
975:
Right, but in the case where we're establishing notability, your opinion of who's notable just doesn't measure up to the expert in the field. For what it's worth, I would guess there's only a single person who tracks the line of ascention, and you could probly verify I'm not that guy (for example,
452:
Too young and distant from the throne to be notable outside of the family context. 29th and counting??? Harry, William etc, will have a few children, Edward a few too, and before you knw it, Eloise won't even be in the top 40, and
Estelle will be one behind. Trees will grow and branches will fall
114:- it appears there was a previous decision to merge so it wouldn't have hurt to have done that, but even merging to 25th in line to the throne is pushing it. An article on those in line to the throne wouldn't be too bad, but they aren't individually notable enough to warrant their own articles
227:
Realistically speaking, if you can name the exact number in line you are to the throne, I'd be willing to keep the article, as long as it's independantly verifiable. Of course, the real case will be that once you're no longer notable, nobody will know where you are in the sucession.
938:
I've already presented such an argument, an explained what distinguishs her from someone who might (in principle) be in line, but where the case is unknown. If the Queen is tracking your position in line, it indicates that the experts in the field judge your position to be notable.
1011:
I have no idea how many he tracks - the reference I found had 39, so I'll accept (at the moment) the notability of the top 39. Whether's its "rude" or not I have no idea, nor am I able to fathom why you might find it rude. You'll have to elaborate why, but I'm pretty sure
1277:- which is pretty reasonable - and even said that I might support the five millionth in line notable if it were verifiable. But in all cases of progression, some chop is applied. 2nd tallest guy is likely to have an article, and so on. I'm not sure where one
948:
This isnt about what the experts in the field of n-th in the line care for, its about whats notable for wikipedia. and im begining to serious believe that you must be one of these "royal expert trackers" as you seem to believe she is notable.
692:
29th in line to the
Canadian Throne, for instance (she does have an impressive collection of positions). She is notably in line for the British Throne, as opposed to people who are unnotably in line (as no one takes note of it. She is a
836:
No, it's not important that she came into her position through parentage. If the order of ascention was decided by lottery, the 29th person in line would be notable. That she gets the position from her parents is incedental. That she
638:
What are you on about "shouting" if you want me to shout should i record my message, your failure to even present a title in your reply pretty much clarifys my position. She is just a un-notable child who has done nothing notable.
1457:
beyond that. Some people are arguing for inclusion on the grounds that this person is in the line of succession to the
British throne. This suggests an alternative cut off point. Fair enough, but I would point out that the
373:
is plain foolish. With certain positions or titles, you're encyclopaedic even if you accomplish nothing. For example, anyone who's ever Prime
Minister of Canada will get an article, even if they're more forgetable than
762:
I'm not saying royalty as a whole isnt notable however this child is not notable, JA has done notable things and had notable things. Can you present me anything notable this child
Estella has done? I think not.
665:
What position? She has no position, shes not a princess, queen or lady she is just a child who is in line for the british throne. Which i may remind you so is everybody else. Thus your argument is flawed!
1198:
You had complained that it was rude I found
Estella Taylor more notable than you - it seemed to me that you must have somewhat equated notability with goodness, which is why I tried to address the issue.
391:
where n < 10. Just seems to me 26th is too far out to count. Even if
Windsor Castle collapses during the Queen's birthday party, I have to think there'd be somebody left ahead of this kid.
342:, then do Al's great-great-granddaughters get articles too? If 20-odd royals bite the dust, perhaps she'll be notable enough with papparazzi all over her, but she's much less notable than
903:
You may believe that - but it's POV, and one that's not nearly universal (for example, the Queen makes note of where she is in line)- that's the problem with the rational for nomination.
45:
line of succession where you're no longer automatically notable. We may need a consensus on what point of the line of succession is automatically notable, but it hasn't been found here.
492:
So just counting british people your saying we should have 5 million nn bios and upwards (of course thats not close to to uk population) and then billions of other countries persons?
810:
Your forgeting she isnt notable however, also is Suri Cruise notable because he or she was born to famous parents? I think not. If we use your argument everybody born is notable.
102:
as inherently notable, which is a fairly low threshhold of notability, but this person is only a great-great-great-grandchild. Knowledge is not paper, but there are limits.
400:
I'm pretty sure it ought to depend on the title - in this case, she's 26th in line for 16th seperate
Queendoms - so split the difference and she's overall 3rd in line ;)
271:
I'll conceed the sarcasm, but the rest of your argument falls to the indefeatable problem that my argument has no flaw. It also have the wonderful virtue of being a
1461:
line of succession to the
British throne, on the British monarchy website, stops at 39 people, most of the wikipedia article on this subject is original research.
801:- that's the mindset I'm saying we can't embrace, because it is a point of view, that can be easily enough refuted, and is just a value judgement.
626:
title, not Title. Your shouting makes it a hard question to answer. Incidentally, title was a terrible word choice on my part. Better to say
190:
is very POV - the argument can easily be made that being Xth in line for the throne of a country (or 16 countries) easily makes one notable.
985:
So.. your telling me now all 1000 or so this person tracks are notable just because there in the elite thousand? Comon thats extremley rude.
1054:
More notable does not mean better or worse. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but Knowledge is not a place for you to advance your agenda.
1352:
1262:
1223:
1187:
1148:
1078:
1043:
1000:
964:
927:
892:
825:
778:
722:
681:
654:
615:
566:
507:
424:
299:
260:
216:
87:
69:
357:
The issue at hand isn't at all who her parents are - republican sentiment aside - it's the importance of the position she holds. Every
201:
Okay, well i must be about 5 millionth in line for the throne right? Thanks for clarifying that i am notable and worthy of an article.
186:- the guidelines for nobility are not policy, they're just proposed policy. To claim that nobility are unnotable because they haven't
466:
P.S. My brother in law is a direct descendant of Confucius (male side). Remind me to give him a Wiki entry if this one is kept ;-)
131:
per above. Darn royals. Why didn't they consider how it would affect Knowledge before deciding on this monarchy system? ;-)
72:
no assertion of notability has been given here. This just seems like annothe royal-cruft article about some non notable person.
737:
believing the position notable. Since you've ignored most of my argument, it may be hard to grasp. I could easily enough say
17:
339:
1247:
My reasoning is that every Britain is in line, so its rude that you find her notable because shes closer then anyone else.
551:
As i have stated she is not, she doesnt even hold a title. Being n-th in line isnt criteria and an extremley silly notion.
1321:
1488:
1474:
1470:
There are plenty of rebutable sources on the British Royal Family and their descendants- it is not original research.
1465:
1448:
1432:
1420:
1408:
1396:
1371:
1358:
1332:
1289:
1268:
1242:
1229:
1203:
1193:
1167:
1154:
1097:
1084:
1058:
1049:
1023:
1006:
980:
970:
943:
933:
907:
898:
845:
831:
805:
784:
757:
728:
701:
687:
660:
633:
621:
589:
581:
statement. You may believe this, as do many others, many others do not. But it is a pure value judgement to say her
572:
546:
513:
483:
463:
439:
430:
404:
395:
382:
350:
314:
305:
279:
266:
232:
222:
194:
178:
147:
135:
122:
106:
93:
53:
334:
is this 2 year old notable other than her great-great-grandfather was king of England? And if more people remember
1503:
143:
This one isn't even titled, and is too far from the main line to deserve an article simply based on her lineage.
36:
749:, I would be pushing a POV (that actresses shouldn't be more notable that doctors, teachers, whatever). One may
1502:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1329:
310:
In this case the adjective blatent is blatently false. But since you've asked nicely, I'll add some citation.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1172:
I never said he was better (it is always possible he is) then you, but he is of course more notable then you.
1348:
1258:
1219:
1183:
1144:
1074:
1039:
996:
960:
923:
888:
821:
774:
718:
677:
650:
611:
562:
503:
420:
295:
256:
212:
83:
1393:
387:
As I said in a similar AFD a few weeks back where I voted the other way, my usual criterion on this one is
1238:
and you not (or maybe you are, I really haven't looked into it)? Anyways, I intented out for legibility.
697:
child that has done nothing notable. She holds a notable position. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.
471:
If your brother in law is verifiably in line to become Confucius, then why not? Nobody suggests we merge
1340:
1250:
1211:
1175:
1136:
1066:
1031:
988:
952:
915:
880:
813:
766:
710:
669:
642:
603:
554:
495:
412:
287:
248:
204:
75:
365:
who walks around left field for an inning without touching the ball is elidgible for an article under
1471:
1405:
272:
50:
1367:
find such an example as I was looking for. Such as Coco Laboy with respect to the Montreal Expos.
347:
170:
120:
1390:
538:
am not notable. Lots of people know where Estella Taylor ranks in the line of ascention because
1208:
I never brought goodness into the matter (we must of set a wikiord here "most indented convo")
1462:
1325:
476:
456:
103:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1440:—As it stands now, the article is completely unsourced. I presume it is verifiable, but once
1337:
You have reached the wrong AfD, please check and try again. (You sure this is the right AfD)
742:
460:
132:
1417:
335:
284:
Yes it does, you say if i can cite a verifiable source, yet said articles are blatent OR.
1485:
1090:
578:
156:
115:
59:
1363:
In the future, I will endevour to choose better examples. Mea Culpa. But I'm sure I
1445:
1386:
1017:
585:
position is worthless - it's notable, tracked for purposes of ascention, et cetera.
436:
392:
366:
362:
144:
877:
This is getting extremley tiresome, every holds that position!! She is no differnt!
1429:
912:
How is it POV? It's fact! Either present a convincing argument.. or dont bother.
1282:
1274:
523:
375:
343:
1368:
1317:
1286:
1239:
1200:
1164:
1094:
1055:
1028:
Is rude in the fact that you think it is more notable then any normal person.
1020:
977:
940:
904:
842:
802:
754:
698:
630:
586:
543:
480:
472:
401:
379:
371:
Well, she's less notable that Winston Churchill, or Jesus, so let's delete her
311:
276:
229:
191:
1093:
is more notable than I am, it's not rude for anyone to observe of as much.
976:
my IP comes from Canada, but I'd guess the guy who tracks this is English).
1404:- she is notable as being in the line of succession to the British throne.
747:
Just a non-notable actress doing her job, which she happens to be good at
358:
1484:
per my own comments in the related nomination for Columbus Taylor.
1281:
to draw the line, but the Queen's website choose 39th, so as far as
245:
It was a sarcastic example of how flawed your argument was, heh.
1496:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
707:
so im going to try to refrain from conversing with you anymore.
871:◄──────────── Getting kind of tight at the margin ────────────┘
1428:
please notable for being in line of succession to the throne
1163:
than me. Notability doesn't address goodness, or vice versa.
1389:, zero gnews or gbooks hits. Frankly db-bio CSD A7 material.
733:
No, it isn't. Notability of a position isn't dependant upon
1416:
as per my comments on other nominations by the same user --
346:(a redirect to her mother) who doesn't merit an article.
1123:◄──────────── Getting kind of tight again ────────────┘
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
479:even though he's unknown outside of that context.
1234:Right, but why else would it be rude to find her
1506:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1444:verified there should be no problem keeping it.
739:I don't think actors or actresses are notable
435:I don't think it quite works that way ;-) --
8:
1014:Calling this personal notable is just rude
753:royalty were unnotable, but they're not.
275:, which doesn't help make it convincing.
1285:goes, that's as far as I can extend it.
1089:To discount the notability of royalty.
1016:fails as a criterion for deletion under
793:something notable, nor would I. Nor is
1320:is also notable within the context of
534:rank in the line of ascention because
522:then it's fine. The key criterion of
369:- that's a better comparison. Saying
1133:, unless of course your a killer to?
7:
526:will cut off the list on it's own.
518:As I've already elucidated, if it's
70:Knowledge talk:Notability (royalty)
1129:Of course he is more notable then
789:I have never claimed that she has
24:
741:but if I went around offering up
1273:Well, I cut an extreme line at
68:(CSD A7) As per my comments on
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
409:She doesnt even have a title!
340:George V of the United Kingdom
1:
530:has the slightest clue where
1322:Southern Illinois University
1489:21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
1475:23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
1466:10:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
1449:20:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
1433:17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
1421:02:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
1409:15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
1397:17:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1385:as non-notable and failing
1372:16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1359:16:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1333:16:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1290:18:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1269:18:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1243:18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1230:18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1204:18:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1194:18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1168:18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1155:17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1098:17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1085:17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1059:17:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1050:17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1024:17:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
1007:17:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
981:17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
971:16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
944:16:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
934:16:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
908:16:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
899:16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
846:16:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
832:16:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
806:16:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
785:16:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
758:16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
729:16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
702:16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
688:16:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
661:16:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
634:16:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
622:16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
590:15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
573:15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
547:15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
514:15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
484:15:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
464:14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
440:02:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
431:07:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
405:02:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
396:01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
383:01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
351:21:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
315:20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
306:20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
280:20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
267:20:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
233:20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
223:20:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
195:20:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
179:20:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
148:19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
136:18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
123:17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
107:17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
94:17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
54:22:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
1523:
841:the position is notable.
1018:Knowledge is not censored
797:a necessary condition to
389:nth in line to the throne
1499:Please do not modify it.
155:as per other editors.
49:, defaulting to keep. --
32:Please do not modify it.
795:doing something notable
1316:Just for the record,
799:being someone notable
745:for deletion saying
1330:Hit bull, win steak
1159:Right, be he's not
577:Which is a highly
1356:
1326:Chicago White Sox
1266:
1227:
1191:
1152:
1124:
1082:
1047:
1004:
968:
931:
896:
872:
829:
782:
726:
685:
658:
619:
570:
511:
477:Toronto Blue Jays
457:Lady Helen Taylor
428:
303:
273:logically fallacy
264:
220:
91:
1514:
1501:
1357:
1344:
1339:
1267:
1254:
1249:
1228:
1215:
1210:
1192:
1179:
1174:
1153:
1140:
1135:
1122:
1083:
1070:
1065:
1048:
1035:
1030:
1005:
992:
987:
969:
956:
951:
932:
919:
914:
897:
884:
879:
870:
830:
817:
812:
783:
770:
765:
743:Jennifer Aniston
727:
714:
709:
686:
673:
668:
659:
646:
641:
620:
607:
602:
571:
558:
553:
512:
499:
494:
429:
416:
411:
304:
291:
286:
265:
252:
247:
221:
208:
203:
176:
173:
168:
165:
162:
159:
118:
92:
79:
74:
34:
1522:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1504:deletion review
1497:
1342:
1338:
1252:
1248:
1213:
1209:
1177:
1173:
1138:
1134:
1068:
1064:
1033:
1029:
990:
986:
954:
950:
917:
913:
882:
878:
815:
811:
768:
764:
712:
708:
671:
667:
644:
640:
605:
601:
556:
552:
497:
493:
414:
410:
336:Albert Einstein
289:
285:
250:
246:
206:
202:
174:
171:
166:
163:
160:
157:
116:
77:
73:
63:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1520:
1518:
1509:
1508:
1492:
1491:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1451:
1435:
1423:
1411:
1399:
1391:Angus McLellan
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1361:
1343:Matthew Fenton
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1253:Matthew Fenton
1214:Matthew Fenton
1178:Matthew Fenton
1170:
1139:Matthew Fenton
1127:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1091:Charles Manson
1069:Matthew Fenton
1034:Matthew Fenton
991:Matthew Fenton
955:Matthew Fenton
918:Matthew Fenton
883:Matthew Fenton
875:
874:
873:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
816:Matthew Fenton
769:Matthew Fenton
713:Matthew Fenton
695:highly notable
672:Matthew Fenton
663:
645:Matthew Fenton
606:Matthew Fenton
597:!?WHAT TITLE!?
557:Matthew Fenton
498:Matthew Fenton
487:
486:
468:
467:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
433:
415:Matthew Fenton
354:
353:
348:Carlossuarez46
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
290:Matthew Fenton
251:Matthew Fenton
238:
237:
236:
235:
207:Matthew Fenton
198:
197:
181:
150:
138:
78:Matthew Fenton
62:
60:Estella Taylor
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1519:
1507:
1505:
1500:
1494:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1483:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1452:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1410:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1398:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1380:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1360:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1132:
1128:
1121:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1002:
998:
994:
993:
984:
983:
982:
979:
974:
973:
972:
966:
962:
958:
957:
947:
946:
945:
942:
937:
936:
935:
929:
925:
921:
920:
911:
910:
909:
906:
902:
901:
900:
894:
890:
886:
885:
876:
869:
847:
844:
840:
835:
834:
833:
827:
823:
819:
818:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
787:
786:
780:
776:
772:
771:
761:
760:
759:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
724:
720:
716:
715:
705:
704:
703:
700:
696:
691:
690:
689:
683:
679:
675:
674:
664:
662:
656:
652:
648:
647:
637:
636:
635:
632:
629:
625:
624:
623:
617:
613:
609:
608:
599:
598:
593:
592:
591:
588:
584:
580:
579:point of view
576:
575:
574:
568:
564:
560:
559:
550:
549:
548:
545:
542:is notable.
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:verifiability
521:
517:
516:
515:
509:
505:
501:
500:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
482:
478:
474:
470:
469:
465:
462:
459:
458:
451:
450:
441:
438:
434:
432:
426:
422:
418:
417:
408:
407:
406:
403:
399:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
372:
368:
364:
363:Johnny Nobody
360:
356:
355:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
330:
329:
316:
313:
309:
308:
307:
301:
297:
293:
292:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
262:
258:
254:
253:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
234:
231:
226:
225:
224:
218:
214:
210:
209:
200:
199:
196:
193:
189:
188:done anything
185:
182:
180:
177:
169:
154:
151:
149:
146:
142:
139:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
119:
113:
109:
108:
105:
100:
96:
95:
89:
85:
81:
80:
71:
67:
66:Speedy delete
61:
58:
56:
55:
52:
48:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1498:
1495:
1481:
1463:PatGallacher
1458:
1453:
1441:
1437:
1425:
1413:
1401:
1382:
1364:
1341:
1278:
1251:
1235:
1212:
1176:
1160:
1137:
1130:
1067:
1032:
1013:
989:
953:
916:
881:
838:
814:
798:
794:
790:
767:
750:
746:
738:
734:
711:
694:
670:
643:
627:
604:
596:
595:
582:
555:
539:
535:
531:
527:
519:
496:
454:
413:
388:
370:
331:
288:
249:
205:
187:
183:
152:
140:
128:
111:
110:
104:PatGallacher
98:
97:
76:
65:
64:
51:Sam Blanning
47:No consensus
46:
43:
31:
28:
461:Ohconfucius
455:Merge with
376:John Turner
344:Suri Cruise
133:Wickethewok
129:Weak delete
1472:Astrotrain
1459:verifiable
1442:thoroughly
1418:Roleplayer
1406:Astrotrain
1318:Dave Stieb
520:verifiable
473:Dave Stieb
1486:RFerreira
117:Yomangani
1446:Ardric47
1353:Contribs
1324:and the
1263:Contribs
1224:Contribs
1188:Contribs
1149:Contribs
1079:Contribs
1063:Agenda?
1044:Contribs
1001:Contribs
965:Contribs
928:Contribs
893:Contribs
826:Contribs
779:Contribs
735:everyone
723:Contribs
682:Contribs
655:Contribs
628:position
616:Contribs
567:Contribs
508:Contribs
437:Fan-1967
425:Contribs
393:Fan-1967
359:Joe Blow
300:Contribs
261:Contribs
217:Contribs
145:Fan-1967
88:Contribs
1454:Comment
1438:Comment
1430:Yuckfoo
1236:notable
594:Again "
332:Comment
1394:(Talk)
1387:WP:BIO
1383:Delete
1161:better
528:Nobody
367:WP:BIO
153:Delete
141:Delete
112:Delete
99:Delete
1369:WilyD
1365:could
1287:WilyD
1279:ought
1240:WilyD
1201:WilyD
1165:WilyD
1095:WilyD
1056:WilyD
1021:WilyD
978:WilyD
941:WilyD
905:WilyD
843:WilyD
803:WilyD
755:WilyD
699:WilyD
631:WilyD
587:WilyD
583:title
544:WilyD
481:WilyD
475:with
453:off.
402:WilyD
380:WilyD
338:than
312:WilyD
277:WilyD
230:WilyD
192:WilyD
16:<
1482:Keep
1426:keep
1414:Keep
1402:Keep
1349:Talk
1283:WP:V
1275:WP:V
1259:Talk
1220:Talk
1184:Talk
1145:Talk
1075:Talk
1040:Talk
997:Talk
961:Talk
924:Talk
889:Talk
822:Talk
791:done
775:Talk
751:wish
719:Talk
678:Talk
651:Talk
612:Talk
563:Talk
504:Talk
421:Talk
361:and
296:Talk
257:Talk
213:Talk
184:Keep
84:Talk
1328:. -
1131:you
839:has
540:she
378:.
167:493
1351:|
1261:|
1222:|
1186:|
1147:|
1077:|
1042:|
999:|
963:|
926:|
891:|
824:|
777:|
721:|
680:|
653:|
614:|
600:"
565:|
506:|
423:|
298:|
259:|
215:|
175:lk
172:Ta
164:ns
161:yo
158:Dl
86:|
1355:)
1347:(
1265:)
1257:(
1226:)
1218:(
1190:)
1182:(
1151:)
1143:(
1081:)
1073:(
1046:)
1038:(
1003:)
995:(
967:)
959:(
930:)
922:(
895:)
887:(
828:)
820:(
781:)
773:(
725:)
717:(
684:)
676:(
657:)
649:(
618:)
610:(
569:)
561:(
536:I
532:I
510:)
502:(
427:)
419:(
302:)
294:(
263:)
255:(
219:)
211:(
90:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.