1026:
when it comes to deciding on the notability of software, i.e. open source software. I see that some of you are involved in open source software too so you probably know the situation all too well. For
Foswiki though the situation is even worse: we have some ugly history behind us that technical writers and journalists tend to stumble upon writing about Foswiki. This always brings in a negative tone to the story, and that's the reason, as far as I see, the (press) coverage has been so low the recent 4 years other than reporting on the fork itself. Today, people are simply tired of this old story. They don't want to read a negative story, they want to read a success story about some shiny web2.0 product. In particular the Foswiki community itself is tired of these old stories. This community is active and working hard to improve the product. As a result, it has been picked up by a large user base in the open as well as by corporate organizations behind the firewall. A lot of them either migrated from an old TWiki or are newcomers. TWiki no doubt earns a place in the wikipedia as it is an essential part of the story of wikis in general. Many other wikis have borrowed ideas from TWiki (take
1035:. I also know that you guys driving the AfD process do an important job on wikipedia to assure a certain level of quality, and if you still think Foswiki is not worth mentioning then so be it. My steam to keep on fighting this thru as a non-regular contributor to wikipedia runs out of steam much earlier and I don't have the same background about the rules as you have. So my situation is particularly week from that pov too. I appreciate your advises on how to prevent the next AfD rolling over Foswiki, how to improve the article and why particularly this nomination happened again. I see the point why the list of references have been removed from the main article and moved over to the talk page: when these references aren't used in the content, why are they there? Good point. These are very helpful hints on the article as seen from a totally different angle. Yet I am not sure
1031:
competitors in the wiki market, open and close source, there are not much that are on the same level of sophistication able to deal with so many different requirements when using these kind of platforms for varying purposes. I am just telling you this so that you get the full picture of the situation. This is also due to a decade of developing TWiki, and now is being continued on the
Foswiki branch by the same people that contributed heavily to TWiki the years before the fork. Lots of excellent very talented people have joined the Foswiki project meanwhile that weren't involved in the fork those days. Now, I almost can hear you again saying, none of this is relevant to the AfD discussion. Yea maybe. Yet still I find this AfD contradicting a certain
771:
journalistic sources of *either* tool in the last two years, though most large FOS-based wikis requiring plugin or enterprise functionality are running one or the other of these tools, though the trend has been towards
Foswiki among visible internet-exposed wikis. I am mentioning this not as something for inclusion in the article (it would be original research) but to help those unfamiliar with the situation better understand the history and current state of this codebase. The codebases have diverged quite substantially (in the last three years, though Foswiki seeks to maintain compatibility with TWiki. A merge, in my opinion, would not be wise given the increasing distance between the projects. —
350:
happened to have control of the trademark (in practice this of course of is an important factor in determining who will end up being the dominant fork)? I think in this situation it is interesting to note that 1) the forking itself received some press coverage and 2) sources start to refer to "TWiki and
Foswiki" after the fork. Again, this wouldn't automatically be sufficient to start having two articles on TWiki and Foswiki, instead of one with some detailed coverage of the fork, but as the two forks diverge that will probably just end up in an awkward solution.
865:
from the main article again and moved to the talk page for no obvious reason. We had a very good and productive discussion on April between interested wikipedians coming to the conclusion that both projects are notable each. I'd really like to see these nominations for deletion to end now and make peace. Thanks.
963:
of the references parked on the
Foswiki talk page and make your own choice which of these serve as a good source for notability. I just picked a few I personally like best and copied them over here. Maybe that choice wasn't the best one. Still I think that this list provides sufficient evidence. I am
294:
What a mess... after reading up on the background of this article this looks like an ugly fork of an open source project that spilled over onto
Knowledge (XXG), with developers of both TWiki and Foswiki being (too) involved with their and each other's articles. While it's easy too find press coverage
978:
Here's the thing - having a list of references on the talk page that aren't used in the article means absolutely nothing. That list has been there for MONTHS and nobody has used them to add anything to the article. Quite honestly, if this is closed as Keep, I'm tempted to archive that list after a
898:
I did not see the (large) list of references on talk page yet, thank you for mentioning them. I fear that they have been removed because they contain little substantial coverage of
Foswiki, however. As I suspect you are familiar with these references, could you point out 3 or 4 that contain the most
449:
Wait, did you really mean this? If an academic writes an extension for MediaWiki, his paper on this extension, containing the sole mention of MediaWiki ("I chose to use MediaWiki as a starting point."), will prove notability of MediaWiki? Could you please explain in more detail? Eg., if project X is
427:
Furthermore, as
Foswiki lacks evidence of notability, I don't really see any reason to merge anything. I see no way the fact that several people described building some wiki-based system using TWiki contributes to TWiki's notability, as none of this works explicitly states (or at least implies) that
349:
First of all, we're dealing with a bit of a complex situation here. It is quite clear that the pre-fork TWiki was notable. Clearly, this notability doesn't automatically carry over to the
Foswiki fork, but to some extent this would apply the post-fork TWiki as well. Why favour them just because they
321:
Are you sure that the fact the authors of paper used
Foswiki as an example for implementation of a particular special purpose system really says anything about Foswiki itself? If so, are you sure that developers of Foswiki-based project are independent of Foswiki? The only source of another type of
1171:
made an "accidental" decision. In fact revisiting this issue so soon unintentionally implies bad faith. I think we're all agreed that's not the case. I've reviewed the references (including the ones on the Talk page) and I beg to reach a different conclusion from our kind colleague who has made
1025:
material covering Foswiki to some sufficient degree. That's what the people involved in the previous AfD have been doing, and I was quite happy with the result. True, there's no better data than more data. Then I've been reading up a bit about the AfD process and the opinions others have expressed
864:
All arguments of the 2nd nomination for deletion are still valid 4 months later. The decision was not "accidental" nor based on "canvassing". The decision to keep the article was based on factual arguments provided by reasonable people. Now, external references mentioning Foswiki have been deleted
613:
I don't think completely understand you first question. Whether a source if primary or secondary also depends on the context. Without some further qualification I don't think this question is even well-defined (primary or secondary with respect to what?) or relevant (the source is clearly suitable
568:
Again, I can't answer that with a yes or no in general. If primary motivation of the authors was publishing a paper and in the process ended up contributing code to an open source project, without an expectation of later gain from that contribution (other than their research results), I'd say then
522:
No I said it depended on the situation. This is one example of where someone could be considered independent of the project. An important aspect here is the he could freely choose on which of several existing projects to base is work. If, for example the extension developer, had the expectation of
1207:
Honestly, the references in the talk page really need to be reviewed and the information, if relevant, added to the article. That list was originally in the main article page but wasn't used for anything. It was simply a dump during the last AFD. That's great and all, but references need to be
1226:
That was my point when I said "accidentally". A bunch of editors with no edits outside Foswiki article drop a long list of "sources" and the AfD is closed as "keep" with no regard to the fact that these sources barely mention the Foswiki (if at all). Even worse, the sources by people who develop
770:
Please note that branding and development are two different things. Just a FYI as to context: TWiki.net the company has apparently burned through its venture capital and the TWiki founder is out of a job. Foswiki still has the bulk of the development (). There has been very little coverage in
507:
FWIW the difference between extension and patch to the code base is that extension can be enabled on the already built product. Does this difference warrant special treatment? If the authors of these papers submitted code to the Foswiki repository, would you regard their papers as independent of
1030:
for one, btw the Xwiki article is more or less on the same level of details as the Foswiki one currently). And TWiki is a substantial part of Foswiki's own history, even more when it is perceived as the only remaining active branch of the fork 4 years ago. With regards to the landscape of other
635:
are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a
400:
Extension developers are sometimes independent of the main project, sometimes not, it depends on the exact situation. E.g. if an academic develops an extension for MediaWiki as part of his research, he would usually be considered independent. I think we're dealing with a similar situation here.
580:
Nice. Needless to say I completely disagree with this point. Next, does the fact that neither of sources claims any significance in choice of this particular wiki over any other? That is: we have no evidence that the choice of software contributed to their research and the "used in scientific
219:
No secondary reliable independent sources discuss this software. In fact all the sources in the article boil down to primary sources and the papers focusing on particular use of generic wiki software using Foswiki as an example. The article was deleted previously multiple times (though it
1039:
would have concluded that the article was so poor that it must be removed. I would have started with a thread on the article on the Talk page first before. And when there are no reactions, well then let there be an AfD. This did not happen. Maybe next time on another article. Thanks.
368:, including both forks. And it doesn't seem likely to diverge anywhere unless there will emerge any significant coverage of Foswiki, which is naturally in a weaker situation here, as it lost it's predecessor's brand. If such coverage emerges, the articles can be split.
983:
have been doing ever since the last AFD but couldn't be bothered. You want to totally prevent any future AFD's? Use that list to prove the notability. Want to keep having AFD's because the topic is marginal? Keep the list in the talk page and do nothing with it.
353:"Non-trivial coverage" is a bit of a subjective term and if these sources are sufficient, they are barely so, ergo the "weak keep". I think it's safe to assume that those source are indeed independent sources, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. —
919:
by Prof. Anandarajan, Murugan & Prof. Ananarajan, Asokan. Eds. (2010). Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-12257-6. p. 215. Foswiki is listed as one of two recommendations for wiki implementations to be used for research projects. Then have a look at (3)
481:
Regarding the MediaWiki example, yes that would supply some evidence of notabilty. In this case the academic chose Fosdem as a starting point, so I don't see the relevance of your question about the transfer of notability from the parent to the fork.
309:
Sources (2) and (1) Nuddlegg pointed out below seem to establish some measure of independent notability. Source (3) only mentions in the context of "a fork of TWiki", but I guess not having two separate articles is not really an option either.
1054:
You are absolutely right: I agree with your sentiment over FLOSS projects' problems with missing coverage, but indeed I see no relevance of these problems to this deletion discussion. The thing you can do is to actually cover the Foswiki at
924:
by Matthes F.; Neubert C.; Steinhoff A. (2011). In: 6th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies (ICSOFT), Seville, 2011. pp. 250-259. Foswiki is mentioned as one of two structured wikis. This paper was awarded as
1002:
This was what I did before completing nomination. My findings are still present in the opening statement. And I did research on this topic prior to this AfD. The fact is that there is no single source that would be in line with
914:
by Dreher, Felix.; Kreitler, Thomas.; Hardt, Christopher et al. (2012) is very interesting. This is a research paper presenting a wiki collaboration environment based on Foswiki, Solr and some custom helper applications. (2) In
964:
not sure what you mean by "independent of topic". I'll keep searching for more material in the meantime. It is sort of hard to spot good candidate references using google between all of these public Foswiki sites popping up ;)
1227:
extension for Foswiki (all but one of these, actually) are not independent, and they don't count at all for the purpose of establishing notability. If we do AfDs this way, we may as well drop the whole process together with
1089:
We tried to cover Foswiki on the TWiki article to some sufficient degree, but then got in conflicts with other wikipedians working on the article that did not agree for certain (historical) reasons. One of these edit wars.
688:
I disagree. The best I could do in this situation would be to say that the Foswiki codebase is a primary source and that the article is "making analytic or evaluative claims about ". Thus a secondary source.
188:
397:
But then we should be having an merge discussion and not an AfD. Merging the articles clearly is an option, I'm just not sure if that would (editorially, for various reasons) be the wisest thing to do.
979:
few months. I'm hoping to spend some time this weekend at least reviewing some of them to see if there's anything that I feel helps with notability. That's something that the Foswiki advocates
88:
83:
821:
received some notice in the period of common history, and now your project is the only surviving branch. Once this move occurs, the Foswiki article becomes immune to AfDs. Nonetheless, the
450:
forked, does the fork's authors' paper contributes to the parent's notability? If not, what is the difference? If yes, what is the difference between authors' paper and forks' home page? —
371:
Next, the authors of extensions to Foswiki are not independent of topic, as, well, they develop something for Foswiki. I'm not sure whether I understand what you mean by saying "
1315:
The sources offered to prove notability for a subject which has been long disputed are monumentally weak. The only truly reliable source provided, from CBS, is actually about
916:
554:
Please, if these papers' authors' code made its way back to the Foswiki's code base, would you still consider them independent? This question is rather vital to discussion. —
143:
237:
700:
But they didn't make comments about the codebase, they commented on their work. And Foswiki happened to be the part of their work; as well as it happened to be a part of
257:
478:, I see—between a lot of false positives—several articles on wikis and enterprise wikis discussing Foswiki. I think this passes—just barely—the threshold for notability.
428:
choice of wiki software was of any importance to their projects. These works are only proof of Foswiki usage, which is in turn a proof of existence, but not notability.
182:
148:
52:. A lot of debate here, but it doesn't appear to me that a guideline-based consensus has developed. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion.
642:
be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.
78:
1106:
sorry for this collective "you", I know that that wasn't you personally who created this article, but you speak on behalf of Foswiki supporters, so...
1120:. In my opinion you chose the easier solution over the right one. This doesn't contribute to the separate notability of Foswiki, like it or not. —
464:
Merging totally different discussion, which I don't think we should be having here at the same time. A merge is not going to be trivial due to
493:
So you claim that the difference is in academical status? Academic extension developers add to parent's notability, but non-academic don't? —
1134:
And now see, why there is so few coverage of Foswiki, even on wikipedia? We always have to jump thru a burning TWiki loop. That's boring. ;)
945:
What arguments? The sources that don't actually cover Foswiki beyond two-three lines? And most of these are not even independent of topic! —
523:
financial gain of increase in social status from additional popularity of the parent project, then he clearly wouldn't be independent. —
1198:
891:
1194:
1208:
used and those aren't. The casual mention of "this uses Foswiki" or "Foswiki is an example" really doesn't do much for notability.
17:
708:'s and their commenting on Foswiki, as all of them are primary sources with the only difference in the strength of connection.
926:
887:
1276:(another article that the blinkered WP community deleted), this is now the second most important platform behind MediaWiki.
805:
You know, the thing that puzzles me in this discussion is: why is there Foswiki article at all? Why did you not amend the
1331:
1303:
1285:
1258:
1240:
1221:
1181:
1143:
1129:
1099:
1084:
1049:
1016:
997:
973:
954:
938:
905:
874:
842:
800:
781:
740:
695:
683:
620:
614:
for establishing notability, i.e. that some besides the developers actually know about the existence of this project.) —
608:
590:
575:
563:
529:
517:
502:
488:
459:
444:
407:
392:
359:
331:
316:
301:
289:
269:
249:
229:
61:
1350:
40:
203:
116:
111:
921:
809:
article with history and details of Foswiki? You could simply note the dismissal of the TWiki.net in the article and
170:
364:
First of all, the situation you depict is trivially dealt by dropping all TWiki-related information to the article
120:
1325:
103:
1067:. And then, once the section on Foswiki matures and incorporates enough references at least barely satisfying
1272:
Foswiki is now the main strand of Twiki development. For commercial intranet wikis, especially those hosting
927:
best paper at the International Conference on Software and Data Management 2011 (ICSOFT 2011), Sevilla, Spain
1072:
788:
1281:
1190:
1177:
777:
712:
649:
596:
164:
1346:
57:
36:
1186:
1173:
773:
469:
1252:
1215:
991:
1291:
1021:
Well, there's not much I personally can do to prove notability other than running around collecting
160:
1321:
375:": the evidence is the articles themselves. This is exactly the same as establishing notability of
196:
1299:
1236:
1139:
1125:
1095:
1080:
1045:
1012:
969:
950:
934:
883:
870:
838:
796:
736:
679:
604:
586:
559:
513:
498:
455:
440:
388:
327:
265:
245:
225:
210:
1277:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1345:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
465:
416:
would mean writing out differences between original and fork, but this article is a clone of
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1273:
631:
569:
can be considered to be independent from that project. I believe this to be the case here. —
53:
1319:
instead. If it is so important, then better sources are needed to show general notability.
1117:
1068:
1004:
717:
rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them
671:
1246:
1209:
985:
1112:
article that Foswiki is worth coverage there or to copy-paste TWiki article's content to
911:
670:
on topic otherwise, they are primary. Consequently, they don't count for the purpose of
1075:
argument, which itself indicates that no separate article on Foswiki may happen now. —
901:
691:
616:
571:
525:
484:
403:
355:
312:
297:
285:
1228:
1295:
1232:
1135:
1121:
1091:
1076:
1041:
1008:
965:
946:
930:
879:
866:
834:
792:
732:
720:
705:
701:
675:
600:
582:
555:
509:
494:
451:
436:
384:
323:
261:
241:
221:
176:
424:
means searching for sources and writing everything from scratch. It's not the merge.
295:
on the forking itself, Foswiki seems to have received little attention afterwards. —
1059:
article, where it is now only barely mentioned. This would warrant a redirect from
107:
137:
412:
We should have been having a merge discussion if there was something to merge:
283:
Also, there seems to have been some canvassing going on in the previous AfDs. —
1168:
1071:, it could be split out. Still, for now (unfortunately) you are forced to use
1007:, while multiple are needed. And no amount of research will cope with this. —
476:
1113:
1060:
922:
Hybrid Wikis: Empowering Users to Collaboratively Structure Information
826:
814:
99:
67:
912:
DIPSBC - Data Integration Platform for Systems Biology Collaborations
1294:? May be you could express yourself using policy-based rationale? —
1316:
1109:
1064:
1056:
1027:
822:
818:
806:
421:
417:
365:
644:
A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.
1339:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
723:
proposes don't make analytic claims on other sources, they make
281:
None of the non-primary sources even seem to mention Foswiki.
917:
e-Research Collaboration - Theory, Techniques and Challenges
322:
coverage among these — #2 — is 3 lines long on Foswiki... —
817:
then. Though arguable, such move at least have some sense:
1108:) faced the choice of either convincing everybody busy on
638:
A book by a military historian about the Second World War
830:
379:
by citing the home pages of its extensions: notable is
133:
129:
125:
383:
or not, its extensions' authors can't help with it. —
195:
715:
specifically stresses, that the secondary sources "
636:source is primary or secondary depends on context.
209:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1353:). No further edits should be made to this page.
719:". In contrast to this definition, the sources
628:
625:Primary or secondary to the subject, of course.
431:Look at it from another angle: do they provide
420:with minimal changes; thus covering Foswiki in
787:How does anything of this relate to Foswiki's
238:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
89:Articles for deletion/Foswiki (3rd nomination)
84:Articles for deletion/Foswiki (2nd nomination)
704:'s work. There is no real difference between
468:issues. (How would we even name the article?
373:unless you have some evidence to the contrary
258:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
256:Note: This debate has been included in the
236:Note: This debate has been included in the
1104:Sorry, but this argument is too weak: you (
829:name every now and then, and naturely gets
255:
235:
435:? Do they imply subject's notability? —
581:research" rationale is valid at all. —
76:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1231:and just write whatever we want. —
220:accidentally survived last AfD). —
74:
899:substantial coverage of Foswiki. —
24:
666:cover their experience and say
1:
79:Articles for deletion/Foswiki
1290:Reference for that? Or just
731:. Quite a huge deviation. —
1332:04:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1144:08:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1130:07:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1100:07:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1085:07:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1050:07:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
825:article gets copypasted to
62:15:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
1370:
1304:21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1286:20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
1259:22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
1241:22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
1222:22:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
1182:19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
1017:17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
998:17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
974:17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
955:22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
939:20:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
906:19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
875:19:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
843:17:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
801:00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
782:22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
741:17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
696:16:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
684:16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
621:15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
609:01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
591:01:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
576:01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
564:01:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
530:01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
518:00:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
503:00:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
489:00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
460:00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
445:00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
408:22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
393:22:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
360:22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
332:22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
317:20:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
302:19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
290:17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
270:15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
250:15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
230:15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
475:Searching Google Scholar
1342:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1167:I see no evidence that
595:BTW, are these sources
959:Please have a look at
727:claims on the subject
659:
73:AfDs for this article:
1199:few or no other edits
892:few or no other edits
1201:outside this topic.
1172:this renomination.
894:outside this topic.
433:significant coverage
1296:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
1233:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
1122:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
1077:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
1009:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
947:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
835:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
793:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
733:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
676:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
601:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
583:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
556:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
510:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
495:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
452:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
437:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
385:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
324:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
262:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
242:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
222:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
48:The result was
1274:wiki applications
1202:
895:
662:As these sources
632:Secondary sources
470:TWiki and Foswiki
272:
252:
1361:
1344:
1330:
1328:
1255:
1218:
1184:
1116:in violation of
1107:
994:
877:
657:
214:
213:
199:
151:
141:
123:
34:
1369:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1351:deletion review
1340:
1326:
1320:
1253:
1216:
1105:
992:
658:
648:
156:
147:
114:
98:
95:
93:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1367:
1365:
1356:
1355:
1335:
1334:
1322:Steven Walling
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1204:
1203:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1000:
943:
942:
941:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
803:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
709:
660:
646:
626:
593:
552:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
505:
479:
473:
447:
429:
425:
398:
369:
351:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
304:
274:
273:
253:
217:
216:
153:
94:
92:
91:
86:
81:
75:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1366:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1343:
1337:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1323:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1260:
1256:
1250:
1249:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1213:
1212:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1073:WP:PLEASEDONT
1070:
1066:
1065:TWiki#Foswiki
1062:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1001:
999:
995:
989:
988:
982:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
962:
958:
957:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
923:
918:
913:
909:
908:
907:
904:
903:
897:
896:
893:
889:
885:
881:
876:
872:
868:
863:
860:
859:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
694:
693:
687:
686:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
655:
651:
645:
643:
641:
634:
633:
627:
624:
623:
622:
619:
618:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
592:
588:
584:
579:
578:
577:
574:
573:
567:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
551:
531:
528:
527:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
506:
504:
500:
496:
492:
491:
490:
487:
486:
480:
477:
474:
471:
467:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
448:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
419:
415:
411:
410:
409:
406:
405:
399:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
363:
362:
361:
358:
357:
352:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
333:
329:
325:
320:
319:
318:
315:
314:
308:
305:
303:
300:
299:
293:
292:
291:
288:
287:
282:
280:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
212:
208:
205:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
162:
159:
158:Find sources:
154:
150:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1341:
1338:
1312:
1278:Andy Dingley
1269:
1247:
1210:
1187:Donaldjbarry
1174:Donaldjbarry
1164:
1036:
1033:Common Sense
1032:
1022:
986:
980:
960:
900:
861:
810:
774:Donaldjbarry
772:
728:
724:
716:
713:WP:SECONDARY
690:
667:
663:
653:
650:WP:SECONDARY
639:
637:
630:
629:
615:
570:
524:
483:
432:
413:
402:
380:
376:
372:
354:
311:
306:
296:
284:
278:
277:
218:
206:
200:
192:
185:
179:
173:
167:
157:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1197:) has made
890:) has made
183:free images
54:Mark Arsten
1292:WP:VALINFO
1248:Ravensfire
1211:Ravensfire
987:Ravensfire
789:notability
599:at all? —
1347:talk page
597:secondary
508:topic? —
381:browser X
377:browser X
307:Weak keep
37:talk page
1349:or in a
1245:Agreed.
1195:contribs
1136:Nuddlegg
1092:Nuddlegg
1042:Nuddlegg
966:Nuddlegg
931:Nuddlegg
888:contribs
880:Nuddlegg
867:Nuddlegg
721:Nuddlegg
706:Nuddlegg
702:Nuddlegg
654:emphasis
144:View log
39:or in a
1114:Foswiki
1061:Foswiki
1023:other's
831:deleted
827:Foswiki
815:Foswiki
725:trivial
668:nothing
466:WP:NPOV
414:merging
189:WPÂ refs
177:scholar
117:protect
112:history
100:Foswiki
68:Foswiki
1313:Delete
1118:WP:GNG
1069:WP:GNG
1005:WP:GNG
981:should
813:it to
729:itself
672:WP:GNG
279:Delete
161:Google
121:delete
1317:TWiki
1169:Panyd
1110:TWiki
1057:TWiki
1028:Xwiki
823:TWiki
819:TWiki
807:TWiki
656:added
640:might
422:TWiki
418:TWiki
366:TWiki
204:JSTOR
165:books
149:Stats
138:views
130:watch
126:links
16:<
1327:talk
1300:talk
1282:talk
1270:keep
1254:talk
1237:talk
1229:WP:N
1217:talk
1191:talk
1178:talk
1165:Keep
1140:talk
1126:talk
1096:talk
1081:talk
1046:talk
1013:talk
993:talk
970:talk
951:talk
935:talk
910:(1)
902:Ruud
884:talk
871:talk
862:Keep
839:talk
833:. —
811:move
797:talk
791:? —
778:talk
737:talk
711:And
692:Ruud
680:talk
674:. —
664:only
617:Ruud
605:talk
587:talk
572:Ruud
560:talk
526:Ruud
514:talk
499:talk
485:Ruud
456:talk
441:talk
404:Ruud
389:talk
356:Ruud
328:talk
313:Ruud
298:Ruud
286:Ruud
266:talk
260:. —
246:talk
240:. —
226:talk
197:FENS
171:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
58:talk
1063:to
961:all
211:TWL
146:•
142:– (
1324:•
1302:)
1284:)
1257:)
1239:)
1220:)
1193:•
1185:—
1180:)
1142:)
1128:)
1098:)
1083:)
1048:)
1015:)
996:)
972:)
953:)
937:)
929:.
886:•
878:—
873:)
841:)
799:)
780:)
739:)
682:)
652:,
647:—
607:)
589:)
562:)
516:)
501:)
472:?)
458:)
443:)
391:)
330:)
268:)
248:)
228:)
191:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
60:)
1298:(
1280:(
1251:(
1235:(
1214:(
1189:(
1176:(
1138:(
1124:(
1094:(
1079:(
1044:(
1037:I
1011:(
990:(
968:(
949:(
933:(
882:(
869:(
837:(
795:(
776:(
735:(
689:—
678:(
603:(
585:(
558:(
512:(
497:(
482:—
454:(
439:(
401:—
387:(
326:(
310:—
264:(
244:(
224:(
215:)
207:·
201:·
193:·
186:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
163:(
155:(
152:)
140:)
102:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.