1314:
essay continues, "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known. But if all you can do is look into a crystal ball or base your information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace, then it's best not to create a page on the album until it's at least within a week or two of release." Nothing about it being absolutely necessary to delete a page if it has no title, track listing, or release date. Therefore, your rationale is not supported by that essay: It cites that there can be exceptions, you do not. The crystal ball, now, is something you have a completely wrong idea about. You say, "that is all your sources are reporting....something they can't name, containing something they don't know and arriving at some point they can't specify. That's a lot of unknowns to be in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia." That is, again, your own agenda, not one supported by any of your cited arguments. We are not looking into the crystal ball to predict anything. These are unknowns you yourself are creating of thin air: does the article attempt to answer them? No, it doesn't. The article uses verifiable information to detail the production (thus far) and the revealed themes of an in-process project. Nowhere does our friendly crystal ball policy say "if too many things that are standard are unknown about an album, then an article shouldn't be there." It says, basically, if all we can do is predict things with unreliable sources, then the article shouldn't be there. We are not doing that. Should we rename the article "Production of Korn's ninth studio album" until we get what you desire? No, I don't think so. Bottom line, there is too much information for it to be anywhere else but in its own relevant article. Just because your own delusional standards don't support that idea, it doesn't mean we delete the page. By your standards, if we have a really well-documented album complete with a complete
Production section, a complete Themes section, a complete Personnel section, a complete Reception section, etc, etc, it should still be deleted if it doesn't have three things: a title, a track listing, and a release date. How absurd is that? Really, completely. As JayHenry said, please re-examine these arguments of yours, factoring in the exceptions this time; which you've thus far failed to note.
1136:— I said nothing about shortcuts there, as you can see by actually reading what is written. I encouraged you to read the policy and the essays that you are citing, because they don't actually say what you obviously think them to say. I encourage you a second time, repeating the enouragement that you are given below by another editor, to familiarize yourself with what WP:CRYSTAL policy actually is, and what it is aimed at, and what rule of thumb WP:HAMMER in fact sets out. Again, your "no track list, no release date" rationale is supported by neither one, nor is it supported by deletion policy or any other policy. Please actually read and familiarize yourself with both what policies actually say and what is actually written in this discussion.
827:
belong, then? I think we need to define "sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information". On a different note, we should also define "exceptionally high profile" and "special;" these are again, things the policy leaves its editors to make a consensus on case-to-case. I've seen plenty of pre-release articles that aren't exceptionally high-profile, but they have gotten to stay because they have a plethora of good information. It just seems absurd to me that this can't have its own article when we can pull up a bunch of relevant information on it.
393:
disruptive. The only reason why you're calling me disruptive is because I disagree with you. Heck, you even told me to go away one time because you said that I was a troll. Here is your complaint: "Previously tagged with an invalid G4 by the nominator, and hasn't been properly AFD tagged in the article". If you have a problem with something being wrong and you won't try to fix it, don't bring it up because it sounds like you're trying to make a point. I still didn't get an apology for that whole troll incident.
1248:, you would see that neither has those as any sort of necessary or sufficient condition for the article to be deleted. For CRYSTAL, the actual policy, your arguments are not even relevant. You seem to claim that we "disagree" whether or not your arguments are grounded in the essay. True enough. This is the same sort of disagreement where I say the sky is full of air and you say the sky is full of spidermonkeys. It's true that we disagree, but you would also be empirically incorrect. --
1011:- Article is well-sourced, and is validly potentially start- or C-class. As I stated in my above comment, album is moving along nicely; they have 15 or 16 rough songs, with 2 or 3 finished songs; the lyrical themes have already been explained (and sourced); a rough release date has been given. To top it all, the band has announced its method for recording. It's very well-sourced, well-documented, and well-organized. The sourcing clearly prevents it from violating
892:. While I often nominate articles for this same reason, this article shows a great amount of information about the album. There is no name or track list released, but there is a lot of information about the styles and lyrical themes of this album. I could understand this being an AFD if there was little to no context, or if it was confirming that there was going to be a 9th SA, but this article goes much more in depth.
785:(the given example) was, perpetually on hold, and no one has offered any reason to believe that it is. NALBUMS tells us that "eparate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release." I don't think there is sufficient reliably sourced information to clear that hurdle; the soundest basis for your position is to argue that there
1278:
sometimes a future album will contain enough verifiable information for a decent article even if the title is not known." You can call me arrogant, if you like, but why not instead address that the text of the pages you're citing in your argument do not support your argument and in fact support the views of those with whom you disagree? Or, just more simply,
1023:, again, the information available regarding the production and the themes and the release of this album completely render WP:HAMMER irrelevant; whether or not the album has a title does not directly limit or enhance content, and should therefore not restrict content allowed here. That's all. Keep; it's well-sourced, and it's not violating anything.
766:. As to NALBUMS, you are quoting it only in part. You concede that it says "unreleased albums are in general not notable." It goes on to underline, however, that "n a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... this only applies to a
1220:
Even more sadly, you can't accept that people disagree with you without making assumptions about how much they've read. There is no title. There is no planned release date. There is no track list. There is a promise that there will be an ablum called something, with some yet to be determined songs on
826:
seem pretty solid, however, it just seems like another blanket ban to me ("if it doesn't live up to X standard, it's gotta go"). This article is certainly too large to fit in a section on another article, but according to that policy it would seem to be too small for its own article, so where does it
821:
I just want to set it straight that I wasn't trying to admonish Simon Dodd for linking to an essay (as I know that is allowed), but I was simply trying to point out that that particular essay seems to hold no authority in this specific case. As for WP:NALBUMS, you're right; I didn't quote it entirely
1313:
that you haven't understood what you've read. Hammer's Law does indeed say "If the name of a future album is not yet known, the album is very likely to see its page deleted from
Knowledge." That's fair enough; however, you might as well cite that one sentence, and not the entire essay. Further, the
1091:
Yes, it does fail CRYSTAL. And I know that HAMMER is an essay, but I don't care if HAMMER is a policy or an essay, this fails it and citing this as failing it is simply a shortcut to avoid a lot of extensive typing. Of course you know it's a shortcut and are just being disruptive and argumentative.
351:
that the article is a recreation of deleted material. A G4 tag is a request for admin attention, and it's up to the reviewing admin, with access to deleted revisions, to make the call. It was a perfectly valid use of a G4 tag, it just happened that the article was in fact substantially different. ~
1429:
Perhaps that could be the case if the article was just a couple sentences, saying nothing more then the album is going to be released, but this article has a lot more information then that, (it has much more information then other korn album articles.) What I'm saying is: if it's well sourced, and
628:
is pretty irrelevant, isn't it? It's not an actual policy, so citing it for the deletion is completely invalid; especially in this case. Production for this album has started, the headman already has conceived and publicly explained what he plans to do lyrically, they've evidently already finished
1277:
The issue here is that
Crystal says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced" and Hammer says "There are occasional exceptions to this law, as
373:
With all due respect, a G4 tag is a request for speedy deletion, not admin attention. Some admins would have taken the opportunity to delete the article simply because previous articles on the same subject have been deleted, so I'm grateful that you beat those admins to it. If there aren't better
328:
Where did I complain about it being wrong? I merely pointed out that the nomination had not been completed properly. Your not being an admin meant that you could not see for yourself whether this version was substantially identical to the previously-deleted version, but you tagged it anyway even
724:
As S Marshall says, linking to a page as a shorthand is not forbidden at AFD. But I agree that policy doesn't support the deletion talked about in WP:HAMMER here. There are multiple sources discussing this subject, from which an in-depth article can clearly be constructed. The fact that the
698:
Citing an essay is quite normal at AfD, and is taken to mean that the citing user agrees with the reasoning in the essay. It's a shortcut to avoid re-typing a lot of material. Even though I disagree with Simon Dodd in this case, I think he should not be admonished for citing an essay in his
392:
I think that you were looking for an argument because you mentioned something that didn't need to be mentioned. You didn't need to whine about my mistake if you weren't planning on trying to fix it Why couldn't you just !vote keep instead of bringing up irrelevent stuff? Bringing that up was
1068:
No, it doesn't fail WP:CRYSTAL. Nor, indeed, does it "fail" WP:HAMMER (which doesn't actually set out the rule that you think it does). I suggest a careful reading of both, paying attention to what the former says about verifiability and original research and to what the latter does
1308:
the arrogant one. Because he explained the faults. Hahhhh. Niteshift36, get over yourself. JayHenry has dismantled your assertions legitimately, and he might have been wrong in assuming you didn't read your cited arguments, and he might have offended you. Fair enough. However, it is
599:
It can't be deleted for recreation. Because The 2nd nomination was
September 10th 2008, so the amount of information had obviously been increased, and is now an actual article, plus the article was going to recreated when more info became available no matter what. Just saying.
467:
I should think it's pointless and unconstructive to delete this at this stage. Korn aren't exactly a pub band, and it's not as if the album won't ever be released; there are real sources, and there's real notability here. I can see some potential benefits in a merge to
257:
Well, I was kind of hoping that someone would fix it if they noticed it since I have no other choice besides to do it that way because subst:afdx links to the 2nd nomination. Also, I don't have the ability to view past versions. Bringing that stuff up is irrelevant.
508:
violations; this one seems okay. It deals principally in verifiable facts supported by reliable sources; and there seems to be a fairly good pile of usable, encyclopedic information available - enough to warrant a separate article rather than a paragraph in
1221:
it as some future date. And that is all your sources are reporting....something they can't name, containing something they don't know and arriving at some point they can't specify. That's a lot of unknowns to be in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia.
1235:
I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are confirming my assertion. I am not assuming you have failed to read them, I am observing that you have failed to read them. I obviously agree that there is no planned release date, title and no track list. But
674:" That's saying, in other words, unreleased albums with bad sourcing are generally not notable. It also says, for that matter, that generally if the artist is notable, then so is the album; and also that the album may still be notable,
780:
not notable, but that some very rare, special cases are, we can be sure that in the mine run of cases, unreleased albums are not notable. This album is not "special" or "exceptionally high profile"; certainly not in the sense that
678:, if it's got good sourcing. This album is both by an artist considered widely notable, and has sufficient independent sourcing to imply its notability. Therefore, this article is simply supported by the two guidelines you cited.
557:
90:
85:
190:
1205:
appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That's what this article does.
1262:
No, you aren't as correct as you think you are. Unfortunately, you have displayed such an inordinate amount of arrogance and self-delusion that it is clear that further discussion with you is absolutely pointless.
730:
629:
two or three songs, while having potentially 15 or 16 rough concepts for songs. The fact that a title hasn't been announced, therefore, is irrelevant; the article should stay solely on the content it
243:. This is a reasonably well sourced article about an album that is already in production. Previously tagged with an invalid G4 by the nominator, and hasn't been properly AFD tagged in the article.--
871:
Given that the article was previously deleted in
September 2008 and now cites eleven sources, at least ten of which are from 2009, there is no way that this could possibly be deletable as a G4.--
1015:: the article simply states what its sources do, it never strays from that, so Knowledge is not predicting the future, although the sources might be. However, I believe WP:CRYSTAL states that
151:
663:
In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on
Knowledge.
80:
184:
281:
just as it has in the previous two nominations! Large trout to Michig for pointing out that the AFD was broken without actually helping fix it. (It has since been fixed.)
234:
311:"I don't think the article should be at AFD in the first place." That really is no excuse to complain about the AFD being wrong without fixing it or trying to fix it.
118:
113:
122:
105:
1113:. So far, the production of the album is well-documented, and we don't predict anything the sources don't. We're perfectly in-line with WP:CRYSTAL.
925:
the early versions had not much more than what this article has (except a title). Yes I know, otherstuffexists, but just bring up that as a point.
1461:
1440:
1418:
1400:
1377:
1329:
1291:
1272:
1257:
1230:
1215:
1179:
1145:
1128:
1101:
1086:
1063:
1038:
1003:
980:
966:
946:
913:
880:
866:
842:
816:
754:
719:
693:
648:
610:
590:
533:
496:
444:
430:
416:
402:
387:
368:
342:
320:
306:
290:
267:
252:
63:
347:
As the admin that declined his speedy tag, I have to say I don't have a problem with people G4 tagging articles like this where they have a
205:
726:
172:
1304:
for it to be true, and this JayHenry comes and tries to explain supposed faults, giving examples and a well-supported argument, and so
994:"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."
807:
712:
581:
489:
59:
109:
17:
772:
166:
1073:
say about blanket rules. "No track list, no release date." is not a rationale supported by any policy, from WP:CRYSTAL to
789:
sufficient material, and that is a respectable enough position - but a far cry from erroneously claiming, as you do, that "
1452:
I think this article is notable, contains reliable sources and doesnt contain any crystal balling. As simple as that....
1201:. Sadly, they appear not even to have read as far as the third sentence of either page. For the policy, we'll note "It
325:
It's also not an excuse to bring up the invalid csd-g4 when you know that I'm not an admin. 16:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
162:
297:
I don't think the article should be at AFD in the first place. Credit to JBsupreme for doing something constructive.--
52:
1430:
has a good amount of useful information, the fact that it has no tittle really shouldn't be that much of an issue.
101:
69:
212:
1476:
1074:
759:
Not only is it fine to cite an essay as persuasive authority, as S Marshall and Uncle G point out, HAMMERTIME is
36:
1405:
We should wait until the album comes out (and has a title) before we publish an article about it here. In this
725:
verifiable content that can be constructed doesn't match some arbitrary pattern doesn't warrant deletion. Like
1475:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
741:
support the blanket deletion of all "X's Nth studio album" articles. Ironically, a blanket application is a
1457:
1371:
940:
907:
733:) this is a demonstration of why when all one has is a WP:HAMMER often too many things look like nails. (A
178:
1268:
1226:
1097:
1059:
999:
803:
707:
577:
484:
1431:
1170:
601:
1414:
517:
primarily refers to excessive and/or unverifiable speculation - this does not seem to be either. ~
440:
426:
398:
316:
286:
263:
230:
198:
1453:
1396:
1363:
1287:
1253:
1211:
932:
899:
564:
378:
need an admin to look at them than tagging them for speedy deletion, there certainly should be.--
671:
however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
1353:
1321:
1245:
1198:
1166:
1141:
1120:
1110:
1082:
1051:
1030:
1012:
991:
976:
922:
862:
834:
790:
750:
685:
657:
640:
542:
514:
505:
278:
222:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1264:
1241:
1222:
1194:
1093:
1055:
1047:
1020:
995:
955:
876:
625:
546:
412:
383:
338:
302:
248:
799:
700:
573:
477:
1391:
I think theres enough decent information for a keep. The album will be out soon aswell.
822:(I skimmed and must have missed the later mention of pre-album notability. Sorry). That
1410:
959:
436:
422:
394:
312:
282:
259:
226:
1392:
1283:
1249:
1207:
811:
585:
330:
1046:. Some reliable sources, some of them aren't. No track list, no release date. Fails
504:. While it's true that a lot of articles about unnamed future albums are gratuitous
1316:
1137:
1134:
Of course you know it's a shortcut and are just being disruptive and argumentative.
1115:
1078:
1025:
972:
858:
829:
746:
680:
635:
139:
1193:. The editors arguing for delete have failed to take the time to actually read
872:
857:
The content here now is not identical to the content deleted in
September 2008.
435:
Comment from talk page: "You are not welcome here. Go away" And I'm the troll?
408:
379:
334:
329:
though you had not yet had a reply to the question you raised regarding this at
298:
244:
518:
421:"which was to be demonstrated" Do you honestly want me to post the revisions?
353:
333:. Stop looking for an argument in every edit, it's becoming very disruptive.--
558:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (2nd nomination)
1296:
I'm finding
Niteshift36's arguments quite entertaining. His argument is
1019:
is not a crystal ball; while it says nothing about sources. As for
665:
Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are
1469:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
510:
469:
91:
Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (3rd nomination)
86:
Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album (2nd nomination)
472:, but whichever way this goes, it should be some variant of
764:
146:
135:
131:
127:
770:
small number of exceptionally high-profile projects."
197:
958:
etc etc etc Not enough info yet. Wait a bit longer.
794:
737:reading of WP:HAMMER shows that it itself doesn't
568:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1479:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1300:solid that he doesn't have to elaborate upon it
971:Not everything is a nail. This article isn't.
773:Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis
81:Articles for deletion/Korn's ninth studio album
633:have, not because of the content it doesn't.
211:
8:
793:generally supports keeping this article."
660:generally supports keeping this article: "
374:ways for editors to flag up articles that
713:
708:
490:
485:
776:: if we know that unreleased albums are
1169:if it backed up with reliable sources.
701:
478:
78:
567:(setting conditions for recreation)).
7:
76:
727:Britney Spears' fifth studio album
68:
24:
277:per the nomination, album fails
1238:if you would successfully read
990:- seems to meet exception 1 of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1352:Or even the first sentence of
1:
1462:13:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
1441:02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
1419:17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
1401:05:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
1378:16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
1330:20:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
1292:17:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
1273:08:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
1258:14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
1231:07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
1216:05:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
1180:16:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
1165:. Sources people. It isn't
1146:01:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
1129:02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
1102:09:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
1087:17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
1064:12:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
1039:02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
1004:21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
981:10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
967:17:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
947:17:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
914:17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
881:11:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
867:10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
843:19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
817:14:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
755:10:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
745:application of the essay.)
720:09:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
694:02:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
649:02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
611:01:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
591:16:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
534:16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
497:16:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
445:17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
431:17:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
417:17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
403:17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
388:16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
369:16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
343:16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
321:16:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
307:15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
291:15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
268:15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
253:15:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
235:15:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
64:23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
1496:
1075:Knowledge:deletion policy
763:widely-cited at AFD, see
102:Korn's ninth studio album
70:Korn's ninth studio album
1472:Please do not modify it.
676:despite being unreleased
560:(deleting this article)
32:Please do not modify it.
1109:: No, it does not fail
75:AfDs for this article:
53:Backslash Forwardslash
1280:what is unreferenced?
921:also looking back at
349:reasonable suspicion
656:- Also, as a note,
44:The result was
1439:
1178:
923:Chinese Democracy
815:
783:Chinese Democracy
609:
589:
1487:
1474:
1438:
1436:
1376:
1367:
1360:
1328:
1326:
1319:
1177:
1175:
1127:
1125:
1118:
1037:
1035:
1028:
964:
945:
936:
929:
912:
903:
896:
841:
839:
832:
797:
796:
717:
709:
705:
692:
690:
683:
647:
645:
638:
608:
606:
571:
570:
551:speedy delete g4
531:
494:
486:
482:
366:
216:
215:
201:
149:
143:
125:
34:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1477:deletion review
1470:
1432:
1374:
1368:
1361:
1357:
1322:
1317:
1315:
1171:
1121:
1116:
1114:
1031:
1026:
1024:
960:
943:
937:
930:
926:
910:
904:
897:
893:
835:
830:
828:
716:
686:
681:
679:
654:Further comment
641:
636:
634:
602:
519:
493:
354:
158:
145:
116:
100:
97:
95:
73:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1493:
1491:
1482:
1481:
1465:
1464:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1370:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1240:the links for
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1131:
1041:
1006:
985:
984:
983:
949:
939:
916:
906:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
819:
757:
731:AfD discussion
722:
714:
616:
615:
614:
613:
594:
593:
549:, or possibly
536:
499:
491:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
323:
294:
293:
272:
271:
270:
219:
218:
155:
96:
94:
93:
88:
83:
77:
74:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1492:
1480:
1478:
1473:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:Roger Workman
1451:
1448:
1447:
1442:
1437:
1435:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1379:
1375:
1373:
1366:
1365:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1331:
1327:
1325:
1320:
1312:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1181:
1176:
1174:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1132:
1130:
1126:
1124:
1119:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1034:
1029:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
968:
965:
963:
957:
953:
950:
948:
944:
942:
935:
934:
928:
924:
920:
917:
915:
911:
909:
902:
901:
895:
891:
888:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
854:
853:
844:
840:
838:
833:
825:
820:
818:
813:
809:
805:
801:
792:
788:
784:
779:
775:
774:
769:
765:
762:
758:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
723:
721:
718:
710:
706:
704:
697:
696:
695:
691:
689:
684:
677:
673:
672:
669:not notable;
668:
664:
659:
655:
652:
651:
650:
646:
644:
639:
632:
627:
623:
620:
619:
618:
617:
612:
607:
605:
598:
597:
596:
595:
592:
587:
583:
579:
575:
566:
563:
559:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
535:
532:
530:
526:
522:
516:
512:
507:
503:
500:
498:
495:
487:
483:
481:
475:
471:
466:
465:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
372:
371:
370:
367:
365:
361:
357:
350:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
327:
326:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
153:
148:
141:
137:
133:
129:
124:
120:
115:
111:
107:
103:
99:
98:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
71:
66:
65:
61:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1471:
1468:
1449:
1433:
1407:encyclopedia
1406:
1388:
1369:
1362:
1358:
1323:
1310:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1279:
1237:
1202:
1190:
1172:
1162:
1133:
1122:
1106:
1070:
1043:
1032:
1016:
1008:
987:
961:
951:
938:
931:
927:
918:
905:
898:
894:
889:
836:
823:
795:- Simon Dodd
786:
782:
777:
771:
767:
760:
742:
738:
734:
702:
687:
675:
670:
666:
662:
661:
653:
642:
630:
621:
603:
569:- Simon Dodd
561:
554:
550:
538:
528:
524:
520:
501:
479:
473:
375:
363:
359:
355:
348:
274:
240:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
55:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1265:Niteshift36
1223:Niteshift36
1094:Niteshift36
1056:Niteshift36
996:Umbralcorax
565:WP:RECREATE
185:free images
1354:WP:CRYSTAL
1246:WP:CRYSTAL
1199:WP:CRYSTAL
1167:WP:Crystal
1111:WP:CRYSTAL
1052:WP:CRYSTAL
1013:WP:CRYSTAL
992:WP:CRYSTAL
791:WP:NALBUMS
703:S Marshall
667:in general
658:WP:NALBUMS
543:WP:NALBUMS
515:WP:CRYSTAL
506:WP:CRYSTAL
480:S Marshall
279:WP:CRYSTAL
223:WP:CRYSTAL
1434:KMFDM FAN
1411:JBsupreme
1242:WP:HAMMER
1195:WP:HAMMER
1173:KMFDM FAN
1054:(again).
1048:WP:HAMMER
1021:WP:HAMMER
1017:Knowledge
962:Rafablu88
956:WP:HAMMER
778:generally
761:extremely
626:WP:HAMMER
624:- Citing
604:KMFDM FAN
547:WP:HAMMER
437:Joe Chill
423:Joe Chill
395:Joe Chill
313:Joe Chill
283:JBsupreme
260:Joe Chill
227:Joe Chill
1393:Portillo
1284:JayHenry
1250:JayHenry
1208:JayHenry
739:actually
699:answer.—
407:Q.E.D.--
376:possibly
152:View log
1311:obvious
1138:Uncle G
1079:Uncle G
973:Uncle G
919:Comment
859:Uncle G
747:Uncle G
735:careful
622:Comment
555:compare
191:WP refs
179:scholar
119:protect
114:history
1372:Willed
1302:at all
1044:Delete
952:Delete
941:Willed
908:Willed
873:Michig
812:WP:LAW
586:WP:LAW
539:Delete
409:Michig
380:Michig
335:Michig
331:WP:ANI
299:Michig
275:Delete
245:Michig
221:Fails
163:Google
147:delete
123:delete
1107:Reply
206:JSTOR
167:books
150:) – (
140:views
132:watch
128:links
16:<
1458:talk
1450:Keep
1415:talk
1397:talk
1389:Keep
1364:Weak
1306:he's
1288:talk
1269:talk
1254:talk
1244:and
1227:talk
1212:talk
1197:and
1191:Keep
1163:Keep
1142:talk
1098:talk
1083:talk
1060:talk
1050:and
1009:Keep
1000:talk
988:Keep
977:talk
954:per
933:Weak
900:Weak
890:Keep
877:talk
863:talk
824:does
768:very
751:talk
715:Cont
631:does
562:with
545:and
541:per
511:Korn
502:Keep
492:Cont
474:keep
470:Korn
441:talk
427:talk
413:talk
399:talk
384:talk
339:talk
317:talk
303:talk
287:talk
264:talk
249:talk
241:Keep
231:talk
199:FENS
173:news
136:logs
110:talk
106:edit
60:talk
1324:Guy
1318:The
1123:Guy
1117:The
1077:.
1071:not
1033:Guy
1027:The
837:Guy
831:The
743:mis
688:Guy
682:The
643:Guy
637:The
213:TWL
1460:)
1417:)
1409:.
1399:)
1356:.
1298:so
1290:)
1282:--
1271:)
1256:)
1229:)
1214:)
1206:--
1203:is
1144:)
1100:)
1085:)
1062:)
1002:)
979:)
879:)
865:)
798:{
787:is
753:)
572:{
513:.
476:.—
443:)
429:)
415:)
401:)
386:)
341:)
319:)
305:)
289:)
266:)
251:)
233:)
225:.
193:)
138:|
134:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
62:)
48:.
1456:(
1413:(
1395:(
1286:(
1267:(
1252:(
1225:(
1210:(
1140:(
1096:(
1081:(
1058:(
998:(
975:(
875:(
861:(
814:}
810:·
808:C
806:·
804:T
802:·
800:U
749:(
729:(
711:/
588:}
584:·
582:C
580:·
578:T
576:·
574:U
553:(
529:a
527:c
525:z
523:a
521:m
488:/
439:(
425:(
411:(
397:(
382:(
364:a
362:c
360:z
358:a
356:m
337:(
315:(
301:(
285:(
262:(
247:(
229:(
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
144:(
142:)
104:(
58:(
56:/
50:\
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.