419:- please direct It's on the "talk" tab, top left, on his article Frinton100 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC) Your link above doesn't work - so let's leave excessive discussion (unless you really would prefer otherwise) in favour of enhancing the content of Wiki's articles. "Attention", I amended to "Other" since it seems to me quite lopsided to focus on Jim McMahon without any attention at all on the others, although I have made a small attempt to redress the balance by creating an article about John Bickley, the principal contender in this former Labour seat (unless I am thoroughly mistaken)! I note you decided to flag up the John Bickley article for deletion almost immediately upon its creation - so unless you can assure me (and, moreover, other Wikipedians) that you ARE NOT a
559:- I think this could just be bias against UKIP, if he was a Lib-Lab-Con candidate he'd definitely have been included by now, he is becoming a senior member of the UKIP party having stood in Heywood and Middleton in the GE and the 2014 by election and also stood in Wythenshawe, we have lots of information about him, and he is becoming a true face of the party in the north. I remember when this listing was previously deleted last year, but now he is standing in Oldham West and Royton, he does deserve a Knowledge (XXG) page, as simply he is a senior member of UKIP. (
861:. To add to my last point - Why is Jim Mcmahon worthy of a page and John isn't? Jim has no special relevance more than John other than being the leader of Oldham Council, and as far as I'm aware Council leaders shouldn't automatically get a page on here, if they do, why doesn't Rochdale council leader Richard Farnell have a page? If this page goes, I can't see any reason warranting Jim McMahon, who is simply just a councillor to have a page too. (
408:
sensible location. I am dubious to be honest about McMahon's notability under WP:POLITICIAN - municipal politicians are borderline cases. But please, for the third time in a few hours - can we discuss article content in the appropriate place, and not on my talk page. Please stick to the MOS. And please do not post unsolicited images to my talk page. Frinton100 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
879:
696:
659:
730:
719:
708:
682:
671:
645:
634:
623:
611:
600:
589:
353:& it takes ages to convince (because once people openly state their position they generally don't like to back down - please wait a while & take stock rather than jump on the bandwagon - unless of course there is a particular reason not immediately apparent as to why info should be suppressed rather than enhanced... Appreciated M
1365:
If the only notability is political campaigning, they don't qualify. This applies to all parties and all countries. I can see nothing worthy of an article in this case. Nolan is a border-line case - he definitely passes CSD A7 for significance, but as to notability, I'm not sure. But it is irrelevant
578:
I'm sorry but that is a load of absolute bullshit. It seems to me you aren't aware of our policies which states that unelected candidates for office are not notable. Simply being a perennial, unelected candidate or carpetbagger does not equate to notability. Regarding "bias against UKIP" nonsense you
1408:
its accepted we dont cover him until he wins an election. Personally, I think that wrong--major party candidates for national office should beconsidered notable, or else we're biasing political coverage with an incumbent advantage, but this is not the consensus view here, and I'm not going to oppose
407:
I'm not sure what the meaning of the "Attention" section above is - however, with regards to the OBE - I did remove it earlier, but I saw you put it back and I wasn't too bothered. I think it looks a bit silly, but fine. I hadn't realised I had removed it a second time; I have now moved it to a more
1141:
If you think the Labour candidate is not notable, you can suggest that article be deleted. Whether we have an article for the Labour candidate (and there was an article for this person before he was ever the candidate) is a separate matter to whether this article should exist. No-one is saying that
1116:
I agree that if the Labour candidate considered to be sufficiently notable then so is John
Bickley, especially as the next MP for the constituency will be either one of them. It is not for a very small number of Knowledge (XXG) insiders to decide who is "important enough" in the eyes of the general
439:
Could we please stick to the matter in hand - i.e. whether
Bickley meets the criteria for notability on wikipedia - rather than resorting to personal attacks. I will deal briefly with these on my talk page. Details about McMahon's article should be discussed on his talk page. As mentioned above, if
1205:
says in an article this week the western world needs to really worry if he is elected because it will start a new era of right wing populist anti immigrant sentiment. I hope he loses but I have a feeling he won't. Irrespective this afd is redundant in my opinion, refs such as this and those in the
414:
Sure - I think you & I (& of course others) have a reasonable grasp of Wiki eligibility, politics, current affairs as well as the
English language. Thank you & let's get back to helpful collaborative edits like before (intro of muchos Talk pages - like committees - never get anything
394:
Hi
Frinton - from an outsider's point of view, perceivably lots of overprotection of Labour candidate & attempts to suppress others? Also if Jim McMahon is notable enough, which I have no doubt in believing, why then try to dumb down his entry by persistent deletion of the OBE image? Please
842:. We do have articles on politicians who have not been elected, but this is usually because they have achieved some notability (or notoriety) outside of politics or have been significant players within their parties or organisations. This does not apply here - he is just a failed candidate.
1387:; unless I've missed something that's presented here or in the article, everything is news coverage about him. Recreate if someone finds significant coverage in secondary sources, but remember that news reports from the time of an event (including a candidate's standing for election) are
787:
Firstly, very poor title. Secondly, very poor arguments in favour of keeping from the above editors, whining about bias and "much less relevant" articles existing (if they do, please nominate their removal immediately). Thirdly being a perennial candidate (some less generous souls may say
302:
If there is useful material about Mr
Bickley, I would suggest you add it to the by-election article page. Standard Knowledge (XXG) policy is to cover candidates on the relevant election article until such time as they are notable in their own right. Meanwhile, if you think the article for
248:
as the only coverage he gets is related to him being an election candidate, which is not notable in itself and there do not seem to be any other claims to notability. The creator's argument that there are "many more less relevant articles in Wiki" may well be true, but that's a textbook
1142:
Bickley's candidacy is not important: it is, and information about him and his candidacy is on the by-election article page. The question is whether the best way to organise
Knowledge (XXG) is to have a separate page about him as well. We don't usually do that, as explained at
823:: Has never been elected into any position of power, nor is he a major idealogue internally in UKIP. Perennial candidates can become notable in cases like Mackenzie, who stood for decades for practically every party. A few candidatures in the last couple of years means nothing
579:
allege, in conspiratorial tones, that if
Bickley was a "Lib-Lab-Con" candidate (no such party exists, by the way) he would be granted an article. Let us test your theory. Lets see whether unelected candidate for major parties in recent by-elections have articles:
435:'s entry so as to try make him appear less privileged - despite achievement being a good thing - for some presumed electoral advantage? A simple explanation to this mystery will suffice - many thanks in advance.... M Mabelina (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
453:
and these make clear that simply being a candidate in a parliamentary election is not noteworthy enough. There is nothing in any other area of his life either that would confer notability at this stage. If he wins on 3rd Dec, of course this will change.
540:. He hasn't done anything notable. He's standing in a by-election, anyone can do that. This is an article about a non-notable person and it should be deleted. Also the title of this article is not in line with Knowledge (XXG)'s standards.
163:
946:
should be deleted, then the appropriate thing is to go start an AfD for that page. We shouldn't keep this article because that article exists: if that article shouldn't exist, then two wrongs do not make a right.
761:
1227:? If so I think it's arguable that is not significant coverage, given the article is about much broader topics. And still, it only relates to his candidacy for one election and candidacy alone is not enough.
1263:
states "Losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." Bickley does not have such previous notability from anything I can see.
1259:, and the fact remains it is entirely related to his candidacy. Many other candidates have had similar things written about them in the heat of a by-election campaign, but it doesn't confer notability.
927:
a municipal politician. McMahon is leader of the Labour group on the LGA and is also an NEC member. In addition to his council leadership, I think that just qualifies him for an article, but only just.
1073:
116:
1035:
This is a false argument. Every single candidate for every major election receives media coverage. We cannot, nor should we, have a page about them all in a credible encyclopaedia.
445:
Back to
Bickley, wikipedia is not the BBC. We do not have to give equal "airtime" (or perhaps "article inches") to all of the candidates in a by-election, or even to the ones we
157:
1093:
194:
Not notable enough as yet. A twice-defeated parliamentary candidate with no other notability. If he wins the by-election we can create a page for him then, but not yet.
1053:
349:
Hi - looking forward to something positive to say about such edits - rather than engaging in internal discussions about minutiae - I've recently had the same about the
1241:
There are 2 full paragraphs about him directly in the full article. This isn't arguable - it is in depth coverage in a cast iron reliable and verifiable source.
788:
carpetbagger) for election is not a claim to notability, excluding in exceptional circumstances. I could stand in three by-elections. Does that make me notable?
1225:
333:
1017:
is an alternative to GNG, not additional requirements. There are multiple in depth sources about the topic, he meets GNG, and the article should be kept.
431:" thereby reducing much Wiki factual info to be joke status unless you were in your eyes disdaining Cllr McMahon himself, OR alternatively dumbing down
211:
Having created this article, the intention as always is to enhance Wiki, so slightly surprised such swift attempted suppression of info in relation to
123:
237:
212:
89:
84:
288:
I've only just created the article & spend more time arguing than adding - please reserve judgement before jumping on the bandwagon. HELP! M
515:, to avoid confusion, I'll not move the article now. If there is a keep decision, I presume the community will then favour a move as suggested.
367:
Sorry, but
Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository for political candidates. What you call "suppression" is what we consider maintaining standards.
93:
1286:, which is the idea that if a person is notable because of a particular event, then we should have an article on the event, not the person.
76:
440:
you think he fails the notability criteria then you can deal with it in the appropriate manner. I'm not sure - I think he's borderline.
1124:
178:
17:
145:
828:
1367:
1166:
139:
1456:
250:
40:
135:
1433:
1437:
1420:
1400:
1379:
1357:
1324:
1295:
1273:
1250:
1236:
1215:
1191:
1155:
1132:
1105:
1085:
1065:
1044:
1026:
1004:
981:
956:
937:
914:
870:
851:
832:
813:
797:
777:
749:
568:
549:
524:
503:
482:
463:
376:
362:
344:
320:
297:
283:
262:
224:
203:
58:
895:
491:
1319:
1000:
943:
824:
432:
304:
185:
1337:
1260:
494:, following standard Knowledge (XXG) naming conventions. Is it OK for me to move it while an AfD is going on?
241:
80:
1186:
1120:
1014:
920:
537:
450:
271:
245:
1146:. If you think that approach is wrong, you could go to the Talk page there and put forward your position.
1128:
1040:
809:
793:
745:
372:
340:
996:
512:
72:
64:
1452:
1429:
923:
states that a municipal politician is not automatically notable but is not not-notable because they are
36:
1291:
1269:
1232:
1151:
952:
933:
773:
520:
499:
459:
316:
279:
258:
199:
151:
423:
supporter/sympathiser, perhaps you could remove those notices? What was the reason for your stating
1314:
1117:
public, Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to serve the needs of everybody, not the needs of a minority.
478:
171:
1353:
1177:
1022:
910:
847:
358:
293:
220:
449:
are going to finish in the top two. The criteria for notability of politicians is described at
1396:
1375:
1101:
1081:
1061:
1036:
977:
805:
789:
741:
420:
368:
336:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1451:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1333:
1279:
1143:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
992:
653:
1341:
972:
being defeated twice, hating science and loving golf are not signs of notability at all. --
765:
308:
1287:
1265:
1246:
1228:
1211:
1147:
948:
929:
769:
516:
495:
455:
312:
275:
254:
195:
1346:
or developing a hobby more interesting than "walking", as the article currently indicates
1283:
1388:
474:
274:, as is standard practice in these cases. If he's elected, an article will be created.
1313:
as he seems unlikely notable and the current article is not convincing of any better.
1416:
1349:
1202:
1018:
906:
891:
866:
843:
631:
Luke
Nicholas, Plaid Cymru (finished ahead of UKIP), Cardiff South and Penarth 2012:
564:
545:
354:
289:
216:
1392:
1371:
1097:
1077:
1057:
973:
690:
54:
307:
is inappropriate, you are free to propose it for deletion: follow the guidance at
110:
804:
Another thing, it certainly reads like a promotional piece in its current form.
1409:
it at individual cases when I know there;'s no likelihood of getting anywhere.
1242:
1207:
1411:
887:
862:
560:
541:
350:
762:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Winston McKenzie (2nd nomination)
395:
advise - many thanks. M Mabelina (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
620:
Bablin Molik, Liberal Democrats, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012:
1445:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1345:
215:. Many more less relevant articles in Wiki, I should suggest. M
740:
Hopefully you will now admit that UKIP suffers from no "bias"
608:
Craig Williams, Conservative, Cardiff South and Penarth 2012:
424:
415:
sorted!). Best M Mabelina (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
1169:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
716:
Geoff Juby, Liberal Democrats, Rochester and Strood 2014:
727:
Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative, Rochester and Stood 2014:
736:(Not until she gained the seat at the general election)
106:
102:
98:
1340:. If and when he does something notable that provides
170:
1175:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1074:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
705:Naushabah Khan, Labour, Rochester and Strood 2014:
642:Andrew Stranack, Conservative, Croydon North 2012:
253:argument and is not a reason for keeping this one.
184:
1370:. Each article stands or falls on its own merits.
919:My view is that Jim McMahon is a borderline case.
332:per POLITICIAN. Nothing in his business background
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1459:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1094:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
665:(There go your accusations of an anti-UKIP bias)
905:Just to point out that you have "voted" twice.
52:as per the specific guidelines for politicians
1282:guidelines are really just an application of
679:David Watts, Liberal Democrats, Newark 2014:
8:
1092:Note: This debate has been included in the
1072:Note: This debate has been included in the
1054:list of England-related deletion discussions
1052:Note: This debate has been included in the
617:(Not until election as MP for Cardiff North)
586:Christine Emmett, Conservative, Corby 2012:
764:is now up. Might I also remind everyone of
1118:
1091:
1071:
1051:
995:yet, although he may yet be at some point.
597:Jill Hope, Liberal Democrat, Corby 2012:
473:Article is useless in its present state.
391:(view no answer as to poss Labour POV):
238:Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015
213:Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015
656:, UKIP, Croydon North 2012: Ironically
399:Other candidates at Oldham by-election
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
668:Michael Payne, Labour, Newark 2014:
1255:I don't think two paras is exactly
417:Jim McMahon (politician) Talk Page
24:
1348:), the article can be rewritten.
898:) has already cast a vote above.
877:
728:
717:
706:
694:
680:
669:
657:
643:
632:
621:
609:
598:
587:
490:This article should be moved to
1:
1438:15:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1421:01:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1401:16:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
1380:16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
1358:08:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
1325:07:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
1296:13:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1274:23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1251:22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1237:22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1216:22:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1192:19:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
1156:11:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
1133:10:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
1106:18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
1086:18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
1066:18:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
1045:03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
1027:03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
1005:13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
59:18:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
1206:article mean he passes GNG.
982:00:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
957:16:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
938:13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
915:13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
871:13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
852:10:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
833:18:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
814:23:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
798:23:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
778:19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
766:the assumption of good faith
750:23:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
569:15:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
550:10:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
525:19:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
504:10:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
483:07:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
464:13:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
377:10:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
363:23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
345:22:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
321:10:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
298:22:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
284:22:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
263:22:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
225:21:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
204:21:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
1476:
1344:(such as winning the seat
1224:Do you mean this article
492:John Bickley (politician)
1448:Please do not modify it.
944:Jim McMahon (politician)
305:Jim McMahon (politician)
244:. Bickley clearly fails
32:Please do not modify it.
702:(Because he is an MEP)
693:, UKIP, Newark 2014:
1342:significant coverage
1368:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1366:anyway, because of
335:stands out either.
73:John Bickley (UKIP)
65:John Bickley (UKIP)
251:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1428:as per standards.
1194:
1135:
1123:comment added by
1108:
1088:
1068:
942:If anyone thinks
899:
1467:
1450:
1430:AnotherAnonymous
1322:
1317:
1189:
1183:
1174:
1172:
1170:
993:Edwin Scrymgeour
882:
881:
880:
732:
731:
721:
720:
710:
709:
698:
697:
684:
683:
673:
672:
661:
660:
654:Winston McKenzie
647:
646:
636:
635:
625:
624:
613:
612:
602:
601:
591:
590:
433:Cllr Jim McMahon
387:Cllr Jim McMahon
189:
188:
174:
126:
114:
96:
34:
1475:
1474:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1457:deletion review
1446:
1389:primary sources
1320:
1315:
1195:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1165:
1163:
885:Duplicate vote:
878:
729:
718:
707:
695:
681:
670:
658:
644:
633:
622:
610:
599:
588:
401:
389:
131:
122:
87:
71:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1473:
1471:
1462:
1461:
1441:
1440:
1423:
1403:
1382:
1360:
1338:WP:POLOUTCOMES
1327:
1316:SwisterTwister
1311:Delete for now
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1261:WP:POLOUTCOMES
1219:
1218:
1180:
1173:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1110:
1109:
1089:
1069:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1030:
1029:
1008:
1007:
997:Andrewdpcotton
985:
984:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
875:
874:
855:
854:
836:
835:
817:
816:
801:
800:
782:
781:
780:
738:
737:
725:
714:
703:
688:
677:
666:
651:
640:
629:
618:
606:
595:
583:
582:
581:
580:
573:
572:
553:
552:
530:
529:
528:
527:
485:
467:
466:
442:
441:
411:
406:
400:
397:
388:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
265:
242:WP:POLOUTCOMES
230:
229:
228:
227:
192:
191:
128:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1472:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1449:
1443:
1442:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1407:
1404:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1361:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1309:
1308:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1203:The Economist
1200:
1197:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1171:
1168:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:WP:POLITICIAN
1013:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
986:
983:
979:
975:
971:
968:
967:
958:
954:
950:
945:
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
926:
922:
921:WP:POLITICIAN
918:
917:
916:
912:
908:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
893:
889:
886:
872:
868:
864:
860:
857:
856:
853:
849:
845:
841:
838:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
818:
815:
811:
807:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
735:
726:
724:
715:
713:
704:
701:
692:
689:
687:
678:
676:
667:
664:
655:
652:
650:
641:
639:
630:
628:
619:
616:
607:
605:
596:
594:
585:
584:
577:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:WP:POLITICIAN
535:
532:
531:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
468:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:WP:POLITICIAN
448:
444:
443:
438:
437:
436:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
412:
409:
404:
398:
396:
392:
386:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
331:
328:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
300:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:WP:POLITICIAN
269:
266:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
246:WP:POLITICIAN
243:
239:
235:
232:
231:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
121:
118:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1447:
1444:
1425:
1410:
1405:
1384:
1362:
1329:
1310:
1256:
1198:
1176:
1164:
1138:
1125:62.31.214.26
1119:— Preceding
1113:
1037:AusLondonder
1011:
988:
969:
924:
884:
876:
858:
839:
820:
806:AusLondonder
790:AusLondonder
784:
757:
742:AusLondonder
739:
733:
722:
711:
699:
691:Roger Helmer
685:
674:
662:
648:
637:
626:
614:
603:
592:
556:
533:
513:WP:EDITATAFD
508:
487:
470:
446:
428:
416:
413:
410:
405:
402:
393:
390:
369:Clarityfiend
337:Clarityfiend
329:
267:
233:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
119:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
351:law of arms
158:free images
1288:Bondegezou
1266:Frinton100
1229:Frinton100
1179:Rcsprinter
1148:Bondegezou
949:Bondegezou
930:Frinton100
770:Bondegezou
517:Bondegezou
496:Bondegezou
456:Frinton100
313:Bondegezou
276:Bondegezou
255:Valenciano
196:Frinton100
1453:talk page
1188:(prattle)
1098:• Gene93k
1078:• Gene93k
1058:• Gene93k
825:'''tAD'''
429:bit silly
37:talk page
1455:or in a
1257:in depth
1167:Relisted
1121:unsigned
1019:Gaijin42
991:He's no
907:Emeraude
896:contribs
844:Emeraude
427:look a "
355:Mabelina
290:Mabelina
234:Redirect
217:Mabelina
117:View log
39:or in a
1406:Delete.
1393:Nyttend
1372:Peridon
1334:WP:NPOL
1280:WP:NPOL
1144:WP:NPOL
1139:Comment
974:Vituzzu
760:I note
758:Comment
511:As per
509:Comment
270:as per
164:WP refs
152:scholar
90:protect
85:history
1426:Delete
1385:Delete
1363:Delete
1350:Graham
1330:Delete
989:Delete
970:Delete
840:Delete
821:Delete
785:Delete
536:- Per
534:Delete
475:SOXROX
471:Delete
421:Labour
330:Delete
309:WP:AFD
268:Delete
240:, per
136:Google
94:delete
55:Errant
50:Delete
1417:talk
1284:WP:1E
1243:Szzuk
1208:Szzuk
447:think
403:RSVP
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
1434:talk
1397:talk
1376:talk
1354:talk
1336:and
1332:per
1321:talk
1292:talk
1278:The
1270:talk
1247:talk
1233:talk
1212:talk
1199:Keep
1152:talk
1129:talk
1114:Keep
1102:talk
1082:talk
1062:talk
1041:talk
1023:talk
1012:keep
1001:talk
978:talk
953:talk
934:talk
925:only
911:talk
892:talk
867:talk
859:Keep
848:talk
829:talk
810:talk
794:talk
774:talk
746:talk
565:talk
557:Keep
546:talk
521:talk
500:talk
488:Note
479:talk
460:talk
425:OBEs
373:talk
359:talk
341:talk
317:talk
294:talk
280:talk
259:talk
221:talk
200:talk
172:FENS
146:news
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
1412:DGG
1391:.
1181:123
888:Z2a
863:Z2a
700:Yes
663:Yes
561:Z2a
542:IJA
236:to
186:TWL
115:– (
1436:)
1419:)
1399:)
1378:)
1356:)
1294:)
1272:)
1249:)
1235:)
1214:)
1201:.
1154:)
1131:)
1104:)
1096:.
1084:)
1076:.
1064:)
1056:.
1043:)
1025:)
1003:)
980:)
955:)
936:)
913:)
894:•
883:—
869:)
850:)
831:)
812:)
796:)
776:)
768:?
748:)
734:No
723:No
712:No
686:No
675:No
649:No
638:No
627:No
615:No
604:No
593:No
567:)
548:)
523:)
502:)
481:)
462:)
375:)
361:)
343:)
319:)
311:.
296:)
282:)
261:)
223:)
202:)
166:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
1432:(
1415:(
1395:(
1374:(
1352:(
1290:(
1268:(
1245:(
1231:(
1210:(
1150:(
1127:(
1100:(
1080:(
1060:(
1039:(
1021:(
999:(
976:(
951:(
932:(
909:(
890:(
873:)
865:(
846:(
827:(
808:(
792:(
772:(
744:(
571:)
563:(
544:(
519:(
498:(
477:(
458:(
371:(
357:(
339:(
315:(
292:(
278:(
257:(
219:(
198:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
120:·
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.