655:(1) I checked the article and the talk page, no one is questioning the reliability or "triviality" of the five sources there. BTW, there are 25 Google books found on the search for . Nor has anyone even begun to consider what material is available offline that was written before the WWW came into existence. (2) Regarding the argument of WP:OR, it is just that, an argument that no one has raised at the article or on the talk page of the article. The merit of this contention might reduce the existing content in the article, whereas AfD is primarily concerned with notability of the topic as a whole. (3) Sorry, but the hit count for is either 33,600 or 748, depending on how people count them. No one has mentioned the hit count. 131 web pages whose URL includes the topic are not a "hit count", those are universal resource locators with the topic embedded in them. Each such independent web page is verifiably taking "note" or "notice" of the topic; i.e., is evidence that the topic is "worthy of notice"; which is all that is needed in WP:N, that a topic be "worthy of notice". (4) Keep in mind that we are talking about a US TV-show character that appeared for eight years of episodes, this is already a long run. Next, no one had heard of the WWW when this TV show went off of the air. So this character being so widely promoted more than 20 years later evidences a strong
927:, do not merit an article. The sources have evidenced that the content cannot be improved because all of them show a lack of reception or significance for the fictional character and in none of them Higgins is addressed in detail, at least not in the reliable secondary sources. Jonathan Higgins, the fictional character, as a subject violates what Knowledge is not because none of the sources has shown that an article about him could be more than a plot-only description of a fictional works and cannot be treated in an encyclopedic manner by discussing the reception and significance of the fictional character because he has no reception or significance in reliable third-party and secondary sources, which is
902:). It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of sources if the topic is not "worthy of notice". Likewise it does not matter if there are two (or zero) sources if the topic is "worthy of notice". The fact is that there are more than 100 web sites that have "noted" this topic in their URL. This goes right to the definition of notability, "worthy of notice". These 100 verifiable web sites are not "suppositions", they are not "hits", they are not "noticing the TV show instead of the character", they are "tangible" evidence, and their existence is not "speculation". It is the name "Jonathan Higgins" that is "worthy of notice".
943:, not Higgins) is trivial at best or from unreliable sources. "Worthy of notice" for Knowledge does not come from the number of websites, but from the quality of the actual sources and none of this 100 web site account for a single reliable source with significant coverage of Jonathan Higgins. In fact, the majority of said sources don't even treat Higgins as a subject. The fact that you have to rely on mentioning the number of websites instead of citing the actual reliable secondary sources suggests that there is a lack of multiple sources and that the topic is not suitable for inclusion as a stand-alone article.
681:, because that requires tangible evidence, not suppositions about the notability. 1) Even if editors within the talkpage of the article consider the sources reliable, it doesn't mean that they are. Google book hits are the same as regular Google hits. It is when one checks this hits that one notices that all hits are for the TV show, not the fictional character. You can search several non-notable subjects within Google books and you will get hits, but as I said, hits prove nothing regarding notability. If printed material exists then cite it, otherwise it is just speculation which is no basis for
894:. However, I will note that I don't know what the nominator means by saying that not "discussing reception and significance of the fictional character" means that "the subject of the article is plot-only". Regarding the comment about WP:GNG, first of all, there are now ten references in the article. Second of all, a topic under WP:N must be "worthy of notice" whether or not it meets WP:GNG. (See WP:GNG, "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is
882:, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Regarding WP:PLOT, the nominator may be confusing the name of the shortcut, WP:PLOT, with the actual policy, which reads, "Plot-
1251:, and its coverage of Jonathan Higgins? That seemed to be relevant when it said, "Finally, Magnum's bantering adversary, the overwhelmingly British Jonathan Higgins, veers between obsessive propriety and excessive gallantry, his suave sophistication and urbanity acting as a foil to Magnum's all-American naturalness, ease and spontaneity." According to the Knowledge article, the journal
1015:. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are not relevant to this AfD, we have already seen a reference to WP:DEL which would only be relevant to an AfD if the entire topic of "Jonathan Higgins" were WP:OR. Further, there are no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH discussions at the article, and I've already quoted policy that directs editors to raise such issues on the article pages.
772:
again only two sentences and the rest is OR, such a implying that "He always manages to relate it usually to a story in either". This only shows that the majority of the content can't be backed up or that only those few sentences and the lead section may be appropriate for a merge but not the rest of
759:
I remind you that the article had zero references when originally nominated, making all the content OR. It has not been until
Metropolitan90's edits that the article has some sources backing up part of the content, but the majority of the content is still speculation that is not backed up by sources.
1036:
Regarding the previous comment's objection to the definition of notability in WP:N, the comment can try to make the case here that the closing admin should ignore the WP:N guideline based on some WP:IAR idea, but whatever happens here isn't going to change WP:N. I'll say it again, the definition of
862:
still haven't been addressed. Currently there is only one source, Hirschman, which shows something to that effect but it doesn't show reception or significance, merely how the fictional character is represented within the plot and it is a single source. Quoting the actor John
Hillerman does not work
877:
I just checked the article again, there is no discussion there about WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Content policy such as SYNTH and OR is not an issue at this AfD, since the nominator has already agreed that there are at least two good sentences. Here are a couple of relevant sentences from another policy,
713:
or give significant coverage per the GNG, so, contrary to what you commented, they are not proof of notability. 4) You are confusing the facts. The TV show is the one that is widely promoted after more than 20 years, not the fictional character. And several other fictional characters were also
504:
A content fork of rejected material is still rejected material every time it gets considered; and without regard to how many wikilinks, quotes, and redirections are included in the consideration. I'd suggest that editors learn more about the structure of WP:N and especially the definition of
296:
1109:
As for the alleged problems with eight of the ten (or is it ten of the ten) sources, I keep wondering why this point is not important enough to raise it at the article and get some other editors involved to either fix the problem or get some agreement that the sources have a problem.
628:
and the actual five references are unreliable sources or trivial mentions and none provide significance or reception for the fictional character. The first one, magnum-mania, is a fansite; the second one is about the cast of the series and in
Hillerman's part says this about Higgins:
718:. The evidence is pretty clear that no reliable source treats the character in detail which can permit treating Higgins in an encyclopedic manner by discussing reception and significance of the fictional character, so the subject of the article is plot-only, which excludes it per
705:(original theories and conclusions) 3) And is any of this URLs an actual reliable source that address the fictional character directly in detail with reception or significance? The answer is no. Several of them repeat the content of this article, others are for the episode
1087:
I also find it a continuing contradiction to compare the statement, "the alluded 10 references (of which the majority are for Magnum P.I., not
Higgins)", against the statements seeking to dismiss the existence of 100 web pages with the name "Jonathan Higgins" in the
1255:"is still highly regarded in academic circles." How does anyone explain the bumper stickers and T-shirts for the 2012 US presidential election, "MAGNUM-HIGGINS", or the "Magnum Higgins" jeans that are selling for $ 185–without noticing the topic Jonathan Higgins?
342:, much less significance or reception for the individual fictional character. This is even worse in Google scholar, where all are trivial mentions and plot-related. Furthermore, these are only Google hits, not specific sources. Do not forget that
740:
regarding "original theories and conclusions", but I looked it up and this point is for the "Article", thus the policy point in this context would be an assertion that this article topic, "Jonathan
Higgins", has been created by
323:
Your comment assumes that I didn't bother to do a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. I did and if you actually check the links that you provided, you will note that the articles talk about the actor
149:
998:
WP:N states, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content." By using "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in the same sentence with WP:GNG, the previous comment doesn't seem to differentiate between content
1161:
sourced summary from this article, we wouldn't have anything left, and as our policies state, we build articles with secondary sourcing, not primary. As it is, the arguments to keep this article are based on
633:; the third, fourth and fifth ones are about the TV show and Higgins is mentioned only as part of the plot premise, not addressing the fictional character in detail and no significant coverage per the
641:. I recommend to interested editors to actually check the content of these three books that have no in-line citations and see for yourselves the actual content related to the fictional character.
433:
I don't think that is a valid arguement, I DID look and I saw MANY sources out there, I'm not just assuming there are some. also it's poor style to just link to an article without explaining it.
462:
223:
939:
specifies that the coverage in such sources must be significant. The coverage that the fictional character has demonstrated with the alluded 10 references (of which the majority are for
578:- I can't find any reliable third party sources which cover this character in detail. A redirect to an appropriate character listing or the main article can be created later. --
447:
The same can be said when saying that seems to be sources. If you do not point them out, your argument most likely will not be taken into account by the closing administrator.
519:
The only person who seemed to "reject" the material was you. If you feel the essay is so unacceptable that it shouldn't be linked to from anywhere, feel free to take it to
143:
891:
376:
looked for sources, rather than looking for sources, finding what I found, and misrepresenting your findings as "There are no references independent of the subject from
300:
246:
606:
Article already has five references, meets WP:GNG. Google search returns 131 web pages with this character listed in the URL. It is reliable that these URLs exist.
110:
1195:
Did you read JClemens first comment about Google scholar? If so, why did you not refute the sources in your analysis? Where is the "OtherStuffExists" argument?
1275:
269:
488:
If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant.
83:
78:
1012:
87:
70:
830:
per
Unscintillating. I have added a few inline refs to the page. It may need some improvement but it doesn't need to be deleted. --
1238:
Does the previous !voter want to present evidence that this fails WP:GNG? How about the links that JClemens found; for example,
1180:
164:
17:
131:
689:
concern, doesn't mean that it is not there. Only two sentences are attributable to a reliable source, the rest is taken by
307:, the article can be improved to include these independent secondary sources and hence is not a candidate for deletion.
863:
for notability because, for obvious reasons, he is not independent of the subject and he is not a secondary source.
1163:
125:
1306:
1260:
1200:
1115:
907:
750:
664:
611:
593:
548:
510:
483:
470:
36:
1305:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1066:..." and "none of the sources has shown that an article about him could be more than a plot-only description".
834:
585:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1292:
1264:
1229:
1204:
1186:
1119:
952:
911:
872:
837:
818:
782:
754:
731:
668:
650:
615:
597:
552:
538:
514:
499:
474:
456:
442:
428:
410:
389:
359:
316:
284:
261:
238:
215:
52:
121:
1248:
417:
1058:
I find it a contradiction to compare the statements, "you will note that the articles talk about the actor
438:
406:
1138:
631:
In addition to “Magnum P.I.,” Hillerman has played his character
Higgins on three other television shows
171:
74:
49:
1256:
1196:
1111:
903:
746:
709:
and the rest are pretty much insignificant, but after checking them carefully, none ever passes as a
660:
607:
589:
544:
506:
466:
831:
157:
935:
is clear in that the evidence for notability must come from reliable independent sources and the
579:
385:
312:
1166:
and the idea that if a character's name is mentioned on the internet, that he must somehow meet
1158:
479:
434:
402:
137:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1243:
1225:
948:
868:
802:
778:
727:
646:
495:
452:
424:
355:
304:
280:
257:
234:
211:
66:
58:
1141:; this character and series has been extant for many years and as yet, there are few to no
1171:
916:
847:
765:
690:
369:
303:, for that matter. Not only is the nomination inaccurate and appears to not have followed
203:
1288:
1059:
928:
859:
846:
I'd like to point out that, while the incline citations have improved a little bit the
678:
638:
531:
325:
181:
1217:
1167:
936:
924:
879:
855:
737:
719:
702:
674:
656:
634:
625:
520:
381:
365:
347:
343:
339:
308:
185:
1142:
920:
851:
815:
742:
710:
686:
198:
193:
637:
and without reception or significance, nothing to presume anything different from
104:
1221:
1008:
944:
932:
864:
774:
723:
682:
642:
491:
482:. Even if it's an essay it is also worth of consideration, particularly because
448:
420:
377:
351:
334:
276:
253:
230:
207:
189:
523:
to gauge what the community's view of it is. Otherwise, stop carping about it.
715:
805:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1283:
524:
973:
Well, I'm disappointed and disturbed, that the nominator has turned to the
626:
hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability
346:. And do not forget that the article is still plot-only which falls into
923:
still apply because only two sentences of a topic that has not meet the
890:
This article was never a "plot-only" description, and WP:NOT references
714:
created before the www but they do provide evidence of notability, like
673:
While it is an interesting point, the character still doesn't pass the
461:
That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at
188:
as a subject. There are no references independent of the subject from
543:
It is not surprising that there are no links to support the claim.
465:, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy.
299:
search above shows plenty of RS that discuss the character. So does
1137:
No reason to believe that at any point this will extend beyond a
1299:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
892:
Knowledge:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries
206:
without sources that show the fictional character notability.
463:
Knowledge talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
338:
series, nothing that shows significant coverage per the
196:
mainly. The character is already covered in the article
224:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
100:
96:
92:
401:, seems to have pleanty of citable sources out there.
156:
184:
without real-world context and who does not meet the
1240:
Thighs and
Whiskers: The Fascination of 'Magnum, pi'
814:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
722:, and is not supported by reliable sources either.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1309:). No further edits should be made to this page.
180:Fictional character whose article composed of a
764:only two sentences are referenced, the rest is
247:list of Television-related deletion discussions
332:, or they talk about parts of the plot of the
170:
8:
1274:Note: This debate has been included in the
268:Note: This debate has been included in the
245:Note: This debate has been included in the
222:Note: This debate has been included in the
1276:list of People-related deletion discussions
1157:notability. If I were to remove all of the
270:list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions
1273:
490:" For which, by the way, I comment above.
267:
244:
221:
685:. 2) That the talk page hasn't raised an
182:plot-only description of a fictional work
1037:notability takes precedence over WP:GNG.
854:ones such as the James Bond claim), the
350:, more than enough to warrant deletion.
295:doing a bit of narrowing on the default
202:, which makes this article a redundant
7:
745:. Reliable sources say otherwise.
1013:Category:Knowledge content policies
1220:, no real-world context either. --
24:
886:description of fictional works."
701:are pure OR. And OR is part of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1153:discussion of the character's
1062:, not the fictional character
372:and presume that you'd simply
328:, not the fictional character
1:
850:problems (but not the purely
736:Nominator has referred us to
1170:. I'm afraid it isn't so. —
931:. Regarding the references,
693:. Furthermore, the sections
344:hits do not prove notability
186:general notability guideline
192:and the text appears to be
1326:
900:<underlining added: -->
888:<underlining added: -->
707:Professor Jonathan Higgins
584:Revert banned editor, see
598:02:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
1302:Please do not modify it.
1293:17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
1265:17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1230:12:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
1205:17:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
1187:12:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
1120:01:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
953:20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
912:04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
873:16:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
838:04:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
819:04:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
783:20:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
755:04:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
732:14:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
669:04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
659:"enduring notability".
651:01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
616:00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
582:20:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
553:02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
539:22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
515:04:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
500:01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
475:00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
457:15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
443:16:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
429:14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
411:03:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
390:04:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
360:14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
317:00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
285:14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
262:14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
239:14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
216:14:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
53:12:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1249:Oxford University Press
699:Higgins and Ian Fleming
762:Character's background
1247:(1985) 26(2): 42-59,
898:worthy of notice..."
1164:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1003:and the notability
977:"you have to rely".
378:third-party sources
297:Google News Archive
190:third-party sources
760:For example, from
583:
505:"notable" there.
484:WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS
44:The result was
1295:
1279:
901:
889:
821:
600:
586:WP:Banning policy
574:
287:
273:
264:
250:
241:
227:
194:original research
1317:
1304:
1280:
1183:
1176:
1064:Jonathan Higgins
899:
887:
813:
807:
573:
529:
418:WP:MUSTBESOURCES
330:Jonathan Higgins
274:
251:
228:
175:
174:
160:
108:
90:
67:Jonathan Higgins
59:Jonathan Higgins
34:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1307:deletion review
1300:
1257:Unscintillating
1197:Unscintillating
1185:
1181:
1172:
1112:Unscintillating
904:Unscintillating
800:
747:Unscintillating
711:reliable source
661:Unscintillating
608:Unscintillating
590:Unscintillating
545:Unscintillating
535:
525:
507:Unscintillating
467:Unscintillating
117:
81:
65:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1323:
1321:
1312:
1311:
1296:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1233:
1232:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1190:
1189:
1179:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1060:John Hillerman
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
880:WP:DEL#CONTENT
841:
840:
832:Metropolitan90
824:
823:
822:
810:
809:
808:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
619:
618:
601:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
533:
486:establishes: "
414:
413:
395:
394:
393:
392:
370:Hanlon's razor
326:John Hillerman
320:
319:
301:Google Scholar
289:
288:
265:
242:
178:
177:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1322:
1310:
1308:
1303:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1177:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
976:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
897:
893:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
842:
839:
836:
833:
829:
826:
825:
820:
817:
812:
811:
806:
804:
799:
798:
784:
780:
776:
773:the article.
771:
767:
763:
758:
757:
756:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:WP:DEL#REASON
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
712:
708:
704:
703:WP:DEL#REASON
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
627:
623:
622:
621:
620:
617:
613:
609:
605:
602:
599:
595:
591:
587:
581:
577:
572:
571:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
537:
536:
530:
528:
522:
518:
517:
516:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
419:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
396:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:I thought it
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
331:
327:
322:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
271:
266:
263:
259:
255:
248:
243:
240:
236:
232:
225:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
200:
195:
191:
187:
183:
173:
169:
166:
163:
159:
155:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
130:
127:
123:
120:
119:Find sources:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1301:
1298:
1282:
1252:
1242:
1239:
1213:
1173:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1145:that have a
1139:plot summary
1134:
1063:
1011:. Also see
1004:
1000:
974:
940:
895:
883:
827:
801:
769:
761:
706:
698:
694:
630:
603:
575:
532:
526:
487:
435:Mathewignash
403:Mathewignash
398:
373:
333:
329:
292:
204:content fork
199:Magnum, P.I.
197:
179:
167:
161:
153:
146:
140:
134:
128:
118:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
941:Magnum P.I.
768:and OR. In
335:Magnum P.I.
144:free images
1174:Chromancer
1159:WP:PRIMARY
1155:real-world
1005:guidelines
975:ad hominem
716:Betty Boop
624:Note that
480:WP:MEANING
770:Character
695:Character
368:to apply
305:WP:BEFORE
1151:in-depth
1147:thorough
1009:WP:N#NNC
917:WP:SYNTH
848:WP:Synth
803:Relisted
766:WP:Synth
691:WP:SYNTH
382:Jclemens
309:Jclemens
111:View log
1135:Delete.
1007:. See
929:WP:PLOT
896:usually
860:WP:PLOT
816:Spartaz
679:WP:PLOT
639:WP:PLOT
150:WP refs
138:scholar
84:protect
79:history
1253:Screen
1244:Screen
1222:Crusio
1218:WP:GNG
1216:Fails
1214:Delete
1168:WP:GNG
1001:policy
945:Jfgslo
937:WP:GNG
925:WP:GNG
865:Jfgslo
856:WP:GNG
835:(talk)
775:Jfgslo
724:Jfgslo
720:WP:NOT
675:WP:GNG
657:WP:NOT
643:Jfgslo
635:WP:GNG
580:Anthem
576:Delete
521:WP:MFD
492:Jfgslo
449:Jfgslo
421:Jfgslo
366:WP:AGF
352:Jfgslo
348:WP:NOT
340:WP:GNG
277:Jfgslo
254:Jfgslo
231:Jfgslo
208:Jfgslo
122:Google
88:delete
1281:— --
1143:WP:RS
921:WP:OR
852:WP:OR
743:WP:OR
687:WP:OR
165:JSTOR
126:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1289:talk
1284:Cirt
1261:talk
1226:talk
1201:talk
1182:cont
1116:talk
1088:URL.
949:talk
933:WP:N
919:and
908:talk
884:only
869:talk
858:and
828:Keep
779:talk
751:talk
728:talk
697:and
683:WP:V
665:talk
647:talk
612:talk
604:Keep
594:talk
549:talk
527:Reyk
511:talk
496:talk
471:talk
453:talk
439:talk
425:talk
407:talk
399:Keep
386:talk
356:talk
313:talk
293:Keep
281:talk
258:talk
235:talk
212:talk
158:FENS
132:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
677:or
588:.
534:YO!
380:".
374:not
172:TWL
109:– (
50:CBD
1291:)
1278:.
1263:)
1228:)
1203:)
1149:,
1118:)
951:)
910:)
871:)
781:)
753:)
730:)
667:)
649:)
614:)
596:)
551:)
513:)
498:)
473:)
455:)
441:)
427:)
409:)
388:)
358:)
315:)
283:)
272:.
260:)
249:.
237:)
226:.
214:)
152:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
1287:(
1259:(
1224:(
1199:(
1178:/
1114:(
947:(
906:(
867:(
777:(
749:(
726:(
663:(
645:(
629:"
610:(
592:(
547:(
509:(
494:(
469:(
451:(
437:(
423:(
405:(
384:(
354:(
311:(
279:(
275:—
256:(
252:—
233:(
229:—
210:(
176:)
168:·
162:·
154:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
129:·
124:(
116:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.