817:, for example, has a full page about the route with many paragraphs of text specifically about it. The entry has a bold heading for the route and so is clearly about the route specifically and is in no way a passing mention. I have no personal knowledge of the route and so all the information which was added to the article was taken from the various sources. There are more such sources which I have yet to inspect for this particular route. And I have yet to comb through the internet looking for everything that's out there. But I just made a quick trawl for this case and in just a minute found
1440:
carcasses... Iron Age Celtic warriors... A gunfight between the Prime
Minister and the Earl of Winchilsea... The birth of football as a spectator sport... " ... The Colonel has performed a similar feat here on a slightly smaller scale. Only a very strict interpretation of GNG could find the references fail to demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Ruthlessly applying the tightest standards may be appropriate for a harmful BLP or a fringe theory article that might help fraudsters, but seems without justification for such a harmless little gem as route 68.
1266:- England's premier journal of record? Sir Simon Jenkins described this route as the "Queen of buses" which seems like a pretty good accolade. And that's just what I found in another brief search. Every time I take a dip in the sources, I have no difficulty finding something and this is good evidence that there's a lot more to find. Just how many sources are required to satisfy you? We currently have 8. Please specify and justify your requirement, bearing in mind that this topic now has more citations than the main article on
743:
is nothing more than a dolled up basic description of existence. It doesn't look like you actually got anything of substance from any of those sources that wasn't general statements about all the routes. All you've written was when it was made, where it ran (taken off a map), and then descriptions that would describe the entire system (like the switch to routemaster operations). Absolutely nothing specific or special to this route.--
826:
I am not a bus enthusiast and so am having to develop some familiarity with the topic from scratch to respond to these numerous nominations with their absurdly impractical deadline of 7 days. The shame is that the editors who do know more about the topic seem quite cowed by the relentless philistinism of those who demand hours of effort without pay, recognition or respect. I exert myself on behalf of readers like
1127:
of places you would be passing as you rode the bus, but that's not the same as notability here on WP. Also I am a big fan of public transportation and like to ride it when visiting a city -- and it's thousands of times more important to human life than lots of things that are WP notable -- but still we shouldn't have articles on individual bus routes. You can go to the bus companies' own sites to check them out.
583:. Why do I say that? Because he thought the British people were stupid. "A nation of shopkeepers," I think he said. Or was that Napoleon? Well, no matter. Anyway keeping these articles on London bus routes sends the message that we think the British are too stupid to get this information to the world without the help of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit." Not as bad as the
960:, editors who ask that the work of other editors be deleted should not complain if, in turn, there are requests that their nominations should likewise be terminated. AFD nominations are not sacrosanct and, as they are time-consuming and fractious in controversial cases of this sort, we should better reserve them for cases where there is more likelihood of unanimity.
789:. This article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Like Crossmr, I am hesitant to place much weight on Colonel Warden's sources without being able to see the text because I have known that user to frequently present passing mentions as substantial coverage. I am also not very impressed with the procedural obstructionism of some of the early keep !votes.
1039:: "...a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come."
742:
Since you just made this false claim on another article for the equivalent of 3 sentences, I won't buy it until you actually provide the text of those sources that demonstrates there is anything more than a single sentence in any of those sources about the subject. The first little bit you've written
1189:
2.) Steve Defour's comments are extremely offensive and should not be considered in the final closing. He should possibly be blocked for them. Being of interest only to a small crowd, such as bus riders, is not a good reason NOT to include an article. I was in London in 1999 on a trip and I rode the
1145:
We routinely cover all human settlements now and all city streets in notable places like central London have articles too. Your opinion that we should not cover such topics is not supported by policy or the general consensus. And software developers are starting to rely upon this level of coverage
1126:
I think that Google maps' satellite pictures of neighborhoods and so forth are extremely interesting to look at, but that's not a reason to have an article on every square block pictured. I think an article on a bus route is kind of the same thing. It's interesting to check it out and see what kind
931:
Colonel Warden has posted almost identical disruptive comments on several AFDs, accusing the nominator of many things he has no proof of whatsoever. Instead of analysing the article on its merits he went on the attack and criticized the process in which they were nominated, accusing the nominator of
825:
journalist, which provides a good account of his personal relationship with this particular route which he describes in great detail. Taken with the other sources, such material is more than adequate to support an article and this is just what I have found in a few minutes of lookup and searching.
399:
is an important guideline and shouldn't discarded lightly. It is important for good reason. Without significant coverage in reliable sources, it is usually impossible to have an encyclopaedic article about a subject that is properly verified. These bus route articles are a case in point: they are
1311:
It seems that you have yet to add a single reference to any article, let alone 8. Please explain your certainty that none of these references are substantial. Have you obtained copies of these works, as I have? I have added many sources to many articles and consider these ones to be quite good.
1292:
or even in the eyes of the man on the
Clapham omnibus. Congratulations on finding more mentions; I note that you increased the above figure from 5 to 8 in recent minutes. Quantity, however, is not quality. These days, any local feature accumulates multiple mentions and the wonders of the internet
761:
You are mistaken - the sources provide detailed text which is particular to this particular route. As you do not appear to have studied the sources yourself, your comments appear to be guesswork. I cannot provide copies of the sources for you as this would breach their copyright. If you wish
917:
I am sorry, you have one editor calling other editors Hitler, and then you have another editor saying he does not trust
Colonel, showing extreme bad faith, and you have the audacity to lecture Colonel about civility? I appreciate you calling out the editor who called other editors Hitler though.
630:
In the United States you have the legal right to agree with Hitler that the
British are stupid. In some other countries expressing that view would be a crime. I happen to think the British are smart enough to post their own website giving the public the information on their bus routes without WP
1439:
a FA class transport article that
Iridescent enlivened with human interest. ... "Bare-knuckle boxing... A city dependent on a network of hollow elm trunks to carry its water supply... Biker gangs fighting to the death with spiked flails and sawn-off shotguns... A river filled with animal
1386:(to follow up on my earlier Keep). The article is much improved now, and the references are good. A Knowledge (XXG) article about a bus route should discuss its history, as this article does, especially since this information is unlikely to be available on the bus operator's website.
1146:
by building apps for devices like the iPhone that will let you call up the relevant
Knowledge (XXG) article when you point its camera at something. Bus destination boards are a natural visual cue for such an app and so it makes sense to structure our coverage of buses in this way.
508:
Not on the timetable ground - it's possible for a good bus route article to be written based on historical and current sources - but this one isn't one of them and is not going to be one of them, as there does not seem to be any significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
932:
not having followed correct procedure. He has also attempted to discredit the very valid delete votes from people. It seems he is unable to disagree without attacking the person he is disagreeing with. This is very sad and I hope he will change his approach to AFDs.
400:
littered with original research and for all we know could be totally inaccurate. The reason they are littered with original research is because the reliable sources aren't there. For that reason, the original research is fatal and unsalvageable.--
631:
getting involved beyond providing a link to that site. (i.e. "WP is not a directory.") However as I said Nazism is not illegal in the United States and I don't think it should be banned on WP, so feel free to express whatever views you like. ;-)
216:. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.
1185:
1.) While I still support this being kept, even if the majority say delete, it should be merged to a parent article, and the edit history retained, so in the future, someone can dig up what is already written in an old version, and improve upon
723:
I have just done some work to improve the article, adding historical detail from a variety of reliable sources. This demonstrates the topic's notability and invalidates all the delete !votes above which are based upon the lack of sources.
1330:
I fear you do not have the research skills you think you have, at least as regards myself. But it's clear this is time to walk away from an exchange which is becoming personal. I'll leave it to you to have the last word; mine remains
848:
If you are having difficult remaining civil while editing this particular subject, I might suggest a different subject or a step back. There is nothing difficult about remaining civil. We are responsible for and control our own
155:
645:
This !vote is invalid as, apart from it not addressing the topic, it duplicates another !vote from the same user above. Perhaps he has been confused by the great volume of these hasty and disruptive nominations.
1235:
It lacks notability. That in all the years of its existence one journalist managed to get an article about his personal experience of it printed in a listings magazine does not confer notability. To extend
696:
Fans of the London bus system are not really Nazis. This was a joke. However, I still think bus routes are not suitable topics for WP articles since they are only of interest to potential riders.
417:
because, among other reasons, each bus company should be maintaining its own website where accurate, up to date information is provided to the public. No need for us to duplicate their efforts.
608:? Seriously, your comment is misinformed, insulting and completely fails to address the point of the discussion. You've posted the same ridiculous essay on several of these AFDs too...
289:
1069:
Colonel Warden has found sources, which he listed in the discussion above. I believe notability is established. Many of the deletes seem to just hate all bus articles in general.
149:
110:
813:
It is hard to remain civil when we see hostile editors voting blind in this prejudiced way. The sources in this case are indeed quite adequate to establish notability. The
255:
1435:
It would be tragic to loose this outstanding article. Colonel Warden has treated us to a master class of quality encyclopedic writing. The article now reminds one of
322:
194:
830:
who seem unwilling to represent their strong views at AFD - perhaps seeing it as a place where they will be scorned and treated with contempt, as we see here.
115:
83:
78:
87:
545:. Has a lot more going for it since Colonel Warden's expansion and sourcing work, including some fairly significant coverage in reliable sources.
70:
1111:
818:
352:
307:
273:
239:
1293:
allow us to find them quickly - as you demonstrate. Whether that feature is notable within the terms of
Knowledge (XXG) is another matter.
325:. These AfD's certianly don't help the process users are currently going through to determine which articles are notable and which aren't.
48:
was heading for delete, but after
Colonel Warden's rewrite a consensus has either been people wanting it kept, or indeed switching votes.
1208:
as Steve Dufour has said, both here and on his talk page. Bad and tasteless joke, sure, and one I hope and believe he won't make again.
17:
1190:
buses there. I do not see any guideline that says an article must be deleted if it is only of interest to a small number of people.
170:
562:
all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.
336:
Not so. There is no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as the wholly unjustified praise for
212:
PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West
Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one
137:
1396:
382:
1464:
131:
36:
1449:
1427:
1401:
1378:
1344:
1321:
1302:
1279:
1249:
1223:
1199:
1171:
1162:
I agree that something like that would be useful, and fun. I just don't think that is what an encyclopedia is for.
1155:
1136:
1116:
1092:
1059:
1043:
1023:
999:
969:
947:
922:
908:
880:
858:
839:
804:
771:
752:
733:
705:
673:
655:
640:
623:
596:
571:
554:
530:
513:
500:
479:
464:
447:
426:
409:
387:
357:
331:
312:
278:
244:
52:
74:
127:
1375:
1107:
348:
303:
269:
235:
49:
1008:
With respect, the improvements don't change the fact the route simply does not meet our criteria for inclusion.
1463:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1317:
1275:
1151:
965:
876:
835:
767:
729:
651:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1288:
Colonel, that Simon
Jenkins praises it in passing does not automatically make it notable within the terms of
956:
I have not attacked the nominator - my point has been to call for the nomination to be speedily closed. Per
177:
1050:
I have a feeling that the New York Review of Books does not let anyone say anything they like in its pages.
1445:
1167:
1132:
1055:
889:
Maybe you should just stop making false claims about people. If you cannot remain civil, and refrain from
701:
636:
592:
510:
488:
422:
337:
202:
521:. Article does not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable third party sources - name drops only.
472:
per nom and Mkativerata. Not to mention that this article doesn't even attempt to establish notability
405:
66:
58:
227:
rather than the disruptive procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you.
1368:
1100:
1016:
940:
901:
616:
550:
341:
296:
262:
228:
1313:
1271:
1147:
961:
872:
831:
763:
725:
647:
163:
143:
786:
1392:
1195:
567:
526:
476:
378:
1409:
per the changes made since nomination - sourcing seems to have improved sufficiently. Regards,
993:
the article has gone through signifigant improvements since the article was put up for deletion.
957:
1441:
1410:
1240:'s comment, not every trivial thing that has ever been mentioned needs a stand alone article.
1163:
1128:
1051:
854:
827:
748:
697:
669:
632:
588:
460:
418:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
186:
Non-notable bus-route, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per
1070:
496:
443:
401:
1289:
890:
435:
396:
224:
187:
1099:
But which exactly are the refs which establish notability through significant coverage? --
1011:
935:
896:
611:
546:
487:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a bus timetable. Notable routes (which do exist, see for example
193:
I PRODded it, but the PROD was contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at
1436:
1340:
1298:
1245:
1216:
797:
539:
Nothing worth keeping on this one, as the lack of sources or any sort of history shows.
1388:
1191:
605:
563:
522:
473:
374:
434:
Not every trivial thing that exists in a directory needs a stand alone article. See
850:
744:
665:
584:
580:
456:
104:
197:. However, the assessments in that discussion seem pretty shoddy. For example,
1366:
The results now show an encyclopdic and sourced topic that serves the project.
1237:
492:
439:
1336:
1294:
1263:
1241:
1209:
1040:
996:
919:
868:
790:
326:
323:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject London Transport#London bus route articles
1259:
822:
219:
If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual
1036:
455:
or redirect. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--
1035:
per sources added. As Nicholson Baker of the New York Review of Books
867:
You have twice above accused me of making false claims. Please see
682:
Here are the diffs for the two separate !votes by the same editor:
579:!!!! Because anyone who wants to keep this article is the same as
321:
for now, there is already ongoing discussion on this elsewhere, at
1362:
I held off commenting in order to see what could be done with the
1262:
journalist is not notable. How about a sometime chief editor of
1457:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1267:
1097:
Seems that somebody hasn't cracked this whole AGF thing. :(
395:. Oops, missed this one. Essentially per BrownHairedGirl.
1363:
994:
686:
683:
213:
198:
100:
96:
92:
162:
290:
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions
176:
664:The only thing disruptive is your false claims.--
491:) can have articles; others should be listified.
195:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject London Transport
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1467:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1364:2-sentence stub that had been first sent to AFD.
891:commenting on the contributor, not the content
205:, but I see no evidence there of notability.
8:
256:list of England-related deletion discussions
762:copies please buy them yourself, as I did.
284:
250:
288:: This debate has been included in the
254:: This debate has been included in the
694:Disclaimer (as per talk page request)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
893:, you should definitely walk away.
24:
415:Delete all articles on bus routes
1:
785:- because Knowledge (XXG) is
1484:
514:17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
501:10:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
480:01:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
465:00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
448:05:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
427:04:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
410:04:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
388:03:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
358:01:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
332:00:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
313:00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
279:00:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
245:00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1450:08:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
1428:21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
1402:02:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
1379:00:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
1345:23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1322:23:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1303:22:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1280:21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1250:20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1224:10:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1200:04:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
1172:23:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1156:22:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1137:21:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1117:21:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1093:19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1060:15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1044:15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1024:14:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1000:14:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
991:Note to closing nominator
970:23:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
948:15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
923:15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
909:13:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
881:11:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
859:11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
840:10:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
805:05:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
772:22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
753:01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
734:19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
706:15:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
674:01:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
656:19:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
641:14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
624:14:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
597:12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
572:04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
555:14:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
531:13:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
53:13:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
1460:Please do not modify it.
587:, but at heart the same.
32:Please do not modify it.
577:EXTREMELY STRONG DELETE
208:The editor who removed
338:London Buses route 187
203:London Buses route 187
1204:Oh come on. It was a
67:London Buses route 68
59:London Buses route 68
489:Dublin Bus route 46A
815:Routemaster Omnibus
537:Redirect or delete
223:of notability per
44:The result was
1115:
356:
315:
311:
293:
281:
277:
259:
243:
1475:
1462:
1425:
1400:
1371:
1214:
1106:
1103:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1021:
1019:
1014:
945:
943:
938:
906:
904:
899:
795:
621:
619:
614:
386:
347:
344:
329:
302:
299:
294:
268:
265:
260:
234:
231:
181:
180:
166:
118:
108:
90:
34:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1465:deletion review
1458:
1421:
1417:
1411:
1387:
1369:
1220:
1210:
1101:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1017:
1012:
1010:
941:
936:
934:
902:
897:
895:
801:
791:
787:not a directory
617:
612:
610:
436:not a directory
373:
366:Procedural keep
342:
327:
319:Procedural keep
297:
263:
229:
123:
114:
81:
65:
62:
50:Scott Mac (Doc)
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1481:
1479:
1470:
1469:
1453:
1452:
1437:Chelsea Bridge
1430:
1419:
1415:
1404:
1381:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1325:
1324:
1314:Colonel Warden
1306:
1305:
1283:
1282:
1272:Colonel Warden
1253:
1252:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1218:
1187:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1159:
1158:
1148:Colonel Warden
1140:
1139:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1098:
1063:
1062:
1047:
1046:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1003:
1002:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
962:Colonel Warden
951:
950:
926:
925:
912:
911:
884:
883:
873:Colonel Warden
862:
861:
843:
842:
832:Colonel Warden
808:
807:
799:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
764:Colonel Warden
756:
755:
737:
736:
726:Colonel Warden
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
690:
689:
677:
676:
659:
658:
648:Colonel Warden
627:
626:
600:
599:
574:
557:
533:
516:
503:
482:
467:
450:
429:
412:
390:
372:as discussed.
362:
361:
360:
316:
282:
184:
183:
120:
116:AfD statistics
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1480:
1468:
1466:
1461:
1455:
1454:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1215:
1213:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1015:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
998:
995:
992:
989:
988:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
949:
946:
944:
939:
930:
929:
928:
927:
924:
921:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
907:
905:
900:
892:
888:
887:
886:
885:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
865:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
847:
846:
845:
844:
841:
837:
833:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
803:
802:
796:
794:
788:
784:
781:
780:
773:
769:
765:
760:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
746:
741:
740:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
722:
719:
718:
707:
703:
699:
695:
692:
691:
688:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
629:
628:
625:
622:
620:
615:
607:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
538:
534:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
515:
512:
507:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
483:
481:
478:
475:
471:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
451:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
413:
411:
407:
403:
398:
394:
391:
389:
384:
380:
376:
371:
368:
367:
363:
359:
354:
350:
346:
339:
335:
334:
333:
330:
324:
320:
317:
314:
309:
305:
301:
291:
287:
283:
280:
275:
271:
267:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
241:
237:
233:
226:
222:
217:
215:
211:
206:
204:
200:
196:
191:
189:
179:
175:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
125:Find sources:
121:
117:
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:
1459:
1456:
1442:FeydHuxtable
1433:Strong Keep
1432:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1406:
1383:
1374:
1367:
1359:
1332:
1232:
1217:
1211:
1205:
1179:
1178:
1164:Steve Dufour
1129:Steve Dufour
1123:
1071:
1066:
1052:Steve Dufour
1032:
1009:
990:
933:
894:
819:this article
814:
798:
792:
782:
720:
698:Steve Dufour
693:
633:Steve Dufour
609:
589:Steve Dufour
585:London Blitz
581:Adolf Hitler
576:
559:
542:
536:
535:
518:
511:Orderinchaos
505:
484:
469:
452:
431:
419:Steve Dufour
414:
392:
369:
365:
364:
318:
285:
251:
220:
218:
209:
207:
199:this comment
192:
185:
173:
167:
159:
152:
146:
140:
134:
124:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1238:User:Edison
1033:Strong keep
402:Mkativerata
150:free images
1418:rbitrarily
1104:HairedGirl
849:actions.--
547:Alzarian16
345:HairedGirl
300:HairedGirl
266:HairedGirl
232:HairedGirl
1264:The Times
1180:Comments:
869:Tu quoque
1397:contribs
1389:Eastmain
1370:Schmidt,
1260:Time Out
1192:Dew Kane
1112:contribs
958:WP:SAUCE
823:Time Out
564:Dew Kane
541:Move to
523:Karanacs
383:contribs
375:Eastmain
353:contribs
308:contribs
274:contribs
240:contribs
221:evidence
201:praises
111:View log
1384:Comment
1124:Comment
851:Crossmr
828:Dubmill
745:Crossmr
666:Crossmr
457:Crossmr
156:WP refs
144:scholar
84:protect
79:history
1333:Delete
1290:WP:GNG
1233:Delete
1108:(talk)
783:Delete
606:Hitler
519:Delete
506:Delete
493:Stifle
485:Delete
470:Delete
453:delete
440:Edison
432:Delete
393:Delete
349:(talk)
304:(talk)
270:(talk)
236:(talk)
225:WP:GNG
188:WP:GNG
128:Google
88:delete
1258:So a
1102:Brown
1088:Focus
1041:Okip
1037:wrote
1013:Aiken
997:Okip
937:Aiken
920:Okip
898:Aiken
821:by a
613:Aiken
343:Brown
298:Brown
264:Brown
230:Brown
171:JSTOR
132:books
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1446:talk
1407:Keep
1393:talk
1360:Keep
1341:talk
1337:NebY
1318:talk
1299:talk
1295:NebY
1276:talk
1246:talk
1242:NebY
1212:Reyk
1206:joke
1196:talk
1168:talk
1152:talk
1133:talk
1067:Keep
1056:talk
966:talk
877:talk
855:talk
836:talk
793:Reyk
768:talk
749:talk
730:talk
721:Keep
702:talk
670:talk
652:talk
637:talk
593:talk
568:talk
560:Keep
551:talk
543:keep
527:talk
497:talk
477:lute
474:Reso
461:talk
444:talk
423:talk
406:talk
379:talk
370:Keep
340:. --
328:Jeni
286:Note
252:Note
214:this
210:this
164:FENS
138:news
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:keep
1268:Bus
1219:YO!
1186:it.
1110:• (
800:YO!
397:GNG
351:• (
306:• (
295:--
272:• (
261:--
238:• (
178:TWL
113:•
109:– (
1448:)
1395:•
1343:)
1335:.
1320:)
1301:)
1278:)
1270:.
1248:)
1198:)
1170:)
1154:)
1135:)
1058:)
968:)
879:)
871:.
857:)
838:)
770:)
751:)
732:)
704:)
672:)
654:)
639:)
595:)
570:)
553:)
529:)
499:)
463:)
446:)
438:.
425:)
408:)
381:•
292:.
258:.
190:.
158:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
1444:(
1420:0
1416:A
1399:)
1391:(
1339:(
1316:(
1297:(
1274:(
1244:(
1194:(
1166:(
1150:(
1131:(
1114:)
1085:m
1082:a
1079:e
1076:r
1073:D
1054:(
1018:♫
964:(
942:♫
903:♫
875:(
853:(
834:(
766:(
747:(
728:(
700:(
687:2
684:1
668:(
650:(
635:(
618:♫
591:(
566:(
549:(
525:(
495:(
459:(
442:(
421:(
404:(
385:)
377:(
355:)
310:)
276:)
242:)
182:)
174:·
168:·
160:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
135:·
130:(
122:(
119:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.