1481:
deletionists is why we need to fear their actions; their overzealous efforts to delete potentially useful articles. Without diligent oversight, ANY article can easily disappear in a mere 7 days. Personally, I don't have the time to keep checking that many AfD articles to see what might be under attack. Yet these people scour WP to find anything they can attack and remove. They love to get their brownie points for successfully deleting articles. Once an article is gone--ITS GONE. The public, the world, all but a few super secret elite administrators can never see it, never find it, never improve upon whatever might be wrong with the article. So I noticed this one. I cast my vote. I'm not alone in voting support. You'd think that should be sufficient to save the article, but no. This article could still disappear as soon as somebody, some administrator, decides that consensus has been reached to delete it. A relative handful of deletionists, despite the objections of others, can just make things disappear for everybody far to easily.
1447:
make things findable. Whether you feel any individual case is exactly correct, might be a matter of opinion. I've got many additional cases to add to this article, as I'm sure others will too. There is plenty of room for further improvement. A list like this sparks the discussion and with the plethora of internal links, it provides a way for one to carry out further research which gives much greater clarity to each specific situation. Keeping this article hurts nothing. Deleting this article cuts off a useful tool.
547:
the ones that are well sourced and keep an sharp watch or semi-protect this article. It also might work if there is an sandbox or something for this article to use sort of like an recycling center for the rivalries that isn't well sourced until there can be an good source for them. But for right now I think we should probably just start over in the archenemy article since it is basically an small article and TV Tropes already proved you can use lists of rivralies in an article specifically talking about archenemy.
939:
individually sourced, if you trace to the referenced internal link, you see the article that DOES reference the information. That discounts the
Original Research and Verifiability claim. If the complainants have a problem with fulfilling the laborious requirements of listing a source for every statement, then they can spend their time transferring the sources from all the numerous sub-referenced pages. In the mean time, don't mess with deleting useful articles.
1819:- "Lists that are too broad in scope have little value." This list is of potentially infinite scope and therefore must be too broad. "List of fictional DC comics archenemies" would be an appropriate list, by comparison. As a side argument, note that a featured list "comprehensively covers the defined scope"; is there any value in permitting a list to remain that is by definition incapable of achieving the featured list criteria? -
48:. It's my opinion that nobody provided a sound rationale to counter the concerns of original research. Other concerns such as listcruft and not directory were less convincing, but swayed my analysis towards deletion. All things considered, the list is too poorly defined and too wide in scope to be particularly encyclopaedic and a good number of the keep !votes revolved around weak arguments such as
1866:
categorization is all subjective. It might seem like
Origninal research, but there are a lot of supporting opinions. Very few Red links, leading to supporting documentation and discussion. And it would be stupid to destroy this much, oh I'm going to say it, useful information. If you have to delete something, do it on a line by line basis.
1183:
1792:. I also don't see the term "archenemy" used when and I find many of the listings dubious at best. I had to laugh about Bandit Keith being listed as Joey Wheeler's archenemy, the pair only meet once. The list also confuses rivalries with enemies, examples Yugi Mutou and Seto Kaiba, Amuro Ray and Char Aznable, and Goku and Vegeta. —
656:
article that would work because they would point the reader to articles where they could read-up about those specific examples. Continued across every fiction on a list then the only reason their counterpart's would need to be mentioned is because the list would be too broad by a mile. The categories
1480:
Thank you for making an effort to save the page--its not an innovation I had previously considered. I'm not sure how it would be found by a member of the public (who would have to know the article exists and that it has been saved elsewhere) without significant effort. What frustrates me by the WP
1337:
Confusing right? Cases like this are strewn about the entire Mortal Kombat series, and with a cast of about 60 characters we would have to find a reliable source for each and every rivalry considered to exist within the series. And if that is done so for one section, then it will most likely be done
842:
with no prejudice of recreation should there be enough material. I highly doubt that this list will be long enough to warrant a current separate article after removal of all unsourced and poorly sourced material. I suspect this list ended up from few good entries into "everyone adds their favourite
617:
Even though it may be doable to skip around the OR issue in more prominent examples, that's unlikely to be the case the moment you stray from the most obvious examples, it doesn't explain why it's necessary to have a list containing all the big bads from pretty much everything yanked out of context
546:
article with all those examples on there and I really believe that was an good idea. But ever since then this article has been full of IP editors thinking they could put whatever in lately. And that ain't cutting it for
Knowledge (XXG). I do recommend if anyone wants this article to stay, keep only
1446:
And splitting the list, as you suggest, like folders within categories, makes finding the information that much more difficult without a much more determined and/or informed search. If you can make a subject-specific list, I'm all for that. But a universal list like this serves as another way to
1308:
A good many times, I am against deletion of any article because some articles are simply bad becuase of lazy contributors. Here, this would definitely not be the case. Just scanning over the article, it is largely incomplete. I believe it would require the entire population of
Wikipedians to even
1185:
The other comic book companies can be searched as well. You can also search the names of those listed with the word "archenemy" in it, and see what Google news/books/whatever can find. I'll go add a few sources now to demonstrate how easy it is, if anyone actually cared for such things. If you
594:
nightmare. We've kicked the subject around on individual cases and it can be a tricky beast (Googling the character and "archenemy") isn't enough as it has to be an authoritative source and such things aren't easy to find, just because someone says X is an archenemy of Y it doesn't mean they are.
1897:
There is a big difference between including verifiable entries and having it "look plenty sourced considering it is subjective material". What are these supporting opinions you mention? How does redlink absence indicate anything? The list is only this long because poorly sourced OR is constantly
1654:
and salvageable (just not the majority of it). There does not appear to be, however, a valid reason for this to have its own article, as it is not independetly notable nor is the parent article so large that it needed split out for readability (in contrast to Dream Focus's presumable example of
938:
This is a very useful list which I will bookmark. The concept of archenemies is an essential element to the fictional writing I do professionally and this is a valid list to point students to. I support the concept of sub-referencing in that, while perhaps every entry in this article is not
1865:
Let's see, we can't say its a useful list, even though it is. It would be stupid to merge this to the master article, this list of examples is way too long and would have to be spun off, which somebody already did. It looks like it has plenty of sourcing, especially considering this sort of
953:
As you already seen in my comment I did like an article about this particular subject and I have had this as my watchlist for quite an while. But fixing it was getting tiresome. I do agree if we just stick to the well sourced ones and leave it to that we should get an halfway decent article.
1554:
Well, #1 is to delete everything without a citation. #2 would be to find (copy from main article or somewhere else) citations for entries we want to keep. #3 would be either update the current list in claim of proper verification or merge into
Archenemy where few objections should arise.
1062:
Links to other
Knowledge (XXG) articles, and is a good category to sort things through. List articles are easier to look through and use than categories though. Other information can perhaps be added as well, such as their first year of conflict, or reasons why they are archenemies.
1535:
By the way since I created the userspace draft for it. Please discuss with what can be done about most of it in the discussion page for it because I won't probably keep the user space draft forever. The only thing that i can think to do is merge the sourced ones on
1465:
to save what might be useful information if it gets deleted. If it could possibly go somewhere else here I don't want the useful parts lost forever. You decide where it belongs. It's the least that I could do since some people want it to stay for this reason.
665:. The whole idea of rolling-out archnemesis as a meaningful classification is flawed IMO, taking what may or may not be a character's archnemesis and plonking them into a list doesn't tell the reader a damn thing about the fiction they have been removed from.
1513:. You make it sound like any editor who expresses valid reasons for why the article does not meet WP inclusion criteria is a deletionist. Rather that criticizing methods of others or the system, you should provide valid arguments for inclusion other than
1424:. having a vague list like this makes it impossible to avoid original research. this list has uncited material, material cited to unreliable sources, and citations that don't even verify "archenemies" at all. That's why we have more specific lists like
1882:
Oh, and if the list is too broad, break it down to a bunch of lists under the categories already in place. I've even got another category that will fill up the page more: in
Professional Wrestling. That will be a huge article in
1149:
can also be good for talking about history of famous rivalries.Something it's lacking of really. I think your idea could work if it was anything like TV Tropes way of doing it. But keep in mind the list article is already long.
177:
1024:
as a list of independently notable, duly sourced archenemies. This can be a valuable and interesting list, and it's a good example of the kind of encyclopedic organization that
Knowledge (XXG) can do better than print
1342:. IF the rivalry is notable, and references can be found then place it in the prose of the characters' respective articles (if the characters themselves are even notable to begin with) such as the rivalry between
463:
True, all interpretation of meaning within literature is merely an opinion. However with the number of other sources expressing that same opinion, other people concur. In WP terms we can now call that,
56:
anything is useful in context, but usefulness is, for better or worse, not the basis on which we decide what to include in
Knowledge (XXG). I've a feeling this may be contentious so Deletion Review is
1757:. Such a list is completely unmaintainable as it is unendinging and inherently indiscriminate. The main article already has appropriate, discrete examples, in context, without excessive detail. --
729:
has been kept: just because it's a drive-by magnet and a mess, doesn't mean that a well-sourced, non-indiscriminate article on the subject can't exist. Cleanup, obviously, doesn't require deletion.
240:
1214:
I don't doubt most of it, I doubt that at present there are enough volunteers to properly reference the entries to adhere to verifiability. Also, I am not going to tag every unsourced entry with
399:; looks like there are several sources cited. Not everything is cited, granted, but it's certainly possible to restrict the list to only cited examples and still have a reasonably useful list.
297:
1164:
The president articles are much, much longer that the article in question. And they are sourced. Every single entry has 4 reliable references. This list is unsourced undue content split.
325:
171:
774:- unmaintainably large (potentially thousands of entries), and the inclusion criteria is not objectively defined. Archenemies are confused with arch-nemeses and general antagonists.
1600:
1396:
1370:
132:
105:
100:
1899:
1604:
1462:
109:
1182:
All of these could easily be sourced. All the Marvel comic book characters are listed on the official Marvel site, listing who is who's archenemy in various places.
1109:
No, that article exists to explain the concept of what an archenemy is. It will not be listing all of these things there. They belong in a list article. Just like
899:
Well I admit. I don't hate the suggestion. It's just that I am not completely sure about it either. Not all of the certain sections are big enough to be an article.
866:
137:
92:
350:
1784:
Looking at the anime and manga section (the area I am most failure with), I do not see a single reliable source. I did see one source to an earlier version of
268:
1684:, because there's hardly any sources and significant original research is needed to bring this up to any sort of useful completeness, and because it's cruft.
1331:, the character Noob Saibot, although a reincarnation of the original Sub-Zero, has not even met Scorpion in the first place to be considered an archenemy.
380:, this list would end up being utterly unmaintainable. I can't fathom the number of arch-nemeses there are, and who would argue what is and what isn't. --
1309:
begin to make this article acceptable. First, many rivalries in fiction can get quite confusing. Since it's a topic i'm familiar with, I'll use the
890:– would splitting into separate lists by type (e.g. video games, novels, comics, etc.) help reduce the "indiscriminate nature" with one huge list? –
1660:
1224:
just to show my point :P. I already expressed that I am happy to keep/merge this into parent article, I just doubt it deserves it's own article.
987:
If you actually look at the first part of the article it says it may never be complete. Meaning there can be a always be an new rivalry to add.
192:
159:
595:
Also in serial fiction like comics this can change to suit the story and so may not even be fixed (as they aren't real). Add a link from
1770:
626:
would do a better job. Truth be told, in most cases categories would be just as effective and require a fraction of the maintainence.
618:
and chucked into a barrel. The concept itself, fair game for an article and some examples would be good, but more specific lists like
272:
217:
96:
542:
To Joshau Isaac. This article only has an few good reliable sources. Now I know you are the one that seperated this article from the
17:
209:
1915:
1892:
1875:
1857:
1828:
1807:
1774:
1721:
1699:
1672:
1616:
1568:
1549:
1530:
1490:
1475:
1456:
1437:
1411:
1385:
1359:
1298:
1280:
1237:
1209:
1177:
1159:
1140:
1104:
1086:
1052:
1034:
1014:
996:
982:
963:
948:
926:
908:
894:
881:
856:
826:
805:
783:
764:
738:
715:
693:
672:
647:
633:
608:
578:
556:
537:
510:
473:
458:
435:
421:
403:
389:
365:
337:
312:
284:
255:
229:
153:
74:
1803:
1656:
1425:
149:
88:
80:
216:. The subject of X (example only) being an archenemy of Y in fiction can be entirely speculative. And if you look in the
1930:
1496:
Yess.. We deletes the articles for brownie points.. We scours and we seeks for our super secret administrator masters..
36:
199:
1355:
689:
220:
you see it is an mess with links. I used to like an idea of an article about this subject but it's going too far.
213:
978:
669:
630:
1929:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1824:
1328:
1324:
744:
726:
623:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1145:
Yes but the article uses examples of reasons why certain characters are archenemies. I also think the article
817:, restricting entries to those citing reliable sources will take care of problems of size and indiscriminacy.
1612:
1545:
1471:
1433:
1407:
1381:
1155:
1100:
992:
959:
904:
793:
552:
361:
333:
308:
280:
251:
225:
165:
1764:
1717:
1668:
662:
619:
533:
1746:
1607:
where it could be fixed any way you like it such as deleting the ones that don't have citations and etc.
1514:
1260:
1429:
1351:
1110:
779:
685:
489:
write a version of this list that passed all our content policies, but it would suck (especially from a
69:
1510:
1502:
751:
article and the better entries could only be preserved by keeping the list. This is not the case here.
408:
The list will not be long enough to warrant a separate article once the unsourced material is trimmed.
1898:
added and the meaning of archenemy arbitrarily broadened. "It is useful" is not a valid argument; and
657:
I was referring to are the likes of Golden Age supervillains, DC Comics supervillains etc (taken from
974:
822:
666:
643:
627:
454:
1910:
1850:
1820:
1563:
1525:
1486:
1452:
1293:
1232:
1172:
1047:
1030:
1009:
944:
921:
851:
759:
710:
573:
469:
431:
416:
185:
1681:
1498:
1268:
838:. Most of the list is no more than subjective OR. The few sourced entries can be merged back into
49:
1888:
1871:
1799:
1789:
1785:
1608:
1541:
1467:
1403:
1377:
1347:
1151:
1096:
1001:
Ditto. It will never be complete, it can only be kept maintained by limiting to sourced entries.
988:
955:
900:
891:
734:
548:
521:
357:
329:
304:
276:
247:
221:
1816:
1754:
1264:
1267:. Also, I noticed that all the users saying "keep" are saying so simply because the article is
565:
be deleted, it should be preserved. However, a separate article may not be the best place yet.
1758:
1713:
1664:
877:
801:
604:
529:
385:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1506:
1339:
684:- An article could be made on this topic, so let it sit until someone whips it into shape. -
1276:
1187:
1118:
1064:
775:
506:
61:
53:
1750:
1742:
1421:
490:
57:
1343:
818:
748:
639:
638:
Categories have no way of placing the enemies and their antagonists together on one page.
450:
1738:
1643:
1256:
591:
377:
1906:
1843:
1692:
1559:
1521:
1482:
1448:
1289:
1228:
1168:
1043:
1026:
1005:
940:
917:
847:
755:
706:
658:
569:
498:
465:
427:
412:
1651:
1884:
1867:
1794:
1310:
1186:
sincerely doubt any of the information provided, then tag it with a citation needed.
1114:
730:
400:
873:
797:
600:
381:
126:
1320:
1218:
502:
1839:
1734:
1685:
1639:
1537:
1146:
1092:
839:
835:
699:
653:
596:
543:
494:
913:
Surely, there are enough "parent" articles to fit the smaller sections?
599:
to the TV Tropes site if anyone wants to read up on such things. (
1923:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
426:
Dated comment as more and more items in the list become sourced.
973:
It looks like a pointless article. Is this list even complete?
1741:
with only a few actually sourcable examples, and goes against
525:
520:- the article is well referenced, with sources including
241:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
298:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
122:
118:
114:
1733:
The subject of archenemies is already qell covered at
1603:
where the general discussion of this should be at and
184:
1646:
as there are reliable sources provided, so at least
652:
There's no need to. As a handful of examples on the
326:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
198:
52:. While I'm sure it is useful, as that essay says,
843:work's archenemy". This is no way to build lists.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1933:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1737:. As others have noted, this list is primarily
1397:list of Television-related deletion discussions
1371:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
269:list of video game related deletion discussions
1509:arguments are usually ignored and as this is
561:To Joshua Issac. The sourced material should
8:
1842:, with some trimming done during the merge.
1788:, but I've already removed it since it is a
1540:but still all opinions welcome, Thank you!
792:This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing
1338:for all sections of the article leading to
501:. Thus, I'd let it fall outside our scope.
1391:
1365:
867:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
861:
345:
320:
292:
235:
60:if anybody wants to appeal this decision.
1902:how the list looks trimmed case-by-case.
1782:Source, trim, and then decide what to do.
351:list of Film-related deletion discussions
1395:: This debate has been included in the
1369:: This debate has been included in the
865:: This debate has been included in the
349:: This debate has been included in the
324:: This debate has been included in the
296:: This debate has been included in the
267:: This debate has been included in the
239:: This debate has been included in the
1661:List of Presidents of the United States
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1708:Forty sources are more than just "
1327:, he is the enemy of the original
1039:Only few entries are duly sourced.
24:
1461:I have created an user draft for
1680:- because this encyclopedia is
1657:President of the United States
1426:List of villains in The Batman
449:Its full of original research
1:
698:The article on this topic is
89:List of fictional archenemies
81:List of fictional archenemies
1813:Delete as too broad in scope
1950:
725:for the same reasons that
1642:. Not all of the list is
273:Search video game sources
71:Penny for your thoughts?
1926:Please do not modify it.
1916:01:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1893:01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1876:01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1858:14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1829:05:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1808:19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1775:18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1722:00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1700:23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
1673:14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1617:22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
1569:21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
1550:18:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
1531:18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
1491:17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
1476:01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1457:00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1438:21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1412:15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1386:14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1360:15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1323:is not the archenemy of
1299:22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1281:06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1238:15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1210:15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1178:22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1160:00:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1141:23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1105:23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1087:22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1053:22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1035:21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1015:22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
997:21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
983:20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
964:18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
949:18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
927:22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
909:22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
895:17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
882:15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
857:13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
827:12:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
806:11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
784:11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
765:13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
745:List of fictional swords
739:04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
727:List of fictional swords
716:13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
694:02:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
673:16:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
648:12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
634:01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
624:List of Punisher enemies
609:23:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
579:13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
557:00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
538:23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
511:22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
474:19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
459:21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
436:19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
422:13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
404:20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
390:20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
376:- besides being full of
366:19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
338:19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
313:19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
285:19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
256:19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
230:19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
208:This article is full of
75:03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1505:are not an innovation.
1095:article is mainly for.
663:List of X-Men villains
661:), or counterparts to
620:List of X-Men villains
1277:(let's talk about it)
1111:List of US presidents
832:Merge sourced entries
796:). It is listed now.
1311:Mortal Kombat series
1790:circular reference
1348:Professor Moriarty
1340:an unreadable mess
522:The New York Times
1914:
1567:
1529:
1414:
1400:
1388:
1374:
1297:
1279:
1236:
1176:
1113:is separate from
1051:
1013:
925:
884:
870:
855:
763:
714:
577:
493:standpoint), and
420:
368:
354:
340:
315:
301:
287:
258:
244:
210:Original Research
1941:
1928:
1913:
1903:
1855:
1848:
1761:
1690:
1566:
1556:
1528:
1518:
1401:
1375:
1352:Subzerosmokerain
1296:
1286:
1275:
1235:
1225:
1223:
1217:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1175:
1165:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1091:That's what the
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1050:
1040:
1012:
1002:
924:
914:
871:
854:
844:
762:
752:
713:
703:
686:Peregrine Fisher
590:- this are is a
576:
566:
419:
409:
355:
302:
263:
245:
203:
202:
188:
140:
130:
112:
72:
66:
44:The result was
34:
1949:
1948:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1931:deletion review
1924:
1905:
1851:
1844:
1759:
1696:
1686:
1682:not a directory
1558:
1520:
1422:not a directory
1420:: wikipedia is
1344:Sherlock Holmes
1288:
1227:
1221:
1215:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1189:
1167:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1042:
1004:
975:The Pebble Dare
916:
846:
754:
749:Fictional sword
747:did not have a
705:
568:
411:
145:
136:
103:
87:
84:
70:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1947:
1945:
1936:
1935:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1879:
1878:
1860:
1832:
1831:
1821:DustFormsWords
1810:
1778:
1777:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1703:
1702:
1694:
1675:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1441:
1440:
1415:
1389:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1315:
1314:
1313:as an example.
1303:
1302:
1301:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1162:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1019:
1018:
1017:
999:
968:
967:
966:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
885:
859:
829:
811:
810:
809:
808:
787:
786:
769:
768:
767:
720:
719:
718:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
659:Joker (comics)
612:
584:
583:
582:
581:
559:
514:
513:
499:does it better
479:
478:
477:
476:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
393:
392:
370:
369:
342:
341:
317:
316:
289:
288:
260:
259:
218:it's talk page
206:
205:
142:
138:AfD statistics
83:
78:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1946:
1934:
1932:
1927:
1921:
1917:
1912:
1908:
1901:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1881:
1880:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1864:
1861:
1859:
1856:
1854:
1849:
1847:
1841:
1837:
1834:
1833:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1780:
1779:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1766:
1762:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1701:
1698:
1697:
1691:
1689:
1683:
1679:
1676:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1609:Jhenderson777
1606:
1602:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1570:
1565:
1561:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1542:Jhenderson777
1539:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1527:
1523:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1468:Jhenderson777
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1430:Shooterwalker
1427:
1423:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1404:Jhenderson777
1398:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1378:Jhenderson777
1372:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1291:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1220:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1152:Jhenderson777
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1116:
1115:US presidents
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:Jhenderson777
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1045:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
989:Jhenderson777
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:Jhenderson777
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
937:
934:
928:
923:
919:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
901:Jhenderson777
898:
897:
896:
893:
889:
886:
883:
879:
875:
868:
864:
860:
858:
853:
849:
841:
837:
833:
830:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
812:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:
789:
788:
785:
781:
777:
773:
770:
766:
761:
757:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
721:
717:
712:
708:
701:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
683:
680:
674:
671:
668:
664:
660:
655:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
632:
629:
625:
621:
616:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
593:
589:
586:
585:
580:
575:
571:
564:
560:
558:
554:
550:
549:Jhenderson777
545:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:theoretically
484:
481:
480:
475:
471:
467:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
444:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
423:
418:
414:
407:
406:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:Jhenderson777
352:
348:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:Jhenderson777
327:
323:
319:
318:
314:
310:
306:
305:Jhenderson777
299:
295:
291:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:Jhenderson777
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:Jhenderson777
242:
238:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
222:Jhenderson777
219:
215:
214:Verifiability
211:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
139:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
77:
76:
73:
67:
65:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1925:
1922:
1862:
1852:
1845:
1835:
1812:
1793:
1781:
1767:
1760:AnmaFinotera
1747:WP:LISTCRUFT
1730:
1714:Joshua Issac
1709:
1693:
1687:
1677:
1665:VernoWhitney
1647:
1635:
1515:WP:ITSUSEFUL
1495:
1463:this article
1417:
1392:
1366:
1350:. Sincerely
1336:
1305:
1272:
1261:WP:LISTCRUFT
1252:
1188:
1119:
1065:
1059:
1021:
970:
935:
887:
862:
831:
814:
771:
722:
681:
614:
587:
562:
530:Joshua Issac
517:
486:
482:
446:
396:
373:
346:
321:
293:
264:
236:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
63:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1786:Archenemies
1599:I got you.
1511:WP:NOTAVOTE
1503:WP:INCUBATE
1321:Noob Saibot
776:Marasmusine
172:free images
64:HJ Mitchell
1710:hardly any
1652:verifiable
888:Suggestion
819:Polarpanda
640:Polarpanda
485:You could
451:Dwanyewest
212:and lacks
1907:Hellknowz
1840:Archenemy
1735:Archenemy
1650:of it is
1640:Archenemy
1560:Hellknowz
1538:Archenemy
1522:Hellknowz
1499:WP:USERFY
1483:Trackinfo
1449:Trackinfo
1290:Hellknowz
1229:Hellknowz
1169:Hellknowz
1147:Archenemy
1093:Archenemy
1044:Hellknowz
1027:Arxiloxos
1006:Hellknowz
941:Trackinfo
918:Hellknowz
874:• Gene93k
848:Hellknowz
840:Archenemy
836:Archenemy
756:Hellknowz
707:Hellknowz
700:Archenemy
654:archenemy
597:archenemy
570:Hellknowz
544:archenemy
495:TV Tropes
466:Trackinfo
428:Trackinfo
413:Hellknowz
50:WP:USEFUL
1885:Sarcasto
1868:Sarcasto
1817:WP:SALAT
1771:contribs
1755:WP:UNDUE
1663:above).
1329:Sub-Zero
1325:Scorpion
1265:WP:UNDUE
1025:media.--
892:MuZemike
731:Jclemens
524:and the
497:already
464:sourced.
133:View log
58:that way
1900:this is
1883:itself.
1507:WP:AADD
1285:Ditto.
798:DumbBOT
670:another
667:Someone
631:another
628:Someone
601:Emperor
382:Teancum
178:WP refs
166:scholar
106:protect
101:history
1846:Spidey
1815:- Per
1753:, and
1751:WP:WAF
1743:WP:NOT
1731:Delete
1678:Delete
1605:here's
1601:Here's
1418:Delete
1306:Delete
1273:Erpert
1269:useful
1253:Delete
971:Delete
794:step 3
772:Delete
615:Delete
588:Delete
503:Nifboy
491:WP:WAF
483:Delete
447:Delete
401:Powers
374:Delete
150:Google
110:delete
54:almost
46:Delete
1838:into
1836:Merge
1795:Farix
1739:WP:OR
1712:". --
1644:WP:OR
1636:Merge
1257:WP:OR
1205:Focus
1136:Focus
1082:Focus
834:into
592:WP:OR
378:WP:OR
193:JSTOR
154:books
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
1911:talk
1889:talk
1872:talk
1863:Keep
1825:talk
1765:talk
1718:talk
1688:Reyk
1669:talk
1659:and
1648:some
1613:talk
1564:talk
1546:talk
1526:talk
1501:and
1487:talk
1472:talk
1453:talk
1434:talk
1408:talk
1393:Note
1382:talk
1367:Note
1356:talk
1346:and
1294:talk
1263:and
1255:per
1233:talk
1173:talk
1156:talk
1101:talk
1060:Keep
1048:talk
1031:talk
1022:Keep
1010:talk
993:talk
979:talk
960:talk
945:talk
936:Keep
922:talk
905:talk
878:talk
863:Note
852:talk
823:talk
815:Keep
802:talk
780:talk
760:talk
743:The
735:talk
723:Keep
711:talk
690:talk
682:Keep
644:talk
622:and
605:talk
574:talk
553:talk
534:talk
528:. --
518:Keep
507:talk
470:talk
455:talk
432:talk
417:talk
397:Keep
386:talk
362:talk
347:Note
334:talk
328:. --
322:Note
309:talk
294:Note
281:talk
265:Note
252:talk
237:Note
226:talk
186:FENS
160:news
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
1853:104
1695:YO!
1638:to
872:--
563:not
526:BBC
271:. (
200:TWL
135:•
131:– (
1904:—
1891:)
1874:)
1827:)
1806:)
1802:|
1773:)
1749:,
1745:,
1720:)
1671:)
1615:)
1557:—
1548:)
1519:—
1517:.
1489:)
1474:)
1455:)
1436:)
1428:.
1410:)
1399:.
1384:)
1373:.
1358:)
1287:—
1271:.
1259:,
1226:—
1222:}}
1219:cn
1216:{{
1166:—
1158:)
1117:.
1103:)
1041:—
1033:)
1003:—
995:)
981:)
962:)
947:)
915:—
907:)
880:)
869:.
845:—
825:)
804:)
782:)
753:—
737:)
704:—
702:.
692:)
646:)
607:)
567:—
555:)
536:)
509:)
472:)
457:)
434:)
410:—
388:)
364:)
353:.
336:)
311:)
300:.
283:)
275:)
254:)
243:.
228:)
180:)
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
68:|
1909:▎
1887:(
1870:(
1823:(
1804:c
1800:t
1798:(
1768:·
1763:(
1716:(
1667:(
1611:(
1562:▎
1544:(
1524:▎
1485:(
1470:(
1451:(
1432:(
1406:(
1402:—
1380:(
1376:—
1354:(
1292:▎
1231:▎
1202:m
1199:a
1196:e
1193:r
1190:D
1171:▎
1154:(
1133:m
1130:a
1127:e
1124:r
1121:D
1099:(
1079:m
1076:a
1073:e
1070:r
1067:D
1046:▎
1029:(
1008:▎
991:(
977:(
958:(
943:(
920:▎
903:(
876:(
850:▎
821:(
800:(
778:(
758:▎
733:(
709:▎
688:(
642:(
611:)
603:(
572:▎
551:(
532:(
505:(
468:(
453:(
430:(
415:▎
384:(
360:(
356:—
332:(
307:(
303:—
279:(
250:(
246:—
224:(
204:)
196:·
190:·
182:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
152:(
144:(
141:)
129:)
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.