1111:
128:. This is a difficult close I will admit, however, after carefully reviewing the arguments, I would say those proponents of redirection and deletion base their arguements more strongly in concerns of notability outside of those individuals who use wikis and in reliable sourcing concerns. The keep arguments seem more towards inherent notability of a website many of us use as a result of our participation in Knowledge and not in our notability system.
754:. Certainly most other mentions are trivial, but given that this seems to be pretty much the number one example choice for a newspaper article about fan wikis it seems to me to be worth at least a stubby article to describe it. I'm arguing for common-sense application of the notability guideline here. This is far from exemplary as far as website articles go, but it certainly seems in my view to be worth including. ~
31:
1413:. If something is mentioned in enough forums, blogs, and Usenet groups independent of each other, I would say that it has become notable and therefore an article on that subject wouldn't significantly increase the level of the subject's notability. However, such a standard, if ever adopted, should never be applied to BLPs. --
1301:
I'm disturbed by that hurtful and unjustified accusation of bad faith, DGG. You're normally better than that. Nobody is on a mission to remove coverage of fictional topics from the encyclopedia, it's just that some of us would like to see articles about fiction held to the same standards and policies
606:
The leading web site for its field of specialisation, which is by no means a niche one. Searching for independent reliable sources is hindered by the extremely large number of (a) blogs discussing the site and (b) mirrors of parts of the site, but I have little doubt many more than those linked about
1471:
remark :-) It is true and well-known among trekkers that MA has many more informations than startrek.com in specialized fields like technology and vessels ... It would have been a shame this article disappear from WP: it gives meta-informations onto it that you cannot find elsewhere, thanks to WP. —
1280:
a major web site/. This is about the extreme of deletion of fiction--first the characters, individually, then groups, then finally places with information about them. As for sourcing, GS search on "Memory alpha" wiki gives about 8 or 10 German articles using it as a major example, or otherwise
952:
Your estimation is merely that--your estimation. This is not a
Rorschach test where you must produce associations as to what a stimulus makes you think of. I stated that I judged the references to be sufficient. I am certainly entitled to my own opinion. Is it necessary for those favoring one
1396:
I'm not going to bold the word "keep" here because what I am going to say is not really supported by policy right now but I found it interesting that one editor said his search for sources was hindered by an assload of forum and blog postings mentioning the subject. As I recently said on
652:
on the back of the books and reviews provided. Additionally, JulesH's point about the difficulty of finding reliable sources amongst the huge amounts of other stuff is an argument in itself: even if one argues that this doesn't technically satisfy the wording of the notability
588:
A bunch of trivial coverage piled together is still trivial coverage... I haven't seen the kind of sources that could support a meaningful article, all the sources just seem to say "Memory Alpha is this Star Trek wiki" and that's it. That isn't much of an article.
751:(edit conflict) I'd certainly agree that some (or even most) of the content in the article needs to be sourced or removed. But having just a quick look at some of the sources readily available (ie a Google News search), I'm seeing one fairly substantial entry
356:- ah yes, Memory Alpha, the site that so many Trek fans think Knowledge should become (shudder!). For a site that's apparently very well known, there is a surprising lack of independent coverage. No problem with revising my opinion if anything should turn up.
648:. The sources provided by Uncle G and Raitchison seem to me to be reasonable coverage. Yes, the article may be over-detailed with unsourced stuff at the moment and could use some rewriting; but I'm pretty confident that this wiki is notable enough to satisfy
1373:. So many here are clearly against deletion so I'm posing a question (though this may not be appropriate for this forum). Does the ARTICLE deserve to exist? I'm almost sure some of the content should remain (which is why I suggested a merge/redirect).
276:
books mention this wiki, but apparently they are only trivial mentons as well, usually just citing a fact from it and not saying more. The last AfD also had "keep" !votes without any actual rationale attached (including, um, one of my own).
953:
viewpoint in a deletion debate to chime in, in counterpoint to the views of everyone with a different opinion? If you have had your say, why not let it stand without endless repetitions. I am hardly an "inclusionist" in general.
713:
as the sources named are all trivial. Trivial sources put together, as
Rividian says, do not create a non-trivial source. It just doesn't pass the criteria as of right now. I ask that the closing admin keeps this in mind.
738:
non-trivial source. Anyone arguing for a keep seems to be thinking either that the house will build itself or is just saying "but, but, but it's the biggest Star Trek wiki, how can you POSSIBLY delete it?!"
1528:
was not at all difficult, nor comprehensive. Knowledge would without question be a poorer encyclopaedia with the removal of this article. This discussion shows a typical failure to consider an article's
970:. Might I comment, then, that the lower the Alexa rating, the more popular the site? A 24787 isn't a very good score then. I obviously didn't want to say such a thing, as I am personally exhibiting
173:
168:
163:
158:
1326:
I meant it as a general comment that this was illustrative of a trend. I certainly did not mean you were on such a mission, and I apologize for that.I see the wording did come out wrong.
379:--in agreement with the hammer. Where is the substantial coverage? I understand someone is substantially interested in this, cause this is a HUGE article. But I don't see the notability.
329:. While the previous AfDs are properly done (because the rational largely wasn't correct), they should hold no bearing on this AfD as the reasons for deletion are different. At best,
1193:
1170:
sense. Whether Memory Alpha is an encyclopaedia is irrelevant. It's whether this article is encyclopaedic in the sense used at this encyclopaedia that is being discussed here.
246:
257:. Seriously, though, let's look at the sources.Almost every single one is a source from the site itself, with a couple forum links and even an Uncyclopedia page; definitely
1147:
could you explain your thoughts? To me, this wikia is an encyclopedic wiki and nowhere else could you find in that article so much informations onto MA (history, etc.). —
661:
primary source of canon Star Trek information on the internet and is very widely used. It certainly feels, to me, to be notable as per the spirit of the guideline. ~
264:. The two news references cited are general articles on Wikis and do not devote a significant amount of space to Memory Alpha at all. Given the almost total lack of
295:
185:
179:
78:
40:
153:
1493:. For those trying to suss out the history this is actually the fifth AfD with all previous four AfD's keeps after this featured article had been demoted.
1130:
I'm not an inclusionist, and I can see nothing really worth salvaging at this point. Nothing really that encyclopedic in the Wiki sense.
418:
1590:
494:
466:
455:
478:
846:
think the sources are that strong? I sure as heck don't, and that sure doesn't help the process any when you're simply dittoing.
213:
208:
1539:
1517:
1483:
1464:
1454:
1435:
1422:
1388:
1357:
1337:
1317:
1292:
1270:
1247:
1226:
1208:
1179:
1158:
1139:
1104:
1081:
1051:
1031:
1019:
989:
962:
942:
911:
896:
871:
853:
837:
804:
790:
770:
746:
729:
701:
677:
636:
620:
598:
580:
526:
508:
442:
426:
403:
388:
371:
348:
308:
284:
217:
136:
98:
88:
17:
1431:
568:
557:
546:
904:? The articles are about wikis in general, not about this wiki itself. They don't seem to constitute non trivial coverage.
538:. A quick book search led me to multiple books that reference this site: A few tutorials on blogs and/or wikis (example:
200:
1342:
I didn't see it as levelled at me in particular, but at delete-leaning editors in general. But all is good now. Cheers.
883:
Memory Alpha has had nontrivial coverage in the
Charlotte Observer, Florida Trend, and the New York Times, satisfying
1238:
as the article's notable title should obviously lead to something here and so deletion is completely inappropriate.
1110:
1061:
779:
for me, and it's just a "site of the week" that I'm sure isn't a substantial source anyway. Furthermore, it's only
1572:
1554:
1100:
113:
65:
46:
1571:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1553:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1243:
1006:
112:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
440:
571:). Granted these references are arguably trivial individually but as an aggregate should be sufficient.
522:
422:
417:, regardless of whether this is kept or not, the fictional location is primary meaning, not the website.
1418:
1386:
1268:
1135:
987:
940:
727:
346:
497:
page 16 documents a Memory Alpha fan collection, but it isn't the one that you might think it to be. ☺
1096:
1057:
576:
318:
1530:
1239:
1025:
905:
847:
784:
740:
695:
630:
414:
397:
302:
278:
85:
1502:
1473:
1439:
1398:
1222:
1148:
1041:
1009:
867:
833:
594:
436:
1204:
1175:
1077:
800:
691:
565:
560:) and at least one reference within the acknowledgments of a Star Trek fiction book (example:
554:
543:
518:
504:
491:
463:
452:
204:
106:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1414:
1374:
1256:
1235:
1163:
1131:
1024:
And those are reliable how? The first link is a wiki, the second link is a trivial NYT ref.
975:
958:
928:
892:
715:
683:
616:
384:
334:
1038:
It is a resource used by mainstream journalists for information on Star Trek related issues
1040:
doesn't this fills the criterias for notability issues? It is a source for journalists. —
1000:
920:
783:
reliable source if at all. I don't see how a bunch of trivial mentions is "common sense".
572:
487:. As mentioned in the nomination, the others give the web site barely a glancing mention.
459:
254:
1460:
1002:
1534:
1350:
1310:
448:
364:
82:
1584:
1333:
1288:
1218:
971:
924:
863:
829:
710:
687:
649:
590:
535:
470:
269:
1200:
1171:
1073:
796:
500:
261:
196:
142:
130:
1166:
is making the mistake of abbreviating "Knowledge". Xe means encyclopaedic in the
396:
I wonder if any other former featured articles have ever wound up deleted before?
234:
734:
I agree with the panda. Several trivial sources aren't nearly as helpful as even
1402:
1004:
954:
888:
884:
612:
380:
92:
927:, unfortunately. And the "nontrivial coverage" is meager enough to be trivial.
825:
755:
752:
662:
608:
517:- Redirect this to the main Star Trek article and mention Memory Alpha there.
1401:
in response to someone who thought WP was "creating culture", the intent of
1343:
1303:
1115:
357:
326:
268:
coverage in reliable third party sources, I see no way that this wiki meets
124:
1328:
1283:
795:
I can read it. It's a 4 paragraph, 285 word, review of the web site.
1469:
In fact, the Star Trek wiki is one of the most impressive out there!
540:
Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other
Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms
1109:
901:
1565:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1547:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1119:
1072:
it. That is what everyone else here is, rightly, discussing.
25:
1430:
Asserts notability and it took me less than a minute to find
1411:
nobody knew me/us/it/them from Adam until we got a WP article
253:
Previous afd's for this site were usually shot down as being
887:. (I note that its Alexa rating is 24787. Is that good?)
435:. I just can't decide which meaning is more important... -
475:
The only substantial news source that I can find is this:
469:, which alone would really only support a list item in a
1525:
241:
230:
226:
222:
1217:
coverage provided above sufficiently meets V and N.
1194:
list of
Science fiction-related deletion discussions
999:
MA is a well-known website especially for trekkies:
1281:discussing it in erms of either wikis, or fandom.
1095:per inclusion of better sourcing and other fix-up.
174:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (6th nomination)
169:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (4th nomination)
164:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (3rd nomination)
159:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (2nd nomination)
1255:. Would you be open to merging/redirecting then?
116:). No further edits should be made to this page.
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1575:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1557:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1434:that discuss this resource. Google scholar has
1409:of Knowledge. It should not be possible to say
479:"Memory Alpha, Trek wiki in versione italiana"
611:at least is one non-trivial reliable source.
451:of the Memory Alpha web site in chapter 2 of
296:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
549:), a few Star Trek encyclopedias (example:
562:Last Full Measure (Star Trek : Enterprise)
1068:about the subject, not whether they have
534:Seems to meet notability standards under
272:. The last AfD pointed to the fact that
1405:is to make sure nothing becomes notable
1234:I see no way that this nomination meets
1192:: This debate has been included in the
551:Q&A (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
294:: This debate has been included in the
1064:. What matters is whether people have
974:, so feel free to ignore this comment!
151:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
919:. The Alexa rating makes me think of
709:. I simply don't see how this passes
447:There's a review, by Jane Klobas and
7:
1531:potential, rather than current state
1499:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 3
1495:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 2
629:Then prove it. I'm finding nothing.
490:Here's an interesting final tidbit:
186:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 3
180:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 2
1467:) leave no ambiguities. I like the
149:
154:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha
41:deletion review on 2008 December 9
24:
1008:etc. The Google Page Rank is 5 —
29:
458:. Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny, and
333:the information to Star Treck.
77:. Original close overturned by
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1145:encyclopedic in the Wiki sense
862:think they aren't? Sheesh. --
431:I'm very much in support of a
1:
99:01:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
1540:16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1518:15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1484:16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1455:15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1423:14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1389:20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1358:01:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1338:01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
1318:20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1293:16:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1271:12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1248:11:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1227:05:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1209:03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1180:14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1159:13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1140:00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1105:00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1082:14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1052:13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1032:00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
1020:00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
990:12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
963:04:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
943:23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
912:23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
897:23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
872:08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
854:20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
838:20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
805:12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
791:20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
771:20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
747:20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
730:19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
702:19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
678:17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
637:19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
621:17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
599:17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
581:16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
527:15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
509:12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
443:09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
427:06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
404:03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
389:03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
372:02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
349:02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
309:02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
285:01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
137:01:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
682:So basically you're saying
483:Corriere della Fantascienza
477:Silvio Sosio (2008-11-18).
1607:
1302:as the rest of Knowledge.
1062:User:Uncle G/On notability
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1591:Pages at deletion review
1568:Please do not modify it.
1550:Please do not modify it.
109:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
1123:
462:give it a sentence in
148:AfDs for this article:
1113:
775:That site won't even
321:, we should probably
1058:Knowledge:Notability
79:this deletion review
415:The Lights of Zetar
1501:are the same AfD.
1124:
1030:and his otters •
910:and his otters •
852:and his otters •
789:and his otters •
745:and his otters •
700:and his otters •
657:, this is clearly
635:and his otters •
402:and his otters •
307:and his otters •
283:and his otters •
121:The result was
73:The result was
1399:Talk:Godwin's Law
1383:
1379:
1265:
1261:
1211:
1197:
1056:No. Please read
984:
980:
937:
933:
858:Yes I do. Do you
724:
720:
343:
339:
311:
299:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1598:
1570:
1552:
1537:
1514:
1508:
1451:
1445:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1348:
1308:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1198:
1188:
1028:
1027:Ten Pound Hammer
985:
982:
978:
938:
935:
931:
908:
907:Ten Pound Hammer
850:
849:Ten Pound Hammer
787:
786:Ten Pound Hammer
768:
743:
742:Ten Pound Hammer
725:
722:
718:
698:
697:Ten Pound Hammer
675:
633:
632:Ten Pound Hammer
607:could be found.
486:
400:
399:Ten Pound Hammer
362:
344:
341:
337:
305:
304:Ten Pound Hammer
300:
290:
281:
280:Ten Pound Hammer
262:reliable sources
244:
238:
220:
133:
111:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1606:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1573:deletion review
1566:
1561:
1555:deletion review
1548:
1535:
1512:
1506:
1449:
1443:
1375:
1354:
1344:
1314:
1304:
1257:
1097:ChildofMidnight
1026:
976:
929:
906:
848:
785:
756:
741:
716:
696:
663:
631:
476:
460:Ward Cunningham
398:
368:
358:
335:
319:Battlestar Wiki
303:
279:
240:
211:
195:
192:
190:
182:
146:
131:
114:deletion review
107:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1604:
1602:
1594:
1593:
1583:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1560:
1559:
1543:
1542:
1520:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1425:
1391:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1352:
1321:
1320:
1312:
1296:
1295:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1240:Colonel Warden
1229:
1212:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1108:
1107:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
994:
993:
992:
947:
946:
945:
914:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
642:
641:
640:
639:
624:
623:
601:
583:
529:
512:
449:Angela Beesley
445:
429:
408:
407:
406:
374:
366:
351:
312:
251:
250:
191:
189:
188:
183:
178:
176:
171:
166:
161:
156:
150:
147:
145:
140:
119:
118:
102:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1603:
1592:
1589:
1588:
1586:
1576:
1574:
1569:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1556:
1551:
1545:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1532:
1527:
1524:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1515:
1509:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1489:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1459:Thanks. This
1458:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1446:
1437:
1433:
1432:several books
1429:
1426:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1372:
1369:
1368:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1349:
1347:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1309:
1307:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1039:
1036:(in article)
1035:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1007:
1005:
1003:
1001:
998:
995:
991:
988:
986:
973:
969:
966:
965:
964:
960:
956:
951:
948:
944:
941:
939:
926:
922:
918:
915:
913:
909:
903:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
879:
873:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
851:
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
806:
802:
798:
794:
793:
792:
788:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
769:
767:
763:
759:
753:
750:
749:
748:
744:
737:
733:
732:
731:
728:
726:
712:
708:
705:
704:
703:
699:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
676:
674:
670:
666:
660:
656:
651:
647:
644:
643:
638:
634:
628:
627:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
605:
602:
600:
596:
592:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
567:
563:
559:
556:
552:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
528:
524:
520:
516:
513:
511:
510:
506:
502:
498:
496:
495:9780965357548
493:
488:
485:(in Italian).
484:
480:
472:
471:list of wikis
468:
467:9780470043998
465:
461:
457:
456:9781843341796
454:
450:
446:
444:
441:
438:
434:
430:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
405:
401:
395:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
369:
363:
361:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
313:
310:
306:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
282:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:
256:
248:
243:
236:
232:
228:
224:
219:
215:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
193:
187:
184:
181:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
152:
144:
141:
139:
138:
135:
134:
127:
126:
117:
115:
110:
104:
103:
101:
100:
97:
96:
95:
94:the Orphanage
90:
87:
84:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1567:
1564:
1549:
1546:
1522:
1510:
1504:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1468:
1447:
1441:
1427:
1410:
1406:
1393:
1370:
1351:
1345:
1327:
1311:
1305:
1282:
1277:
1252:
1231:
1214:
1189:
1167:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1127:
1092:
1069:
1065:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1037:
1015:
1011:
1010:
996:
967:
949:
916:
880:
859:
843:
821:
780:
776:
765:
761:
757:
735:
706:
672:
668:
664:
658:
654:
645:
603:
585:
561:
550:
539:
531:
519:Allemannster
514:
499:
489:
482:
474:
432:
419:76.66.194.58
410:
393:
376:
365:
359:
353:
330:
322:
314:
291:
273:
265:
258:
252:
197:Memory Alpha
143:Memory Alpha
129:
123:redirect to
122:
120:
108:
105:
93:
91:
75:no consensus
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1465:another one
1415:Ron Ritzman
1164:Ottava Rima
1132:Ottava Rima
822:strong keep
354:Weak delete
266:substantial
1436:a few more
826:User:Mazca
692:WP:ILIKEIT
573:Raitchison
569:1416503587
558:1416527419
547:1412959713
1536:Skomorokh
1476:STAR TREK
1236:WP:BEFORE
1201:• Gene93k
1168:Knowledge
1151:STAR TREK
1116:Knowledge
1093:Weak keep
1044:STAR TREK
1012:STAR TREK
684:WP:USEFUL
655:guideline
586:Redirect.
327:Star Trek
274:Star Trek
255:WP:POINTy
125:Star Trek
83:Aervanath
1585:Category
1219:Jclemens
1114:This is
921:WP:GHITS
864:Mvuijlst
830:Mvuijlst
591:Rividian
515:Redirect
433:redirect
411:Redirect
323:Redirect
247:View log
1491:Comment
1407:because
1394:Comment
1371:Comment
1253:Comment
1172:Uncle G
1074:Uncle G
1066:written
968:Comment
950:Comment
917:Comment
842:Do you
797:Uncle G
707:Comment
501:Uncle G
394:Comment
214:protect
209:history
132:MBisanz
1128:Delete
1118:, not
972:WP:BIG
955:Edison
925:WP:BIG
889:Edison
860:really
844:really
711:WP:WEB
688:WP:BIG
650:WP:WEB
613:JulesH
536:WP:WEB
381:Drmies
377:Delete
317:- Per
315:Delete
270:WP:WEB
242:delete
218:delete
1463:(and
902:O RLY
331:merge
245:) – (
235:views
227:watch
223:links
86:lives
16:<
1526:This
1523:Keep
1505:Banj
1497:and
1442:Banj
1428:Keep
1419:talk
1403:WP:N
1382:ANDA
1378:ARTH
1346:Reyk
1334:talk
1306:Reyk
1289:talk
1278:Keep
1264:ANDA
1260:ARTH
1244:talk
1232:Keep
1223:talk
1215:Keep
1205:talk
1190:Note
1176:talk
1136:talk
1120:Wiki
1101:talk
1078:talk
1070:read
1060:and
997:Keep
983:ANDA
979:ARTH
959:talk
936:ANDA
932:ARTH
923:and
893:talk
885:WP:N
881:Keep
868:talk
834:talk
824:per
801:talk
777:load
723:ANDA
719:ARTH
646:Keep
617:talk
609:Here
604:Keep
595:talk
577:talk
566:ISBN
555:ISBN
544:ISBN
532:Keep
523:talk
505:talk
492:ISBN
464:ISBN
453:ISBN
423:talk
385:talk
360:Reyk
342:ANDA
338:ARTH
292:Note
231:logs
205:talk
201:edit
1503:--
1480:Man
1461:one
1440:--
1353:YO!
1329:DGG
1313:YO!
1284:DGG
1199:--
1196:.
1155:Man
1048:Man
1016:Man
828:--
781:one
736:one
659:the
437:Mgm
413:to
367:YO!
325:to
301:--
298:.
259:not
1587::
1533:.
1513:oi
1450:oi
1438:.
1421:)
1336:)
1291:)
1246:)
1225:)
1207:)
1178:)
1138:)
1103:)
1080:)
961:)
895:)
870:)
836:)
803:)
694:.
690:,
686:,
619:)
597:)
589:--
579:)
564:-
553:-
542:-
525:)
507:)
481:.
425:)
387:)
233:|
229:|
225:|
221:|
216:|
212:|
207:|
203:|
89:in
81:.
43:.
1511:b
1507:e
1448:b
1444:e
1417:(
1380:P
1376:D
1332:(
1287:(
1262:P
1258:D
1242:(
1221:(
1203:(
1174:(
1134:(
1122:.
1099:(
1076:(
981:P
977:D
957:(
934:P
930:D
891:(
866:(
832:(
799:(
766:a
764:c
762:z
760:a
758:m
721:P
717:D
673:a
671:c
669:z
667:a
665:m
615:(
593:(
575:(
521:(
503:(
473:.
439:|
421:(
383:(
340:P
336:D
249:)
239:(
237:)
199:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.