378:- If Minecraft is notable, its competitors are as well. Notability goes beyond Knowledge's overly-strict rules - it also matters whether the people who play, modify, or contribute to the game consider it to be. In addition, you can't expect a game with 1% of the user base that Minecraft has to be able to achieve the same amount of coverage in third-party media. That's like expecting someone to first gain nation- or worldwide recognition of some invention of theirs before it's allowed to be covered on Knowledge - despite how vital it might be to, say, national security, public health, etc. Before you start deleting articles that at least have some citations from sources that are considered reliable within the community, try first deleting EVERY article from Knowledge that has no sources at all, or where those sources are dubious.
2325:
the truth, or otherwise trying to take the article past simply encyclopedic content and into the realm of advertising or so. An article doesn't just need references/citations - IT REQUIRES close attention by people knowledgeable in a given field or subject or it doesn't stand a chance of becoming an informative article. You don't ask an expert on Pokémon to contribute to an article on quantum physics if he or she doesn't also have some expertise in that field. The
Minetest article discussed here is in that same situation now - every one of us who has contributed to it has done so with the express purpose of creating a neutral, content-filled encyclopedic article; if we wanted to advertise, there are far better avenues for that than Knowledge. So I am asking politely here to
2384:" voices in this AfD don't really have a significant COI. However, persons who are moderators on external forums connected with the subject, do show evidence of personal ties (if slight). "Being knowledgeable" on the subject isn't a sin. But hiding your affiliation with that subject is considered harmful to the interests of building an encyclopedia. Identifying, vetting sources and discussing their reliability is another key Knowledge process. Asking us not to do so is inconsiderate. The one source I can see that appears to meet Knowledge RS criteria (linux.org) is considered reliable within a specific domain (Linux Operating System) and not broadly reliable on every subject. --
397:
need to use policies. Just saying 'Minecraft is notable' is not a valid reason. Minetest has one reliable source, which is just on the edge of being reliable. Knowledge sometimes keeps articles with no sources (In extreme cases) because they are themselves notable and have no challenged (Or could be challenged) data. In addition some of the sources used do not include the information they are verifying, And there is the question of most
Minetest images being deleted for copyright violations (As evidences by the Minetest history).
648:- Minetest appears to have a large community, and despite it not getting written about very often I find it suprising that they have 75 people on their main IRC channel alone. Considering that there are 2,904 registered minetest users in their forums at this point in time, I'd tend to think at the very least that they are large enough to update & maintain a wiki article, and if anything they are more notable due to the community they have built when compared to many other articles I have seen survive a speedy deletion.
1787:
1582:
1209:
760:
708:
1501:- All those COI-s seem to be quite pointless to me, as you just declare everyone having anything to do with Minetest having a COI. As the Game is Open-source and extendable by mods its only natural that even the average player has extended/contirbuted to Minetest in some way. So if you want to delete the article about Minetest, delete every article about Open-source-products, too. and by the way: Of course i have a COI, too, i like the Game.
1480:. Please take a look - you can see clearly that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Also, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them" - we have already found a few notable sources. If you regard these sources as of "unclear notability", deletion will remain as a last resort. Unless you can prove outright that those sources are not notable, the page shouldn't be deleted.
231:
1818:. Just because there are worse articles out there is not a valid argument in favor of keeping this article. It only means the worse article should probably be deleted as well. As far as the article's current sourcing, it currently uses one reliable source about ten times, and the rest of the sources are all first party from the official website or forums. First party sources don't count towards
2090:
986:
subject of the article that should be taken into account. Can you please show anywhere in this discussion where anyone told any of the developers or people associated with them that they could not edit the article itself? Also do you have any evidence that 99 percent of editors edit an article that they have a direct conflict of interest in because to be frank that very hard to believe.--
1022:- just created this account to give you some handle to point at me, and to not falsely hide my identity, which'd been kind of not appropriate in this case for obvious reasons. I was actually surprised to find out I didn't have an existing account. Anyway, I will not start to build any kind of wikipedia fame for this account as long as wikipedia allows me to edit things without it.
766:- In addition to TSU comments, Vanessaezekowitz is a moderator and a contributor to the site and development. Celeron55 is a clear SPA (Single Purpose Account) and in addition he is the games creator and main developer. Calinou1 (On Minetest its Calinou) is a moderator and contributor to the development and site. All three users have a possible (If not obvious)
2131:- No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. It doesn't matter who might or might not have a conflict of interest, or what the state of other articles on Knowledge might be like; ultimately, this article must stand on its own and it simply does not have the sources that would justify inclusion. --
2405:. Knowledge has criteria for that (which in the end, are judged subjectively by consensus of editors). The best way to "save" this article would be to convince the bulk of the editors in this AfD that preserving it would further the interests of the encyclopedia, but the arguments offered so far haven't been very persuasive.--
831:
is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on
Knowledge. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."
2427:
a COI without backing it up. That is what I am complaining about. "May be" is not the same as "is". The information presented in those various references is accurate and unbiased as far as I am tell. They are reliable, notable sources, even if some editors don't see it that way. And I never said
1716:
Simple question: Did you at all research the notability of
Minetest? With what you said it sound like you went 'Minetest is not on Knowledge. Ill make!' instead of actually searching for sources. When I came across the article it had about 3 sources (All three, Not reliable) now the article has a few
727:
which clearly gives me the thing that the account is intended merely to save the article rather then any other purpose. And the 3rd vote so far, I won't say much regarding it but they have been editing articles with similar topics and has a connection with the subject, plus, they doesn't seem to have
1893:. As far as "harm" goes, if every single odd game that is ever created have it's own article, Knowledge will turn into a junkyard that lists every little random game any random person created, and/or it would turn into an advertizing place where developers/publishers go to plug their latest product.
1387:
The concept of "Conflict of interest" is false already. It's like if you told total computer newbies to package some random software for a Linux distribution. If every article was created, edited and maintained by random out-of-the-community people, Knowledge's quality would certainly be inferior --
788:
I can't say I appreciate the suggestion that anyone commenting on this AfD entry is expressing a conflict of interest, but as I can only speak for myself, I am compelled to point out that every edit I have ever made to a
Knowledge article is done with the intent of being neutral and of improving the
679:
since created. The sources used are either primary sources, that is, the subpages from the website of
Minetest or are from secondary sources, from which I won't consider two reliable. The article is majorly unsourced since long time and I've always failed to find any source for them. The bottom line
411:
Copyright violations? I see no such things. All images uploaded and linked to the article when I last looked were all freely available per the game's and its imagery's licenses as all of them are screenshots from different parts of the game or mods and texture packs available for it. At least one
396:
Hello
Vanessa, May I say, Just because Minecraft is notable does not mean Minetest is. Also, AfD is a place where editors nominate articles that they thing are not supposed to be on Knowledge, Being here does not guarantee removal hence if you want to provide a reason of why Minetest should stay you
2333:
are non-notable be stopped outright - it has been established that some of those websites (including ones linked in this discussion) have already been vetted by
Knowledge editors in the past as being reliable sources, and once that is established, it is supposed to be assumed by WP editors that the
2012:
Certainly. After observing that the existing article did not contain any sources that met the notability guideline. I clicked the "find sources" link at the top of this page and looked for anything better. I then tinkered with a few other Google search permutations for about ten minutes. If you can
970:
all have covered
Minetest, there are probably a few more but this should suffice notability wise. Also, if your gonna forbid the dedicated developers, their supporters & passerbys like me from editing articles, you pretty much eliminate 99% of the people who would write & maintain articles.
834:
From the first paragraph of WP:AGF, "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on
Knowledge. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and
830:
From WP:COI in the "How to Handle" section, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option
684:
as the article is dependent on associated sources and mostly, it it unsourced. On the other hand, there is nothing notable about the game nor has the game received any reviews or awards or any controversy that would make the subject notable. I cannot find a single fact which would make me feel that
2324:
is not appropriate to be used against someone who happens to know pertinent details about a subject. So far, and I state this for the record: every COI claim made in this discussion has been falsely applied. Such claims are only appropriate if the editors in question are astroturfing, distorting
2302:
per lack of sufficient coverage and failing to establish notability. A lot of the opposing arguments have a clear Conflict of Interest and don't really provide any additional information to establish notability. Like Minecraft, this may get more coverage in the future, but at the moment it doesn't
2061:
I'm not aware of any of these websites being reliable sources for video games on Knowledge, and the actual content of these sources are extremely light. I mean, "Free Games", for example, is a non-notable blog that contains five lines of bullet-point text, not a single one even a full sentence. Do
601:- Looks like the poor deletionists/Minecraft fanboys are getting angry. The article has enough sources (if you want, I can point to several articles which have almost zero references/sources); the page has enough content and it has encyclopedic value, like the dozens of articles about FOSS games.
1697:
The reason i created this article is because, like most other editors, i have a thirst for knowledge, and the Minetest article did not previously exist. I did not want this to be an "advertisment". The people wanting to add a video have not contributed at all, and i doubt they even have accounts.
426:
Please see the Minetest articles history regarding image deletions. This is a discussion mainly based around the articles deletion for not being notable, So if you would like to make a policy comment to support your keep comment, that would be welcomed. If not, The closing admin may not take your
985:
I don`t think that anyone remotely suggest that developers were banned from editing but simply that if the only people asking to keep an article and there is agreement among unaffiliated editors that the sources that are being presented do not meet Knowledge standards a direct connection to the
2350:
before you comment. Some of the people adding their !votes to this discussion have clearly either not read the whole discussion, or have only just skimmed it, or really do show a conflict of interest. I'm asking that this behavior be stopped immediately - those people's comments are also, by
2196:- I'm guessing you didn't bother to really read the discussion you just linked to, considering there's more than just one source there. (Gamasutra, PC Gamer, PC Powerplay, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are all useable sources, and presented in the discussion.) Beyond that, as Whpg says, even if you
2013:
provide examples of sources that meet the standards outlined in the guideline that I might have missed, I will happily reassess my position. BTW, I based my opinion that the article should be deleted on a notability guideline, not an appeal to my academic degree, job or user page completeness.
1121:
I'll gladly elaborate. Rather than concentrating on showing coverage in reliable sources, many of the arguments are focusing on "There are X many users.", or "There are other worse articles out there, so this one should stay". Neither argument holds any weight on Knowledge's standards for
347:
The article is about a non-notable game. The article provides a few sources but only one is reliable and one reliable source can not establish notability. The article has had a while to establish notability, but failed to do so and in my belief is now appropriate for a AfD discussion.
2400:
I don't believe any of the posts (or editors) in this discussion are invalid. I don't believe that the subject (Minetest) is invalid, or even the Minetest article on Knowledge. The opinions expressed are valid, too. However, validity doesn't automatically confer
1677:) that this article was created in efforts to promote the game (they were even discussing trying to add "gameguide" information and "How to play" videos to the article if they could. It's plain as day, the intent is promotion, not to better the Knowledge project.
915:
You have definitely not acted out of line. You just did your homework on them, and now Vanessa's trying to turn it back on you because she seems to have no other defense. If she's a mod/contributor for something related to the article topic, then there's a
1994:, go for it, but this is not the place to change policy. Also, not sure why you're making notes to the admin about jobs/education or userpages. Admin know that already, and no one has suggested that should have any bearing on what happens to this article.
2062:
you call this "significant coverage"? Linux Games is a singular paragraph, and the first 2 sources focus half the article on "How to install" the game. I imagine VQuakr probably skipped over most of these sources in his search, as I may have earlier...
78:. I have basically ignored the discussion about conflicts of interest in my close, and focused solely on whether or not the article satisfies Knowledge's standards for inclusion. Further concerns about conflicts of interest can be taken to the
1443:- There is no problem at all with the article. Sources are reliable (as of now), there is no copyright violation. What is more, you should know that just because something is not notable does not mean it should be deleted. Please, read this:
900:
and I will be more than happy to co-operate, As I do not believe I am in violation of the rules. Also please do not reply to this, rather address it to one of those two links or my talk page as this is not relative to the AfD discussion.
770:. I have also tagged Celeron55 as a SPA for other editors and administrators to view the SPA in an easy to see way. Note, I viewed the site to see all four contributors relation. I found three editors have connections and one does not.
1126:. It's pretty clear to see, virtually every "Keep" argument is someone related to the game, where as every "Delete" argument is from someone not connected to the game at all. That should be a pretty clear hint to the closing Admin...
718:
at the article by removing maintenance tags from it. They also add up by comparing the article with Minecraft but there is no policy which states that if article A is notable then B will also be. It is just a POV. 2nd keep vote is by
2380:. Identifying potential COI is an important, if not essential part of the Knowledge process. Calling out other Wiki editors on their presumed COI is a wikilawyering tactic that could be abused. I imagine that at least some of the "
1151:- I'm not sure where others are searching, but I'm finding a large number of references to this application across the Internet. It seems that some are preferring deletion simply because it is similar to a more popular application.
793:
and the very WP:COI you cited (namely, by not even discussing the purported conflict with any of us before bringing it up here, and by stating your allegations in such a way as to make the three of us look like we're in the wrong).
732:. They also state that "update & maintain a wiki article" but the subject isn't enough notable to do that as there would not be any sources available about the article other then it's own website till the game gets notable.
2200:
right in what you're trying to say, it has no relevancy regarding this game or it's sourcing. If it was wrongfully kept, then you're just showing a shortcoming of the past, not presenting a valid argument for this article.
1672:
does not apply here. If we were throwing out groundless claims of COI's, then you could play that card. But we're not, there is very concrete proof with the links at the Minetest forums. That thread makes it very clear;
835:
resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. " By claiming conflict of interest where there is none, you are from my point of view also failing to assume good faith.
587:
As the post states: the first two are from a known Russian News-site and the later two prove that the two greatest Linux-distributions (Fedora and Ubuntu) support this game by including it in their packet-archives
685:
the article or the game is notable. And even the google search results and the sources used up or coming up in google search, don't give any hint of notability about the subject. Right now, it is clearly not
195:
1942:"brief search" -- mind elaborating? Also; Knowledge is supposed to be a 💕 which aims at building knowledge -- why destroy other's people work about FOSS games? This AfD request really looks like griefing.
789:
overall state of the site's content (though the current argument might seem to diverge from that). Any bias I might have stays squarely on my side of the keyboard. Second, you are in violation of both
1793:
see my post on Sergecross73's COI accusation of Qaddosh. This article is good compared to some of the articles on this wikipedia. We are in the process of trying to get game reviewers to review us.
852:(namely in the article linked there describing what it does and doesn't mean) makes it plain as day that Knowledge's rules are meant to be ignored if they hinder the improvement of Knowledge, plus
1753:
Well, if you want this article to be kept, it'd be best if you start showing some proof of them. All these "Other articles are worse so this should be kept", "But there's X people who play" and "
1661:. I'm not an admin or member of Sega's official website discussing a deletion of one of the games saying "Hey guys, don't worry, I'll defend us!". It's also irrelevent because no one is putting
1588:- By the same logic that Sergecross73 applies to COI, then all of his edits regarding Sonic & Knuckles should be undone. He clearly has a conflict of interest regarding those edits as seen
2338:. If you can't read the language used for even ONE of the sources linked in this discussion or in the article, any claims from those people that the unread sources are unreliable/not-notable
554:
I'll mention that merely being listed in a distro respository does not confer notability, but the first link from linux.org could merit some consideration, but I haven't analyzed it enough. --
728:
understood the policy properly and are also making personal attacks. The 4th vote says that there are 2,904 users but the same implies for 1000s of other webistes and this doesn't constitute
2372:. A "Conflict of Interest" can arise when one has personal ties to a subject that could affect their neutrality. It doesn't necessarily imply that the supposedly conflicted person actually
1990:
Knowledge is a free encylopedia, but that doesn't mean anything and everything belongs on it. Knowledge has policies, and we're supposed to enforce them. If you aim to change Knowledge's
74:. After excluding these arguments, there seems to be a general agreement that the article doesn't have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary for it to pass the
2047:
have all covered Minetest, there are a few more out ther probably but this should suffice notability wise. Note: please see my earlier comment about 1/3 of the way into the page.
1276:
Where in the above comment did I mention Minecraft beyond quoting a comment? And 'as far as I've seen so far'? Does that mean something is less true because you have not seen it?
242:
150:
936:
Almost every editor to the article has a connection to Minetest. So a COI is present apart from editors conduction Maintenance, Corrections and removal of deleted images.
1842:
Game reviews are not necessarily neutral; most game testers don't work for free (talking about "paper" magazines), you know. Also, if this article is kept, why would it
1515:
thousands of other pages without citations. I have not had enough time to develop this page recently, but this page is still much better than most wikipedia articles. --
2432:
before commenting. That's a reasonable expectation, and I have yet to participate in any venue where such practices were considered okay. And, as clearly indicated in
1313:- where I even gave a "keep" argument. I'm not some bad guy looking to delete all Minecraft type games or something. This game just doesn't have that sort of coverage.
751:
I removed those tags based on what I perceived as a biased opinion. As you surely have noticed, I have left them in place after that particular argument was settled.
1822:, and one reliable source isn't going to cut it. If you get game reviewers to review the game, great, but then the article should be recreated if/when that happens.
189:
888:
This is really a concern to be addressed else where and not at a AfD discussion. To your response, I am not the only editor who says or express concern over COI.
455:...and another; why think the amount of magazines/web sites talking about it is important? I could perfectly fake the "notability" of something if I wanted.
1452:
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.
2175:- That discussion isn't relevant to here as the discussion about Minecraft's sourcing doesn't have a bearing on Minetest's sourcing. But in any case, the
2151:
2028:
951:
2040:
963:
1051:. So far all the keep votes are invalid. Number of users, or it's competitors, do not establish notability on Knowledge, and the sources so far
892:
also expresses the concern below. If you most honestly do believe I am in violation of the policies and I am 'harassing' you, Then go to either
71:
2154:
with one source initially (Gamasutra), surely Minetest can survive with a few (smaller) sources. Also, it has several reviews and mentions at
2159:
987:
155:
2268:- sure, let's make WP a battlefield where you critisize contributors. While we're at it, let's "hackccuse" people like poor UrT players.
1297:
I apologize, I misread "Minicraft" for you writing "Minecraft" a second time. To answer your original question, look at the sourcing at
412:
of those images is entirely my own work (such as the one depicting the pipes) save for the background behind the subject of the image.
714:- I'm little concerned regarding the keep votes. Vanessaezekowitz has an connection with the subject as the editor almost performed
251:
1556:
543:
281:
1589:
1103:- Then, the Minecraft page should be deleted too; let's delete all the pages because they were all written by evil corporates.
720:
539:
17:
2032:
955:
2464:
Regardless of any COI issues, there aren't the sources to meet the GNG. Sources presented do not meet wikipedias standard.
1717:
more, but still un-reliable. Knowledge is a place for reliable content, not instant 'Its not there, Ill make it' decisions.
1406:
30 posts is hardly active to Minetest standards, most members produce 200 posts in a month because of all the requests etc.
2286:
1958:
1866:
1623:
1283:
1226:
1158:
473:
1420:
This is not Minetest, On Knowledge some contribution within the past month can be classed as active in this case, it is.
123:
118:
54:. There are many arguments among the "keep" advocates that are not based on Knowledge's deletion policy. These included
210:
267:
127:
2112:- This article, while being satisfactory in content, I agree it does lack citations. A userfy or AfC would suit it.
860:, and that they can sometimes fail at their purpose; that their intent is more important than their literal meanings.
177:
2449:
2356:
2244:
1886:
1815:
867:
799:
446:
417:
383:
55:
2496:
2163:
1444:
110:
42:
2444:
that rule applies is unacceptable. No one here has provided an unbiased, clear reasoning for their COI claims.
1653:
There's a huge difference between your example and what you've done. My comments are at a third party website (
991:
1348:, as he is a member of the game's forum and discussing there that he's "doing what (he) can" at this AFD. See
1175:- Can you provide some links to these sources? I haven't seen any yet. Keep in mind, they have to comply with
2329:. Furthermore, I am also asking (I'd call it demanding but I'm not an admin) that claims that the article's
2410:
2389:
1722:
1642:
1568:
1425:
1378:
941:
906:
821:
775:
432:
402:
353:
67:
2470:
2231:
2207:
2068:
2000:
1899:
1828:
1763:
1683:
1357:
1319:
1262:
1193:
1132:
1069:
926:
577:
313:
171:
1027:
735:
692:
535:
522:
2492:
2445:
2352:
863:
795:
442:
413:
379:
366:- Of the sources provided, all are either unreliable or not independent; notability is not established.
85:
38:
2369:
2117:
1798:
1740:
1703:
1552:
1520:
1477:
1411:
297:
271:
167:
59:
1310:
1256:
that easily make it notable. The same can't be said about "Minetest", as far as I've seen so far...
2475:
2453:
2414:
2393:
2360:
2312:
2292:
2260:
2235:
2212:
2188:
2167:
2140:
2121:
2102:
2073:
2056:
2022:
2005:
1964:
1933:
1904:
1882:
1872:
1833:
1802:
1768:
1744:
1726:
1707:
1688:
1646:
1628:
1572:
1534:
1489:
1468:
1429:
1415:
1401:
1382:
1362:
1324:
1288:
1267:
1231:
1198:
1163:
1137:
1112:
1095:
1074:
1031:
995:
980:
945:
931:
910:
871:
825:
803:
779:
742:
699:
657:
638:
610:
582:
558:
526:
479:
450:
436:
421:
406:
387:
370:
357:
256:
203:
92:
1593:
571:, while the second two look more like database entries that do little more than show it exists...
500:
2406:
2385:
1718:
1638:
1613:
1564:
1421:
1397:
1374:
1108:
937:
902:
817:
771:
635:
606:
555:
428:
398:
349:
303:
230:
217:
2179:
of the Minecraft article at the closure of the AFD does not contain one source (Gamasutra). --
1215:- Also, by the logic that 'just because Minecraft is notable...' then would that not mean that
2465:
2280:
2227:
2202:
2098:
2063:
2052:
1995:
1952:
1894:
1860:
1823:
1758:
1678:
1609:
1485:
1464:
1352:
1314:
1257:
1188:
1127:
1091:
1064:
976:
950:
Am I the only exception? Regardless, I just dropped 5 minutes & found a slew of articles.
921:
897:
889:
653:
572:
467:
31:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2491:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
37:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2342:. Finally, if you are about to contribute to this discussion, I highly advise you read the
2256:
2018:
1929:
1530:
1020:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Polynomial_code&diff=511191943&oldid=409018374
667:- There are many, many, many sites with 2,904+ registered users but this doesn't establish
515:
2437:
2308:
2113:
2044:
1794:
1786:
1736:
1699:
1581:
1548:
1516:
1407:
1208:
967:
759:
707:
2027:
In just 5 minutes of searching I found a slew of articles that'd be fine things to cite.
1447:- in where do you see that something which is not notable should be deleted? Some quotes:
503:
has written about Minetest on at least two occasions, gaining a good bunch of interest:
2433:
2184:
2136:
1023:
531:
518:
441:
The supposedly-offending images have been replaced with ones I can guarantee are free.
79:
183:
2321:
2269:
2248:
2243:
for lack of significant reliable coverage. All keep arguments appear to boil down to
2223:
1991:
1890:
1819:
1754:
1669:
1605:
1560:
1393:
1345:
1245:
1184:
1180:
1104:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
917:
849:
813:
809:
790:
767:
689:, but in future it may get notable and can have an article. For now, it is a delete.
681:
676:
626:
602:
568:
564:
456:
367:
114:
75:
63:
2222:
as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet
511:
2094:
2048:
1617:
1481:
1460:
1341:
1277:
1241:
1220:
1176:
1152:
1087:
1044:
972:
893:
853:
715:
672:
649:
331:
319:
287:
1674:
1349:
237:
144:
1924:
as discussed at WP:GNG, and a brief search online did not yield anything better.
266:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
2252:
2014:
1925:
1601:
1526:
1370:
1123:
729:
686:
668:
2440:, citing a rule (whether WP:COI or otherwise) without adequate explanation of
2304:
2155:
723:
who has no edits whatsoever but just this AFD and the username was created on
507:
504:
1665:
up for deletion, nor is there any good faith reason why it should be deleted.
2226:. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page.
2180:
2132:
1298:
1253:
1216:
2036:
959:
856:
makes it abundantly clear that Knowledge's "rules" aren't so much rules as
499:- More sources can be found on the internet. For example, the Russian site
2428:
don't contribute/comment - I said read the the discussion in its entirety
1881:
Regardless of being neutral, they're undeniably third party, and there's
1654:
1476:
It seems that this article conflicts with my statement about notability:
1306:
1302:
1018:
I do edit wikipedia at times; for example this was my edit two days ago:
106:
98:
2320:- I've said it once somewhat vaguely, now I'm saying it again clearly -
1735:
I did search for sources, and i have a document on my computer of them.
1698:
They are just players, and as you can see in the post I corrected them.
1478:
Knowledge:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines
1637:
Raised once, Raised again. Care to elaborate on your accusations?
1459:
These are alternatives that should be used to solve this problem.
1616:
are cherry-picking which policies they think should be followed.
1311:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minicraft
427:
comment in as most AfD comments needs to be backed up by Policy.
2485:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
619:
I have not decided in this AfD whether or not to keep or delete.
1597:
629:; I did not say one thing that was disparaging to anybody here.
510:
Also various official distro repositories could be noted, like
1455:
A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem
1309:. Someone nominated it for deletion too, but it was kept. See
1249:
225:
1248:. There are an endless supply of articles from websites like
1596:. Minetest 0.2 was featured in LinuxFormat magazine as seen
260:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1559:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
1240:
Minecraft is notable because it has coverage in multiple,
2376:
acted inappropriately; rather, it's a warning that they
1392:
article; it is perfectly neutral, thus there is no COI.
516:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/minetest
2176:
1019:
724:
140:
136:
132:
70:, and arguments that showed a lack of understanding of
2334:
content on those sites is generally reliable as well,
1846:
Knowledge, since the purpose of deletion is to remove
1301:. Tons of references from major reliable sources like
202:
1086:- How are the keep votes invalid? Please elaborate.
2423:be indicated. The problem is people saying there
2419:The problem isn't that people are saying that COI
1977:: academic degree, job and user page completeness
1604:. The top of this very page states to remember to
1525:I struck this !vote per your updated !vote below.
1219:is not notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge?
808:May you please point out how I am in violation of
512:http://packages.debian.org/unstable/main/minetest
45:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2499:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1920:- None of the references in the article present
1055:as far as Knowledge goes. I too see concerns of
1675:http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876
1511:- I agree that this page should be kept, there
1350:http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876
238:http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876
2251:issues along with potential meatpuppetry. --
280:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
250:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
216:
8:
671:. The article has no coverage whatsoever in
563:They all look unusable towards meeting the
508:https://www.linux.org.ru/news/games/8027529
505:https://www.linux.org.ru/news/games/6984308
2336:even if it is in a language you can't read
1657:) asking questions about Sonic games that
254:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
971:But hey, who wants articles on wikipedia?
1922:significant coverage in reliable sources
274:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
567:. The first two look like they link to
1992:standards for what warrants an article
1757:" arguments aren't going to cut it...
72:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources
622:I have never played Minecraft before.
7:
24:
1820:meeting the notability guidelines
80:conflicts of interest noticeboard
2093:turns up no hits on the game. --
1981:make the user's arguments right.
1785:
1580:
1523:) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1207:
758:
706:
229:
1659:weren't even Sonic and Knuckles
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
2476:23:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2454:17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2415:16:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2394:16:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2361:15:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2313:06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
2293:11:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
2261:14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
2236:10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
2213:01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
2189:21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
2168:21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
2141:16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
2122:13:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
2103:12:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
2074:10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
2057:01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
2023:03:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
2006:15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1965:15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1934:07:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1905:02:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1535:16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
996:21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
981:01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
480:12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
93:05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
1873:22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1834:17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1803:17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1769:18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1745:18:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1727:18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1708:17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1689:17:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1647:12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1629:12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1573:11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1490:09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1469:09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1430:16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1416:16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1402:12:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1383:10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1363:05:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1325:17:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1289:12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1268:04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1232:04:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1199:04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1164:03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1138:17:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1113:11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1096:10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1075:23:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
1045:third party, reliable sources
1032:05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
946:00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
932:23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
911:23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
872:23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
826:23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
804:23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
780:22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
743:22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
700:22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
658:21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
639:21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
611:21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
583:05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
559:20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
527:20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
451:21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
437:20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
422:20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
407:20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
388:20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
371:16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
358:16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
270:on the part of others and to
2303:even pass the bare minimum.
1889:that go towards meeting the
920:, regardless of intentions.
76:general notability guideline
2370:doesn't always make it true
1053:don't qualify as "reliable"
240:, please note that this is
2516:
1369:Confirmed, His account is
848:Furthermore, as you know,
2340:are by definition invalid
2327:stop making WP:COI claims
2247:arguments, or show clear
1445:Knowledge:Deletion_policy
236:If you came here because
2488:Please do not modify it.
34:Please do not modify it.
2091:reliable sources search
312:; accounts blocked for
282:single-purpose accounts
252:policies and guidelines
1388:I suggest reading the
1373:and is used actively.
1185:"significant coverage"
680:is; the article fails
625:Knock it off with the
2368:- Repeating yourself
2351:definition, invalid.
1975:Note to closing admin
1545:Note to closing admin
1244:, making it meet the
544:few or no other edits
1346:conflict of interest
1124:notability standards
918:conflict of interest
546:outside this topic.
2245:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1887:WP:reliable sources
1885:that they count as
1816:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
725:the day AFD started
264:by counting votes.
243:not a majority vote
56:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
2436:(paragraph 6) and
2152:Minecraft was kept
1663:Sonic and Knuckles
50:The result was
1982:
1627:
1606:assume good faith
1575:
1537:
1287:
1230:
1162:
1043:- No coverage in
547:
345:
344:
341:
268:assume good faith
2507:
2490:
2473:
2468:
2446:Vanessaezekowitz
2353:Vanessaezekowitz
2277:
2276:
2273:
2210:
2205:
2071:
2066:
2003:
1998:
1972:
1950:
1949:
1946:
1902:
1897:
1858:
1857:
1854:
1831:
1826:
1789:
1766:
1761:
1686:
1681:
1621:
1584:
1542:
1524:
1360:
1355:
1322:
1317:
1281:
1265:
1260:
1242:reliable sources
1224:
1211:
1196:
1191:
1156:
1135:
1130:
1072:
1067:
929:
924:
864:Vanessaezekowitz
796:Vanessaezekowitz
762:
738:
710:
695:
580:
575:
529:
464:
463:
460:
443:Vanessaezekowitz
414:Vanessaezekowitz
380:Vanessaezekowitz
339:
327:
311:
295:
276:
246:, but instead a
233:
226:
221:
220:
206:
158:
148:
130:
88:
87:Mr. Stradivarius
68:WP:LOTSOFSOURCES
36:
2515:
2514:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2497:deletion review
2486:
2471:
2466:
2331:source websites
2274:
2271:
2270:
2208:
2203:
2160:207.148.178.146
2069:
2064:
2041:Linux Game News
2001:
1996:
1947:
1944:
1943:
1900:
1895:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1829:
1824:
1764:
1759:
1684:
1679:
1626:
1509:
1358:
1353:
1320:
1315:
1286:
1263:
1258:
1229:
1194:
1189:
1161:
1133:
1128:
1070:
1065:
964:Linux Game News
927:
922:
736:
693:
578:
573:
461:
458:
457:
329:
317:
301:
285:
272:sign your posts
163:
154:
121:
105:
102:
86:
43:deletion review
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2513:
2511:
2502:
2501:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2397:
2396:
2363:
2315:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2238:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2191:
2144:
2143:
2125:
2124:
2106:
2105:
2089:- Established
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2010:
2009:
2008:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1937:
1936:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1876:
1875:
1837:
1836:
1806:
1805:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1748:
1747:
1730:
1729:
1711:
1710:
1692:
1691:
1666:
1650:
1649:
1632:
1631:
1622:
1577:
1576:
1539:
1538:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1457:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1404:
1366:
1365:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1292:
1291:
1282:
1271:
1270:
1235:
1234:
1225:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1167:
1166:
1157:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1116:
1115:
1098:
1078:
1077:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
988:174.93.171.108
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
861:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
832:
806:
783:
782:
755:
754:
753:
752:
746:
745:
737:TheSpecialUser
703:
702:
694:TheSpecialUser
661:
660:
642:
641:
632:
631:
630:
623:
620:
614:
613:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
549:
548:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
391:
390:
373:
343:
342:
234:
224:
223:
160:
101:
96:
48:
47:
27:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2512:
2500:
2498:
2494:
2489:
2483:
2482:
2477:
2474:
2469:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2412:
2408:
2407:Robert Keiden
2404:
2399:
2398:
2395:
2391:
2387:
2386:Robert Keiden
2383:
2379:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2364:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2328:
2323:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2301:
2298:
2294:
2291:
2288:
2285:
2282:
2278:
2267:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2239:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2218:
2214:
2211:
2206:
2199:
2195:
2192:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2142:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2127:
2126:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2108:
2107:
2104:
2100:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2085:
2084:
2075:
2072:
2067:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2033:Linuxo Planet
2030:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2011:
2007:
2004:
1999:
1993:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1980:
1976:
1966:
1963:
1960:
1957:
1954:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1916:
1915:
1906:
1903:
1898:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1874:
1871:
1868:
1865:
1862:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1835:
1832:
1827:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1783:
1770:
1767:
1762:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1719:John F. Lewis
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1690:
1687:
1682:
1676:
1671:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:John F. Lewis
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1625:
1619:
1615:
1614:John F. Lewis
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1565:John F. Lewis
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1454:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1439:
1438:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1422:John F. Lewis
1419:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1375:John F. Lewis
1372:
1368:
1367:
1364:
1361:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1326:
1323:
1318:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1285:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1261:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1228:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1192:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1160:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1139:
1136:
1131:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
997:
993:
989:
984:
983:
982:
978:
974:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:Linuxo Planet
953:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
938:John F. Lewis
935:
934:
933:
930:
925:
919:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
903:John F. Lewis
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
873:
869:
865:
862:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
833:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
818:John F. Lewis
815:
811:
807:
805:
801:
797:
792:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
777:
773:
772:John F. Lewis
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
750:
749:
748:
747:
744:
741:
740:
739:
731:
726:
722:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
701:
698:
697:
696:
688:
683:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
662:
659:
655:
651:
647:
644:
643:
640:
637:
633:
628:
624:
621:
618:
617:
616:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
596:
586:
585:
584:
581:
576:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
557:
553:
552:
551:
550:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
524:
520:
517:
513:
509:
506:
502:
498:
495:
494:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
465:
454:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
429:John F. Lewis
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
399:John F. Lewis
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
369:
365:
362:
361:
360:
359:
355:
351:
350:John F. Lewis
337:
333:
325:
321:
315:
309:
305:
299:
293:
289:
283:
279:
275:
273:
269:
263:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
244:
239:
235:
232:
228:
227:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:Find sources:
161:
157:
152:
146:
142:
138:
134:
129:
125:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
100:
97:
95:
94:
91:
90:
89:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
61:
60:WP:ITSNOTABLE
57:
53:
46:
44:
40:
35:
29:
28:
26:
19:
2487:
2484:
2467:Sergecross73
2441:
2429:
2424:
2420:
2402:
2381:
2377:
2373:
2365:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2317:
2299:
2289:
2283:
2265:
2240:
2228:Stuartyeates
2219:
2204:Sergecross73
2197:
2193:
2172:
2147:
2128:
2109:
2086:
2065:Sergecross73
1997:Sergecross73
1978:
1974:
1971:
1961:
1955:
1921:
1917:
1896:Sergecross73
1869:
1863:
1847:
1843:
1825:Sergecross73
1811:
1790:
1760:Sergecross73
1680:Sergecross73
1662:
1658:
1610:Sergecross73
1585:
1544:
1512:
1506:
1498:
1458:
1440:
1389:
1354:Sergecross73
1342:User:Qaddosh
1337:
1316:Sergecross73
1259:Sergecross73
1212:
1190:Sergecross73
1172:
1148:
1129:Sergecross73
1100:
1083:
1066:Sergecross73
1047:. Fails the
1040:
923:Sergecross73
890:Sergecross73
857:
763:
734:
733:
711:
691:
690:
664:
645:
598:
574:Sergecross73
501:Linux.org.ru
496:
476:
470:
375:
363:
346:
335:
323:
314:sockpuppetry
307:
296:; suspected
291:
277:
265:
261:
255:
247:
241:
213:
207:
199:
192:
186:
180:
174:
164:
84:
83:
51:
49:
33:
30:
25:
2442:why and how
2346:discussion
2029:iloveubuntu
1344:also has a
1063:as well...
952:iloveubuntu
569:forum posts
542:) has made
190:free images
2403:notability
2114:Rubenwardy
2045:Free Gamer
2037:LinuxGames
1795:Rubenwardy
1737:Rubenwardy
1700:Rubenwardy
1549:Rubenwardy
1517:Rubenwardy
1408:Rubenwardy
968:Free Gamer
960:LinuxGames
898:WP:Dispute
858:guidelines
675:and fails
248:discussion
2493:talk page
2348:in detail
1883:consensus
1299:Minicraft
1254:Eurogamer
1217:Minicraft
1024:Celeron55
532:celeron55
519:Celeron55
304:canvassed
298:canvassed
257:consensus
39:talk page
2495:or in a
2438:WP:JUSTA
2287:contribs
2156:Gameboom
1959:contribs
1867:contribs
1791:Comment:
1655:Gamefaqs
1624:contribs
1586:Comment:
1557:contribs
1394:Calinou1
1307:BBC News
1303:PC Gamer
1284:contribs
1227:contribs
1213:Comment:
1159:contribs
1105:Calinou1
764:Comment:
712:Comment:
636:MuZemike
603:Calinou1
556:MuZemike
540:contribs
474:contribs
368:ItsZippy
336:username
330:{{subst:
324:username
318:{{subst:
308:username
302:{{subst:
292:username
286:{{subst:
151:View log
107:Minetest
99:Minetest
41:or in a
2434:WP:BCDD
2382:support
2366:Comment
2318:Comment
2266:Comment
2177:version
2095:Teancum
2049:Danry25
1812:Comment
1618:Qaddosh
1608:. Both
1499:Comment
1482:Wei2912
1461:Wei2912
1338:Comment
1278:Qaddosh
1221:Qaddosh
1173:Comment
1153:Qaddosh
1101:Comment
1088:Wei2912
1084:Comment
973:Danry25
721:celeron
650:Danry25
627:attacks
300:users:
196:WP refs
184:scholar
124:protect
119:history
2472:msg me
2344:entire
2322:WP:COI
2300:Delete
2275:alinou
2253:ferret
2249:WP:COI
2241:Delete
2224:WP:GNG
2220:Delete
2209:msg me
2129:Delete
2110:Userfy
2087:Delete
2070:msg me
2043:, and
2015:VQuakr
2002:msg me
1979:do not
1948:alinou
1926:VQuakr
1918:Delete
1901:msg me
1891:WP:GNG
1856:alinou
1830:msg me
1765:msg me
1755:WP:IAR
1685:msg me
1670:WP:AGF
1668:Also,
1527:VQuakr
1359:msg me
1321:msg me
1264:msg me
1246:WP:GNG
1195:msg me
1183:, and
1181:WP:IRS
1134:msg me
1071:msg me
1061:WP:SPA
1057:WP:COI
1049:WP:GNG
1041:Delete
966:, and
928:msg me
850:WP:IAR
814:WP:COI
810:WP:AGF
791:WP:AGF
682:WP:GNG
677:WP:GNG
665:Delete
579:msg me
565:WP:GNG
462:alinou
364:Delete
168:Google
128:delete
64:WP:BIG
52:delete
2430:first
2378:might
2305:ArkRe
2194:Reply
2173:Reply
2150:- If
1390:whole
1177:WP:RS
894:WP:AN
854:WP:5P
716:WP:EW
673:WP:RS
278:Note:
211:JSTOR
172:books
156:Stats
145:views
137:watch
133:links
16:<
2450:talk
2411:talk
2390:talk
2357:talk
2309:talk
2281:talk
2257:talk
2232:talk
2198:were
2185:talk
2181:Whpq
2164:talk
2148:Keep
2137:talk
2133:Whpq
2118:talk
2099:talk
2053:talk
2019:talk
1953:talk
1930:talk
1861:talk
1848:harm
1844:harm
1799:talk
1741:talk
1723:talk
1704:talk
1643:talk
1612:and
1602:here
1600:and
1598:here
1594:here
1592:and
1590:here
1569:talk
1553:talk
1531:talk
1521:talk
1508:Keep
1486:talk
1465:talk
1441:Keep
1426:talk
1412:talk
1398:talk
1379:talk
1371:here
1305:and
1149:Keep
1109:talk
1092:talk
1059:and
1028:talk
992:talk
977:talk
942:talk
907:talk
868:talk
822:talk
812:and
800:talk
776:talk
730:WP:N
687:WP:N
669:WP:N
654:talk
646:Keep
607:talk
599:Keep
536:talk
523:talk
514:and
497:Keep
468:talk
447:talk
433:talk
418:talk
403:talk
384:talk
376:Keep
354:talk
204:FENS
178:news
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
82:. —
2421:may
2374:has
1561:AfD
1513:are
1252:or
1250:IGN
896:or
768:COI
332:csp
328:or
320:csm
288:spa
262:not
218:TWL
153:•
149:– (
2452:)
2425:is
2413:)
2392:)
2359:)
2311:)
2279:-
2259:)
2234:)
2187:)
2166:)
2158:.
2139:)
2120:)
2101:)
2055:)
2039:,
2035:,
2031:,
2021:)
1973:—
1951:-
1932:)
1859:-
1850:?
1814:-
1801:)
1743:)
1725:)
1706:)
1645:)
1571:)
1563:.
1555:•
1547::
1543:—
1533:)
1488:)
1467:)
1428:)
1414:)
1400:)
1381:)
1340:-
1187:.
1179:,
1111:)
1094:)
1030:)
994:)
979:)
962:,
958:,
954:,
944:)
909:)
870:)
824:)
816:.
802:)
778:)
656:)
634:--
609:)
538:•
530:—
525:)
466:-
449:)
435:)
420:)
405:)
386:)
356:)
338:}}
326:}}
316::
310:}}
294:}}
284::
198:)
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
66:,
62:,
58:,
2448:(
2409:(
2388:(
2355:(
2307:(
2290:»
2284:×
2272:C
2255:(
2230:(
2183:(
2162:(
2135:(
2116:(
2097:(
2051:(
2017:(
1962:»
1956:×
1945:C
1928:(
1870:»
1864:×
1853:C
1797:(
1739:(
1721:(
1702:(
1673:(
1641:(
1620:|
1567:(
1551:(
1529:(
1519:(
1484:(
1463:(
1424:(
1410:(
1396:(
1377:(
1280:|
1223:|
1155:|
1107:(
1090:(
1026:(
990:(
975:(
940:(
905:(
866:(
820:(
798:(
774:(
652:(
605:(
534:(
521:(
477:»
471:×
459:C
445:(
431:(
416:(
401:(
382:(
352:(
340:.
334:|
322:|
306:|
290:|
222:)
214:·
208:·
200:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
170:(
162:(
159:)
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.