1201:. If we can do that, it matters little if that is done in a list or in a standalone article. Those are editorial choices which we should not seek to force upon each other, and nor should we suggest that one view is superior to the other. There are merits in both arguments, but for me I believe that a standalone article suits our purpose better than a list in building the encyclopedia. It allows better use of our features and better presentation of the material. Notability is a red herring. Merging is simply a choice. This debate to my mind should be closed as out of process, to be honest. If the nominator is not seeking deletion, they should simply start a merge discussion instead. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion. Already the very nomination of this article appears to have driven one editor away. We should not bite each other and we should act in good faith. If the nominator has no wish to see the article deleted, I do not understand how we are in good faith discussing the issue of a merge here. These decisions have consequences, and we need to examine those consequences. What is better, that we discuss matters in a collegiate manner and sometimes accept that there is no agreement and agree to disagree, accepting that at this point in time our solution is not the implemented one, or do we game the system to create the determined goal at the expense of others? Knowledge (XXG) is not a battleground. We should not bite each other. This article was created 17 days ago and not once was anything posted to the article talk page. The system appears to have failed here. Knowledge (XXG) is not a game.
1005:
for an encyclopedia? Would this charcater be covered in any encyclopedia? A comics encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then we should cover the topic. And the answer is yes. This character is likely to be covered in some form of encyclkopedia, and since
Knowledge (XXG) is not paper that means we do not have to limit ourselves to regurgitating Britannica. I know Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscrimate collection of information, but the intention of that is that we do not cover topics which would not be covered encyclopedically, for example travel reports, plot summaries, dictionary definitions and so on and so forth. It does not apply to anything which contradicts our main purpose, which is being an encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia. This article improves that encyclopedia. Therefore we should keep it. Some people may not like it. Some people may not find it to their taste. Some people may point to guidelines which support their view. Others will point to policies which support theirs. There is a reason
1189:? They should illustrate why we cannot have an article on you, and also why we should have an article here. We cannot have an article on you because we cannot verify any of the information about you to a reliable degree. How can we even begin to ascertain your name? However, we can ascertain many things about this published character, we can source many things, and we can write encyclopedically about the character. This is not about any perceived quality standard regarding what "an encyclopedia" is, which I assume is different to an actual encyclopedia. This is about writing to an encyclopedic standard on topics within the framework of our policies of
1260:
talk page for other approiaches, no templates applied to the article, this article simply wasn't given a chance. If you truly believe you considered all other options before you came to afd, I'll believe you. But I think that nominating an article for deletion 17 minutes after creation without posting to the talk page on other options, without discussing with the creator or without looking at other options is poor form. You happen to disagree, and that's fine. But the
Knowledge (XXG) I signed up to wasn't one where deletion was the first resort for solving problems. I happen to believe that we should not bite newcomers.
1447:, mergeing into a list of enemies to one character in particluar(Spider-Man) is near impossible for Marvel Characters. All characters interact with each other and bounce from hero to villian and back again all the time. Updating which character appears on which list of another character is the most counter productive thing one could possibly suggest. --
1144:? Yam, Latinos and Leftys are all notable. It isn't about running out of room, it is about a quality standard to be "an encyclopedia". That is the whole idea on inclusion: if it isn't notable as a stand alone article (in this case, clearly too new to be 'notable') then include it in a more general article, such as the newly created
174:, i rewrote the article to bring it too comic project standard. A major character in the Spider-Man's Brand New Day retcon, and (before you say it i know its not a valid argument but i thought id mention it) there a many, many, Marvel characters profiles on wikipedia for new and under exposed characters.
1227:
the articles. I reserve the right to be pursueded that merging is a viable option, particularly after the merged TO article has been improved during this AFD. I would also disagree with your conclusion that the system "failed". This AFD is 17 days old, over 3x the normal length, which I personally
1259:
At no point did I aver you listed this article in bad faith. Further than that, I don't agree with blocking people I am in dispute with. My point is this: AFD should be the last resort, not the first. This article was created and listed for deletion within 17 minutes. There's no discussion on the
668:
There are some articles (like your Silver Racer) that probably should be deleted, but
Knowledge (XXG) being able to have articles about so many characters is why it is so widely used as a resource. Don't degrade Knowledge (XXG) by needlessly deleting articles, help Knowledge (XXG) grow into a useful
233:
was split into sections for each villain with the more well-known/popular ones being linked off as sub articles, i would gladly merge this character into a single section along with a few other little known characters the list mentions. But as it stands there is no where to merge it too and it would
1510:
and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. As i have stated before there were no objection as the characters i merged were a few years old..
398:
is working hard on that now (along with several other characters). *If* he becomes notable in the following years, then it won't be an issue to start an article, but most characters do not make it to notable. Until then, they are better served in a singular article that lists ALL the enemies, and
1100:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a guidebook; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept/character in the Marvel
Universe. These pages, at this point in time, are very short and are unlikely to be expanded after their adjoining story arcs, it makes sense to merge them with a list page that
1004:
Are you asking me how an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view determines inclusion standards? And when did a deletion debate become focussed on whether an article was notable enough to keep? I thought it was whether it was within our domain as an encyclopedia. Is this a suitable topic
606:
until the character's notability has borne out. I will admit that I have never heard of this character before, but then he is brand new so that has something to do with it. There is something to be said for not biting the newbies, and there is also something to be said for giving a new topic some
1613:
and many more like it are noteworthy and are able to be stand alone articles of work. It's not like we will be merging Doc Oct and Green Goblin into the list just these more pointless pages.. and when a character reaches a certain stage of noteworthyness it will be moved back out to its redirect.
259:
sounds like exactly the article it should be merged to. The matter of formatting of that particular article can be changed. That has no bearing on the issue at hand, that he isn't yet notable enough to warrant his own article. The fact that the merged to article 'needs work' isn't a valid keep
822:
would not have not cared enough to enter into this discussion. To be truly honest i fall in that category, as you can see at the top, my first instinct was to keep, but if you take time to actually think about it you would soon realize that putting this information in a collective article is far
615:
went to AFD when it was first submitted. As far as "there are there are hundreds just like it", this is not only an argument to avoid using in AFD, but it's a bad idea in general because you might unintentionally attract ambitious deletionists to your favorite articles by making statements like
1115:
That doesn't address my point. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia. We are not paper. Therefore, what does it matter that some encyclopedic articles are shorter than others? What is the benefit to us as an encyclopedia to gather short articles into a list since we are not made of paper and
1009:
is a guideline and not a policy. It does not have the wide community support of a policy. It is not a fundamental principle in the way that
Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia is. It is simply a guide as to what to write about, aimed at new editors. It is not a rulebook since Knowledge (XXG)
713:
Removing trivia helps
Knowledge (XXG). This isn't trivia. Knowledge (XXG) is useful only because it has comprehensive articles of lesser known characters. Characters who make one single appearance and have an article should have their articles deleted, but this character already has notable
64:
storylines that I don't think "notability" is arbitrarily being applied in this case. I decided on "no consensus" over "keep", because this leans the closure more in the direction of possible re-nomination if, after the initial arc has ended, the character turns out to be one which
669:
internet entity by letting these articles survive. But your basis for the redirect only on how new he is has no support either. There are characters with significant articles that only had a few appearances but aren't considered for redirect because those issues are old. -
1301:
independent references to establish notability of this particular character. The only two references not to the comic books do not contain the word "Negative", even incidentally. If future developments make the character more notable, then a new article can be split off.
890:
Yep, merge and redirect is a legitimate way of saving the information in an article, and if we want to keep the content it's better than letting it get deleted. :) I had to learn that the hard way. I'd personally rather keep in most cases, but let's be realistic. ;)
204:" is a non-argument. I would vote delete/merge on all these minor characters, from any comic/show/book/cartoon/etc. If they dont have any notability outside of that comic/venue, they don't earn an article outside of that comics article, from how I understand the
823:
better for a character with no out of universe context. When the time comes and Mister
Negative gets recognition in TV shows, computer games, novels or has some significant effect on the Marvel U then it is a simple process to move the article out once again. ---
809:
deleting all the information here, it is just being moved to another more suited place. Everything that is written, and that will be continually added as his appearances come up, will still exist on wikipedia but just on a different page. I have already merged
1152:
and think several people have worked hard on it to allow inclusion of all these enemies, while preventing more AFDs in the future. Until a character is notable enough for their own article, this groups them together very nicely.
234:
seem he is going to be a long standing character in this chapter of Spider-man's comic history so deleting it would seem pointless at this juncture if he's gonna keep popping up every month (or three times a month). --
533:
of comic book articles on
Knowledge (XXG) that fit that bill. Furthermore, there are lots of television show episodes and characters that have their own pages (without risk of deletion) that hardly anyone knows about.
1628:
It's 9 Keep, 7 Redirect, 2 Delete. Not much support for a delete, which is good, but the Keep/redirect split is close. It will probably have to go based on strength of argument on this one, which is as it should be
1568:, etc.) are notable. Moreover, if we merge now, this article will almost certainly be recreated within a few weeks as more information continues to be published. Mister Negative isn't a minor character in a
860:
Well good.. i just think some people dont understand that redirecting, and converting list articles to allow this type of merging, is being done to save this article (and others like it) from deletion. As
743:
1503:- wrong. Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can
361:
Mister
Negative is an important villain in the Brand New Day story and is certainly notable. Just because he doesn't exist outside of comics (at the moment) doesn't mean he's not notable. --
394:. Only being known in the comic and not written about in independent sources is exactly what notability is about. I think the merge is the best and likely solution, and it appears that
1540:
storyline. There is more information available than just the small amount that goes into a list, and if we give that complete information, then due to the size of massive size of the
1472:
he did start appearing in other character books and started to become known outside of this one characters history then that would be a good reason to split him out of the list. ---
131:
695:
villain of the month an article, someone will use the same argument you're using now to justify articles about some other villain of the month, making
Knowledge (XXG) look like
502:
There are articles that are very much shorter than this article that are still around. This one is only being nominated for deletion because it's a mildly short article that is
818:
without a single word against or an attempted to revert.. the fact of the matter is, if this character had not been in a comic book in the last two months most of you putting
714:
appearances and they have said he will appear in the future. If we delete this articles and others similar to it, Knowledge (XXG) will lose what usefulness it once had. -
1614:
Being a character in a recent storyline isnt a valid arguement for not merging believe i know cus that was what i first siad when i wanted to keep this article. ---
1274:
Agreed; that does tend to scare them away and I mentioned the same thing above (notice how the editor who created the aritlce hasn't made any new edits in 2 weeks).
297:. I am just saying wait.. what's the point in losing the information provided right now by deleting it when you can wait a week and move it to the right place. ---
48:- Just counting "votes", I come up with around 11 - 9 Keep vs. redirect. (Since so few suggested delete, counting those who said redirect as second option.) While
281:
id truly like to do that... if we can get some help changing the list of enemies article into something manageable id merge this in there along with the likes of
1489:
Those merges were done by you without any discussion or attempt to build consensus. You can't set your own precedent in order to use it in at AFD discussion --
1236:. If being open minded and willing to compromise after hearing both sides of discussion is a violation of policy, I will be happy to plead guilty as charged.
156:
I hate to AFD so quickly, but it seem apparent that notibility will not be able to be established on a brand new character, even if given another week.
1140:
Although Knowledge (XXG) isn't paper, it still has guidelines for inclusion. Why not an article on me? Or you? Or why isn't there an article called
1468:
The thing is this character has not been seen outside the Spider-Man comics... nor the other minor characters that have been merged with the list.
1413:, say I. It could turn out that this villain becomes one of the biggest smash-hits of Spider-Man's career...or not. Who knows. But I say keep.
1490:
1448:
1141:
580:
104:
99:
108:
17:
683:
I don't think that removing trivia from Knowledge (XXG) degrades it. This character is not notable, and the fact that it is new is
1548:
supporting cast, including villains, it is infeasible to merge all Spider-Man villains together. I further add that I believe that
612:
482:
91:
805:- Can i just say that i believe some people are taking this attempt to redirect the article completely out of context. We are
771:, as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Spider-Man comics.Notability to come.--
506:. He is a notable villain (see recent updates to the article) and more than long enough to constitute keeping it around. -
527:: If notability outside the comic book world were required for an article to exist than you better be prepared to delete
1658:
36:
1335:
138:
As the article points out, not much is known about him... New character, not notable outside the fantasy world yet.
1376:
1351:
1145:
815:
768:
641:
603:
444:
340:
318:
256:
230:
321:
page and i am going to do a rewrite and see if i can get the article upto a position to start merging things. ---
429:
61:
607:
time before pulling the trigger. Yes, recentism should be avoided on Knowledge (XXG), which is why Redirecting
1657:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1494:
1452:
1418:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
584:
1638:
1623:
1591:
1520:
1481:
1456:
1439:
1422:
1403:
1389:
1366:
1339:
1313:
1283:
1269:
1254:
1210:
1171:
1125:
1110:
1095:
1081:
1023:
995:
977:
959:
937:
900:
881:
851:
832:
797:
780:
776:
758:
754:
723:
708:
678:
657:
631:
588:
565:
543:
515:
492:
462:
432:
408:
370:
353:
330:
306:
269:
243:
217:
191:
165:
147:
73:
1362:, then it might make sense to give him his own page. But so far he's just a minor opponent of Spiderman.
627:
208:
guidelines. Some characters DO become notable outside their single use, but not new ones, not yet anyway.
205:
187:
1578:
1379:
until outside sources are found in which case the article can be safely un-redirected. No RS, no article,
991:
986:
What does having a neutral point of view have to do with whether an article is notable enough to keep? —
955:
704:
653:
561:
968:
Could you explicate a little more on your confusion? I am unclear as to what needs developing further.
487:
426:
95:
49:
1587:
1435:
1414:
366:
282:
1309:
1246:
1163:
1116:
therefore do not have publication demands made of us. There is no need to limit our page count.
793:
772:
750:
719:
674:
539:
511:
455:
404:
265:
213:
161:
143:
579:: Why should this article be deleted when other articles much shorter than it are still around?
1046:
I think the page should stay. He could become more recurring like the upcoming Menace villain.
1619:
1516:
1477:
1106:
1077:
877:
828:
349:
326:
302:
239:
181:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1511:
if this character had not been in recent comics this disscussion would not be happening. ---
1504:
1190:
1186:
947:
925:
53:
1399:
1265:
1206:
1121:
1091:
1051:
1019:
987:
973:
951:
933:
700:
649:
557:
290:
1380:
1194:
1182:
1011:
921:
201:
1541:
1065:
477:
286:
87:
79:
1583:
1573:
1431:
1363:
1072:
become a recurring bad guy still does not justify the need for a separate article. ---
362:
1198:
1178:
1006:
917:
611:
might be the better option. With that in mind, be aware that recent Featured Article
1634:
1537:
1384:
1305:
1279:
1237:
1154:
896:
868:
862:
847:
789:
715:
670:
621:
535:
507:
471:
448:
400:
261:
209:
157:
139:
1615:
1512:
1473:
1102:
1073:
873:
824:
553:
395:
345:
322:
298:
235:
177:
125:
1323:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
420:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
1395:
1261:
1202:
1117:
1087:
1047:
1015:
969:
929:
950:
cited as a keep reason. Could you explicate a little on the connection there? —
867:
individually we are weak, like a single twig. But as a bundle we form a mighty
1561:
1545:
1330:
1359:
294:
70:
687:. If an older character featured in an article isn't notable either, then
1630:
1569:
1553:
1275:
1068:
is an example of another villain that should be merge the fact that they
892:
843:
617:
1228:
take as a sign of great faith on the part of the administrators. As to
1557:
56:
may normally be valid, enough external notice has been given the the
842:
I see what you're saying, which is why I said what I said above. :)
691:
article should be deleted as well. The problem is that if we give
1565:
1394:
You believe that building a consensus is bad for Knowledge (XXG)?
1355:
1651:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1552:
major villains for the most popular comic book characters (e.g.
1430:, this article doesn't appear to me to violate any policies. --
1232:
good faith, if you feel I nominated this article in bad faith,
399:
have redirects when proper. That is pretty standard policy.
1582:, the longest-running and most important Spider-Man title. —
1086:
What is the difference between a list entry and an article?
1576:; this is the featured villain of the current storyline of
744:
list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions
69:
be merged/redirected as noted in the discussion below. -
697:
The Obsessive-Compulsive Handbook of the Marvel Universe
648:
is why he doesn't need an article (at least not yet). -
1611:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1599:
121:
117:
113:
598:
per those who voted that way (although see below), or
1142:
List of left handed Latino people who don't like yams
1328:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
425:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1354:. If he becomes a major villain on the level of
1661:). No further edits should be made to this page.
447:as by the looks of it the merge has been done.
8:
384:because he doesn't exist outside of comics
1177:Why not an article on you? Have you read
946:I think that's the first time I've seen
742:: This debate has been included in the
1223:articles for deletion, which means we
552:mean deleting a lot of articles about
788:as above. No independent notability.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1598:Are you saying that the these pages
24:
1297:to list of characters. There are
1234:please take administrative action
613:Through the Looking Glass (Lost)
1148:. As the nom, I agree with the
1101:covers the broader topic. ---
835:(#stepping down from soapbox#)
556:. Thanks for the reminder. -
200:Not to be a pain, but saying "
1:
1639:18:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1624:17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1592:15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1521:17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1482:09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1457:08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1440:12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1423:10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1404:14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1390:04:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1367:04:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1340:03:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1314:20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1284:15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1270:14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1255:16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1211:22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1172:18:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1126:18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1054:) 9:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
74:03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
1138:Final comment from nominator
1111:20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
1096:18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
1082:18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
1024:18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
996:02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
978:18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
960:17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
938:16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
901:17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
882:17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
852:17:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
833:16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
798:16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
781:16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
759:16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
724:00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
709:23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
679:22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
658:22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
632:21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
589:19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
566:22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
544:18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
516:18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
493:15:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
463:02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
433:01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
409:20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
371:20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
354:13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
331:16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
307:16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
270:15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
244:13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
218:01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
192:14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
166:01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
148:01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
1678:
1377:List of Spider-Man enemies
1352:List of Spider-Man enemies
1146:List of Spider-Man enemies
816:List of Spider-Man enemies
769:List of Spider-Man enemies
642:List of Spider-Man enemies
604:List of Spider-Man enemies
445:List of Spider-Man enemies
341:List of Spider-Man enemies
319:List of Spider-Man enemies
257:List of Spider-Man enemies
231:List of Spider-Man enemies
644:. The fact that he's so
62:Spider-Man: Brand New Day
1654:Please do not modify it.
58:Spider-Man: One More Day
32:Please do not modify it.
317:I have looked into the
1579:The Amazing Spider-Man
202:What about $ x article
1536:. Major character in
1014:. I hope that helps.
382:Your comment that:
283:Spidercide (comics)
1348:Redirect and Merge
1295:delete or redirect
1250:
1242:
1167:
1159:
1402:
1342:
1268:
1251:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1209:
1168:
1165:
1160:
1157:
1124:
1094:
1022:
976:
936:
761:
747:
634:
554:comic book trivia
460:
435:
194:
1669:
1656:
1398:
1387:
1327:
1325:
1312:
1264:
1247:
1239:
1205:
1164:
1156:
1120:
1090:
1018:
972:
932:
748:
738:
625:
485:
480:
458:
454:
424:
422:
291:Batwing (comics)
185:
129:
111:
34:
1677:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1659:deletion review
1652:
1542:Marvel Universe
1385:
1338:
1321:
1303:
1066:Menace (comics)
767:or redirect to
483:
478:
456:
427:Yamamoto Ichiro
418:
287:Iguana (comics)
102:
88:Mister Negative
86:
83:
80:Mister Negative
54:WP:AADD#CRYSTAL
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1675:
1673:
1664:
1663:
1646:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1595:
1594:
1574:limited series
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1491:69.182.199.231
1460:
1459:
1449:69.182.199.231
1442:
1425:
1415:SaliereTheFish
1408:
1407:
1406:
1370:
1344:
1343:
1334:
1326:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1272:
1214:
1213:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
999:
998:
981:
980:
963:
962:
941:
940:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
885:
884:
855:
854:
837:
836:
800:
783:
762:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
661:
660:
635:
592:
591:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
519:
518:
496:
495:
465:
437:
436:
423:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
390:definition of
374:
373:
356:
334:
333:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
273:
272:
248:
247:
221:
220:
195:
168:
136:
135:
82:
77:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1674:
1662:
1660:
1655:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1609:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1580:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1538:Brand New Day
1535:
1532:
1531:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1502:
1499:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1307:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1244:
1235:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1161:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1008:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
982:
979:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
942:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
911:
902:
898:
894:
889:
888:
887:
886:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
864:
863:Martin Prince
859:
858:
857:
856:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
834:
830:
826:
821:
817:
813:
808:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
782:
778:
774:
773:Gavin Collins
770:
766:
763:
760:
756:
752:
751:Gavin Collins
745:
741:
737:
736:
725:
721:
717:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
676:
672:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
633:
630:was added at
629:
623:
619:
614:
610:
605:
601:
597:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
581:144.92.58.223
578:
575:
574:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:
526:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
494:
491:
490:
489:
486:
481:
473:
472:User:Sting au
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
452:
451:
446:
442:
439:
438:
434:
431:
428:
421:
417:
416:
410:
406:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
336:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:WP:Notability
203:
199:
196:
193:
190:was added at
189:
183:
179:
175:
173:
169:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
151:
150:
149:
145:
141:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
68:
63:
59:
55:
52:is true, and
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1653:
1650:
1645:
1577:
1549:
1533:
1506:
1500:
1486:
1469:
1465:
1444:
1427:
1410:
1372:
1347:
1329:
1322:
1304:
1298:
1294:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1220:
1149:
1137:
1136:
1069:
1012:has no rules
913:
866:
819:
811:
806:
802:
785:
764:
739:
696:
692:
688:
684:
645:
637:
608:
599:
595:
576:
549:
529:
528:
524:
503:
499:
488:(yada, yada)
476:
475:
467:
453:
449:
440:
419:
391:
387:
383:
379:
358:
339:Redirect to
338:
278:
253:
226:
197:
171:
170:
153:
137:
66:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
988:Quasirandom
952:Quasirandom
872:" lol! ---
865:would say "
812:12 articles
701:JasonAQuest
650:JasonAQuest
626:—Preceding
558:JasonAQuest
392:not notable
260:argument.
186:—Preceding
1562:Spider-Man
1546:Spider-Man
457:Buzz Me...
50:WP:CRYSTAL
1584:Lowellian
1572:or minor
1432:Pixelface
1383:period.--
1364:Lankiveil
1360:The Joker
363:Maestro25
295:Coldheart
1570:one-shot
1554:Superman
1544:and the
1386:Lenticel
1381:no drama
1373:Redirect
1336:contribs
1306:Argyriou
790:Eusebeus
786:Redirect
716:Freak104
671:Freak104
638:Redirect
600:Redirect
548:Yes, it
536:Freak104
530:hundreds
508:Freak104
468:Redirect
450:Sting au
441:Redirect
401:Pharmboy
262:Pharmboy
210:Pharmboy
158:Pharmboy
140:Pharmboy
132:View log
1629:anyway.
1616:Paulley
1513:Paulley
1474:Paulley
1466:Comment
1241:HARMBOY
1225:discuss
1191:WP:NPOV
1187:WP:NPOV
1158:HARMBOY
1103:Paulley
1074:Paulley
948:WP:NPOV
926:WP:NPOV
874:Paulley
825:Paulley
803:Comment
628:comment
609:for now
525:Comment
396:Paulley
388:defacto
386:is the
380:Comment
346:Paulley
323:Paulley
299:Paulley
279:Comment
254:Comment
236:Paulley
227:comment
198:comment
188:comment
178:Paulley
154:comment
105:protect
100:history
1558:Batman
1396:Hiding
1310:(talk)
1262:Hiding
1203:Hiding
1195:WP:NOR
1183:WP:NOR
1118:Hiding
1088:Hiding
1048:Rtkat3
1016:Hiding
970:Hiding
930:Hiding
922:WP:NOR
869:faggot
765:Delete
616:that.
484:crewer
293:, and
109:delete
67:should
1588:reply
1566:X-Men
1501:Reply
1487:Reply
1356:Venom
1331:JERRY
1219:This
1150:MERGE
814:into
229:, If
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
1635:talk
1620:talk
1534:Keep
1517:talk
1507:bold
1495:talk
1478:talk
1453:talk
1445:Keep
1436:talk
1428:Keep
1419:talk
1411:Keep
1299:zero
1280:talk
1249:TALK
1199:WP:V
1197:and
1185:and
1179:WP:V
1166:TALK
1107:talk
1078:talk
1052:talk
1007:WP:N
992:talk
956:talk
924:and
918:WP:V
916:per
914:Keep
897:talk
878:talk
848:talk
829:talk
820:keep
794:talk
777:talk
755:talk
740:Note
720:talk
705:talk
699:. -
693:this
689:that
675:talk
654:talk
622:talk
596:Keep
585:talk
577:Keep
562:talk
550:does
540:talk
512:talk
500:KEEP
479:brew
470:per
405:talk
367:talk
359:Keep
350:talk
344:---
337:Now
327:talk
303:talk
266:talk
240:talk
214:talk
182:talk
176:---
172:Keep
162:talk
144:talk
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
71:jc37
1631:BOZ
1550:all
1505:be
1375:to
1358:or
1350:to
1276:BOZ
1070:may
893:BOZ
844:BOZ
807:NOT
746:.
685:why
646:new
640:to
624:)
618:BOZ
602:to
504:new
474:.--
443:to
184:)
130:– (
1637:)
1622:)
1610:,
1607:,
1604:,
1601:,
1590:)
1564:,
1560:,
1556:,
1519:)
1497:)
1480:)
1470:IF
1455:)
1438:)
1421:)
1282:)
1253:)
1230:my
1221:is
1193:,
1181:,
1170:)
1109:)
1080:)
994:)
958:)
928:.
920:,
899:)
880:)
850:)
831:)
796:)
779:)
757:)
722:)
707:)
677:)
656:)
587:)
564:)
542:)
514:)
430:会話
407:)
369:)
352:)
329:)
305:)
289:,
285:,
268:)
242:)
216:)
164:)
146:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
1633:(
1618:(
1586:(
1515:(
1493:(
1476:(
1451:(
1434:(
1417:(
1400:T
1369:.
1278:(
1266:T
1245:(
1238:P
1207:T
1162:(
1155:P
1122:T
1105:(
1092:T
1076:(
1050:(
1020:T
990:(
974:T
954:(
934:T
895:(
876:(
846:(
827:(
792:(
775:(
753:(
749:—
718:(
703:(
673:(
652:(
620:(
583:(
560:(
538:(
510:(
403:(
365:(
348:(
325:(
301:(
264:(
246:]
238:(
212:(
180:(
160:(
142:(
134:)
128:)
90:(
60:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.