55:. Sheer numbers, ignoring anonymous and new voters would be "no consensus", but I hope I'm not risking my reasonably new and recallable adminship by marking it Keep from reading the arguments instead of counting votes here. There seems to be a cult following from the sheer number of Google hits, a sixth of a documentary film, and a few articles from reliable sources, such as the Washington Times, and an NBC station. (It would be nice if the Washington Times ref were added to the article.) True, the articles are primarily about the doll, but only by a narrow margin; he's the sole creator, and the articles don't just mention him in passing, they devote a noticeable part of their length to interviewing him. That's not worldwide fame, but it's enough for
1355:- ghits are a rule-of-thumb tool, and there is no hard and fast threshhold either way. However, the cites indicate that he was the proximate cause of multiple organized protests which were themselves newsworthy events. In other words, he generated enough controversy that independent groups around the country staged protests against him. I gave more weight to that than the ghits alone, since that level of controversy and coverage certainly seems notable. --
243:
73:
1060:, et. al, may be only circumstantial and coincidental, but you are by far the most vocal critic of this entry and it seems a bit suspicious as to your real motives. As a neutral third party I can tell you Normal Bob Smith's noteriety in the USA is adequate and if the article needs to be re-written to avoid deletion on a technicality, you are definately approaching this from the wrong angle.--
919:. Whether new users are in good faith or single purpose accounts has to be determined case by case. Whether their opinions are counted (AfD is not a vote) has to be determined by the closing admin. If the new users come with good arguments and make valid points, their opinions will be taken into consideration. But if they simply stuff the ballot, their votes are usually discounted.
1320:- I would normally cry "delete" at anything supported by so many SPA's, but I put a little more effort into reviewing this. The subject is a controversial public figure and "Normal Bob Smith" (with quotes around it) yielded approx 39,000 ghits. Those numbers, and the articles written about him (rather than by him) imply a level of notability that justifies keeping this.
1003:. The man behind the #1 Google result for "Jesus", as well as being a keynote speaker at some of the most important atheist conventions in America and the feature character of a nationally-recognized and reviewed movie has no reason to be deleted. He is far more influencial and popular than many of his Christian counterparts who have their own pages. See
1279:
someone be news before they become noteworthy? He's a major player in the atheist community and has been a topic speaker at atheist conventions. He's been part of a documentary. Controversy and infamy should be sufficient for a
Knowledge (XXG) article. More specifically, the article doesn't violate any of the Knowledge (XXG) rules featured at
1283:(Specifically point 5 of "Indiscriminate collection of information"), since the article addresses the cultural impact of Bob's website projects, not the websites themselves. I wholeheartedly think that this article has the notability and verifiability that Knowledge (XXG) demands of its articles. As for the implied
1492:
Yes Derek and Swoopy rule but their main audience is the skeptic community (myself included) whereas Normal Bob Smith causes controversy in the general public. The reason for not deleting skepticality: STRONG KEEP: 110,000 google hits. Let's again compare, Skepticality now gets 204,000 hits but with
1655:
As Doc Tropic and others have found, he is the primary subject of multiple, non-trivial references at reliable sources. I could care less why he is notable, but there it is. He is notable. Now, just rewrite the article useing only facts found in those sources, and you would have a good article!
1278:
Normal Bob Smith has made the news on a few occasions now. He made it when he was dealing with Urban
Outfitters and his magnet set, he made it when his website was shut down by religious organizations, he made it when he did some work for Heavy.com and the Mel Gibson Dress-Up - how many times must
1673:
Honestly I am not sure why there is so much controversy here. I had never heard of this guy, but after reading the article (which admittedly needs work) I am thoroughly convinced that he is notable and it seems that the reasons for deletion are getting thinner and thinner (why is the fact that a
905:
So the main reason for deleting this article now is not for lack of relevance but because is was deleted before. According to the rules it can't be simply recreated. The deletion can be reviewed and if there is support the admins can undelete the original article. I think this is a good point. My
1381:
with AfDs, though there is a rule of thumb that running a second AfD soon after one has failed is an abuse of process. In this case, the last AfD was a successful one but a long time ago with an article in a different form. In the absence of some special reason for salting, nothing prevents the
1190:? Arguments about "recreation without DRV" don't apply because this article is very different from the previous version (which was 1 sentence during the previous AFD), most likely created by different users; the previous AFD was hardly a concensus at 2 delete "votes" followed by 1 keep "vote".
889:
Thank you for the clarification. I admit that I was not aware of the meaning of that abbreviation and unfortunately did not find it. That's why I was only answering to the sockpuppet-part. It may indeed be possible that my account will be a SPA - I don't know yet if I will also work on
Tibetan
447:
Bob Smith is indeed a controversial figure. However, he is also a culturally relevant person, and so his article should be kept. This has been the accepted method taken with other internet personalities. For example, Sean Riley and George
Ouzanian, AKA Seanbaby and Maddox, respectively, have
608:
One notability criterion shared by nearly all of the guidelines, as well as
Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not1, is the criterion that a subject is notable if it has been been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, whose sources are independent of the subject
724:. The criteria for keeping this article has been met. I don't see why this is such an issue, unless one objects to the subject matter itself, which can be seen as disrespectful and controversial -- and deleting it on that issue would constitute censorship.
1493:
doubles omitted this results in 171 links, Normal Bob Smith (with parentheses) gets 38,100 hits but doubles omitted results in 257 links. This points to a much more divers coverage. Anyway, if 110,000 gets a STRONG KEEP, 38,100 must at least be a KEEP. --
873:(link and italics added by me). Fact of the matter is that you only have three edits, two of which are to this AfD and the other one being to the article's talk page. In such cases, it is within the discretion of the closing admin to discount such votes.
1069:
Yes, that is only circumstantial and coincidental. I have close to 15,000 edits on wikipedia. And you choose to pick two articles and one category and decide on that basis that my motives are somehow unsound? Please also look at the article history of
1674:
previous article about him was deleted, in and of itself, necessarily a criteria for deleting this one?) I have always found wikipedia's criteria for notability to be extremely lax anyway, so it seems like this guy makes it in by a wide margin.
1410:
856:
in the german wikipedia, where I work on articles about
Tibetan Buddhism since about two months. I think before you make such accusations, you should have a way to verify them. With the very same right, I could assume that you are a sockpuppet.
619:
on the side of a catholic organisation with 60 employee. There have been other occasions when he made it to the news, but I think those two references, in addition to the high google-ranking of his page, should be enough for a keep.
669:
The
Washington Times article is not about Bob Smith, but about the Jesus Dress-up, which indeed seems notable. To draw a comparison: Barbie is notable, but not every person who has ever designed a Barbie doll is notable.
501:
I am the author and I created this article from scratch (except for the Urban
Outfitters and Passion of the Christ entries) and have no personal involvement with Bob Smith, other than I think he's noteworthy. --
686:
Poor comparison, Jesus Dress-up has only one designer. Plus, it's hard to visit the site without noting the man behind it. It's clearly signed and very inviting to contact the designer. --
1107:! This person really does exist, and has achieved some notariety whether or not you like him. Shall we start deleting kidney beans and migraine entries next? What is this, Nazi Germany?
1627:
80:
273:
1186:. I would like to remind everyone to debate whether the article should be included from fundamentals such as notability, verifiability, media references; does the subject meet
300:
247:
852:
I assure you that my account is no sockpuppet of anyone. I only now did start to work on the english wikipedia, but if you are so distrustful, you can look for my account
1469:
1413:
appears to say that, while page views have sometimes spiked to a rank in the 40,000-60,000 range, it rarely breaks the top 100,000; never in the past 6 months. --
1264:
I can find articles about NBS's product, "Jesus Dress Up," but the product is the subject of these, not him. The product would seem to be notable, but not him.
1071:
1057:
942:
I've made several edits to philosophy/religion articles. I do not see the reason why this article is being considered "irrelevant". No reason to delete.
564:
No solid assertions of notability, resposted content. To
Juppongatana, note that just because there are articles on Maddox and Seanbaby does not mean
1635:
1430:
1148:
1083:
1033:
983:
920:
874:
800:
754:
700:
671:
650:
544:
427:
377:
277:
641:
787:
211:
206:
89:
1333:
1135:
1123:
745:
397:
While Normal Bob Smith is controversial and reviled in many circles, he is a cultural icon. This article is valid and should be kept.--
215:
1620:
1308:
1143:
978:
795:
749:
645:
539:
473:
422:
372:
119:
1248:
This article has been deleted twice before, and the minor improvements since are still not enough to establish notability, delete and
1049:
970:
958:
469:
1472:
at one point; it was withdrawn. And the web site is associated with a well known organization; as it happens, the magazine pictured
695:
Be that as it may, the references only assert the notability of that which has been designed, not of the person who has designed the
448:
Knowledge (XXG) pages. Bob Smith is as famous as either of these two. This article should not have been deleted in the first place.--
17:
1678:
1665:
1645:
1603:
1591:
1586:
1562:
1549:
1540:
1530:
1497:
1487:
1482:
1457:
1440:
1424:
1419:
1386:
1359:
1347:
1342:
1324:
1291:
1268:
1256:
1240:
1228:
1223:
1176:
1158:
1093:
1064:
1043:
1023:
993:
930:
910:
894:
884:
861:
845:
810:
778:
764:
728:
710:
690:
681:
660:
624:
598:
583:
554:
518:
506:
493:
452:
437:
401:
387:
351:
339:
307:
287:
198:
63:
906:
question for the experienced editors: can we ask for a review of the deletion and does support from ASP's for undeletion count? --
1304:
840:
418:
56:
578:
1558:
IMO: 2 criteria met: subject of published works (Fox News, CNN, MSNBC) and large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following. --
1429:
According to that link, NormalBobSmith.com has an Alexa ranking of only 294,447. That doesn't even come close to notability.
535:
105:
23:
368:
347:
Bob Smith is a cultural phenomenon and appeared in many media. Deleting this article looks very much like censorship. --
1693:
916:
43:
1616:
1172:
is enough for me. But it also seems to be a little on the unnotable side... (the bunch of SPAs don't help either).
1572:
to the Normal Bob Smith fans posting to this page: You are encouraged to improve the article by adding additional
1079:
78:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
637:
151:
1692:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
791:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1053:
1015:
among others. I hate to accuse and yell the word "censorship" but I don't know if it's just a coincidence the
276:, which started on November 9 and seems to have ended on November 19, the day before the article was created.
1446:
1139:
1119:
741:
1660:
974:
954:
331:
The old AfD is over a year old, but that doesn't mean one can just up and recreate the article. Take it to
1397:
1111:
946:
135:
109:
1300:
465:
414:
336:
1061:
1020:
775:
595:
94:
1584:
1523:
1480:
1417:
1383:
1340:
1221:
1115:
737:
725:
531:
202:
1287:, the SPA also advises "to assume good faith" - this is the case where I think good faith is in order.
950:
461:
449:
1630:. If you see an article that you believe doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, feel free to
364:
1546:
1296:
1288:
891:
858:
836:
633:
621:
410:
398:
1004:
592:
1382:
creation of a new article on the same subject matter or requires that any such article be deleted.
616:
574:
527:
515:
1449::they rank 748,103, this site is their main means of notability, yet there's no controversy about
1209:. The multiple SPAs are not helping here, but I'd be inclined to vote "weak keep" if he had been
1559:
1494:
1454:
1012:
907:
687:
503:
491:
360:
348:
141:
72:
1608:
1600:
612:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1573:
1249:
1029:
1581:
1516:
1477:
1414:
1374:
1356:
1337:
1321:
1218:
1019:
for deletion has done a huge volume of work on christian and christianity-related topics. --
194:
186:
1631:
1577:
1555:
1512:
1284:
1280:
1187:
1169:
1075:
869:
565:
332:
1612:
1599:- Why not, there's far more stupid/irrelivent shit on the wiki thats not up for deletion.
1400:
1173:
832:
60:
822:
1265:
1237:
1008:
696:
569:
1657:
486:
304:
1462:
1450:
1378:
169:
157:
125:
232:
104:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1640:
1435:
1253:
1194:
1153:
1088:
1038:
1016:
988:
925:
879:
805:
759:
705:
676:
655:
549:
432:
382:
316:
282:
259:
1675:
1447:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.skepticality.com
817:
No way sockpuppets and SPAs will make us let the page stay and rot on WP.
1332:- If you omit his own sites, the count drops by a few thousand, but it's
1398:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=normalbobsmith.com
1214:
1634:. However, that does not absolve this article of its responsibilities.
1336:. Is that google count enough to indicate notability by itself? --
866:
Noone is accusing you of anything. Slgrandson spoke of sockpuppets
272:
The admin closing this discussion might be interested in reading
1686:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
67:
98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
24:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith (2nd)
1473:
1236:(noting Quarl's comment above) notability not establihed.
88:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
299:
This was recreated from a previously deleted article. (
228:
224:
220:
301:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith
248:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Normal Bob Smith
1545:
Could you please give a reason - what does it fail?
1082:
before you choose that as some proof of anything...
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1696:). No further edits should be made to this page.
606:: the primary notability criterion does apply:
1217:, rather than just one of seven subjects. --
1072:Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia
118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
1628:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability
1048:Your numerous contributions to topics like
312:Not a recreation -- see my comment below.
92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1168:The fact that it was recreated without a
611:He has, for example, been the subject of
821:per these concerns and prior AFD. --Slgr
112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
514:. Subject is notable and relevant. --
1373:- he evidently has some notoriety per
1453:, 'no notability' can be dismissed --
915:You can request a deletion review at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1476:is on my coffee table right now. --
1409:- How does one read Alexa results?
1377:and others. There is no doctrine of
57:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
1050:Catholic Church in the Netherlands
31:
1080:my writing about the Netherlands
591:. I've heard of him, at least. -
241:
71:
917:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
1679:02:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1666:06:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
1646:00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1604:00:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
1592:15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1563:11:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1550:13:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1541:00:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1498:10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1488:05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1458:01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1441:00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
1425:00:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1387:23:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1360:05:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1348:00:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1325:22:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1292:21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1269:20:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1257:20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1241:20:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1229:20:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1177:20:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1159:18:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1094:09:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1065:18:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1058:Lutheran Theological Seminary
1044:17:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
1024:17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
994:16:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
931:15:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
911:13:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
895:12:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
885:11:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
862:11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
846:00:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
811:23:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
779:20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
765:23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
729:18:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
711:00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
691:11:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
682:09:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
661:23:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
625:13:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
599:12:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
584:02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
555:23:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
519:02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
507:01:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
494:01:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
453:18:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
438:23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
402:00:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
388:23:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
352:00:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
340:22:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
308:20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
288:00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
108:on the part of others and to
64:17:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
615:in the Washington Times, or
890:Buddhism and Atheism here.
1713:
1576:that will demonstrate his
255:Neutral bump from speedy.
239:
1689:Please do not modify it.
1632:nominate it for deletion
1076:WikiProject Stub sorting
39:Please do not modify it.
1074:, at my involvement in
150:; accounts blocked for
120:single-purpose accounts
90:policies and guidelines
854:Skeptischer Beobachter
1621:few or no other edits
1470:proposed for deletion
1309:few or no other edits
1144:few or no other edits
979:few or no other edits
796:few or no other edits
750:few or no other edits
646:few or no other edits
540:few or no other edits
474:few or no other edits
423:few or no other edits
373:few or no other edits
1146:outside this topic.
1030:how does that matter
981:outside this topic.
798:outside this topic.
752:outside this topic.
648:outside this topic.
542:outside this topic.
476:outside this topic.
425:outside this topic.
375:outside this topic.
1623:outside this topic.
1334:still around 36,300
1311:outside this topic.
1028:Have I? Where? And
596:(Er...let's shimmy)
485:recreated article.
102:by counting votes.
81:not a majority vote
1624:
1312:
1215:Bob Smith, U.S.A.
1199:
1198:2006-11-22 20:11Z
1147:
1128:
1114:comment added by
982:
963:
949:comment added by
844:
799:
753:
649:
543:
477:
426:
376:
337:Danny Lilithborne
321:
320:2006-11-23 00:42Z
264:
263:2006-11-20 20:06Z
183:
182:
179:
106:assume good faith
22:(Redirected from
1704:
1691:
1663:
1643:
1638:
1606:
1535:
1528:
1521:
1445:For comparison:
1438:
1433:
1384:Metamagician3000
1294:
1201:
1197:
1156:
1151:
1133:
1127:
1108:
1091:
1086:
1041:
1036:
991:
986:
968:
962:
943:
928:
923:
882:
877:
830:
829:
825:
808:
803:
785:
762:
757:
735:
708:
703:
679:
674:
658:
653:
631:
582:
566:NBS deserves one
552:
547:
525:
459:
435:
430:
408:
385:
380:
358:
323:
319:
285:
280:
266:
262:
245:
244:
236:
218:
195:Normal Bob Smith
187:Normal Bob Smith
177:
165:
149:
133:
114:
84:, but instead a
75:
68:
41:
27:
1712:
1711:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1694:deletion review
1687:
1661:
1641:
1636:
1589:
1531:
1524:
1517:
1485:
1436:
1431:
1422:
1345:
1226:
1191:
1154:
1149:
1109:
1089:
1084:
1054:Christian Stubs
1039:
1034:
1017:main campaigner
989:
984:
944:
926:
921:
892:Sceptic Watcher
880:
875:
859:Sceptic Watcher
827:
823:
806:
801:
760:
755:
706:
701:
677:
672:
656:
651:
634:Sceptic Watcher
622:Sceptic Watcher
572:
550:
545:
433:
428:
383:
378:
313:
283:
278:
274:this discussion
256:
251:
250:
242:
209:
193:
190:
167:
155:
139:
123:
110:sign your posts
51:The result was
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1710:
1708:
1699:
1698:
1682:
1681:
1668:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1594:
1587:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1552:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1483:
1443:
1427:
1420:
1403:November 2006
1390:
1389:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1343:
1314:
1313:
1272:
1271:
1259:
1243:
1231:
1224:
1203:
1202:
1180:
1179:
1162:
1161:
1130:
1129:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1062:Meneitherfabio
1021:Meneitherfabio
1009:Mike MacIntosh
1005:Andy Braunston
997:
996:
965:
964:
936:
935:
934:
933:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
849:
848:
814:
813:
788:65.125.163.221
782:
781:
776:65.125.163.221
768:
767:
732:
731:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
697:Jesus dress-up
664:
663:
628:
627:
601:
586:
558:
557:
522:
521:
509:
496:
479:
478:
456:
455:
441:
440:
405:
404:
391:
390:
355:
354:
342:
326:
325:
324:
293:
292:
291:
290:
253:
252:
240:
237:
189:
184:
181:
180:
76:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1709:
1697:
1695:
1690:
1684:
1683:
1680:
1677:
1672:
1669:
1667:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1639:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1625:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1595:
1593:
1590:
1585:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1529:
1527:
1522:
1520:
1514:
1510:
1507:
1499:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1481:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1442:
1439:
1434:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1418:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1368:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1341:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:71.237.68.113
1132:
1131:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1116:71.237.68.113
1113:
1106:
1103:
1095:
1092:
1087:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1037:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
999:
998:
995:
992:
987:
980:
976:
972:
967:
966:
960:
956:
952:
948:
941:
938:
937:
932:
929:
924:
918:
914:
913:
912:
909:
904:
903:
896:
893:
888:
887:
886:
883:
878:
872:
871:
865:
864:
863:
860:
855:
851:
850:
847:
842:
838:
834:
826:
820:
819:Speedy Delete
816:
815:
812:
809:
804:
797:
793:
789:
784:
783:
780:
777:
773:
770:
769:
766:
763:
758:
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:Chompsillisay
734:
733:
730:
727:
726:Chompsillisay
723:
720:
712:
709:
704:
698:
694:
693:
692:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
675:
668:
667:
666:
665:
662:
659:
654:
647:
643:
639:
635:
630:
629:
626:
623:
618:
614:
610:
605:
602:
600:
597:
594:
593:Tim Rhymeless
590:
587:
585:
580:
576:
571:
567:
563:
562:Speedy Delete
560:
559:
556:
553:
548:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
523:
520:
517:
513:
510:
508:
505:
504:alienlovesong
500:
497:
495:
492:
490:
489:
484:
481:
480:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
454:
451:
446:
443:
442:
439:
436:
431:
424:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
403:
400:
396:
393:
392:
389:
386:
381:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
356:
353:
350:
346:
343:
341:
338:
334:
330:
329:Speedy Delete
327:
322:
318:
311:
310:
309:
306:
302:
298:
295:
294:
289:
286:
281:
275:
271:
270:
269:
268:
267:
265:
261:
249:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
217:
213:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
188:
185:
175:
171:
163:
159:
153:
147:
143:
137:
131:
127:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
70:
69:
66:
65:
62:
58:
54:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
1688:
1685:
1670:
1652:
1619:) has made
1596:
1569:
1537:
1532:
1525:
1518:
1508:
1465:
1463:Skepticality
1451:Skepticality
1406:
1393:
1379:res judicata
1375:Doc Tropics
1370:
1357:Doc Tropics
1352:
1329:
1322:Doc Tropics
1317:
1307:) has made
1275:
1261:
1245:
1233:
1210:
1206:
1192:
1183:
1165:
1110:— Preceding
1104:
1000:
971:74.12.82.113
951:74.12.82.113
945:— Preceding
939:
867:
853:
818:
771:
721:
617:this article
613:this article
607:
603:
588:
561:
511:
498:
487:
482:
462:Juppongatana
450:Juppongatana
444:
394:
344:
328:
314:
296:
257:
254:
173:
161:
152:sockpuppetry
145:
134:; suspected
129:
115:
103:
99:
93:
85:
79:
52:
50:
38:
35:
1582:Jim Douglas
1519:JohnnyBGood
1478:Jim Douglas
1415:Jim Douglas
1338:Jim Douglas
1219:Jim Douglas
1213:subject of
1184:Metacomment
1142:) has made
1013:Jon Courson
977:) has made
794:) has made
748:) has made
644:) has made
538:) has made
472:) has made
421:) has made
371:) has made
1588:(contribs)
1578:notability
1574:references
1547:Audiolight
1484:(contribs)
1421:(contribs)
1401:sundergod9
1344:(contribs)
1297:Audiolight
1289:Audiolight
1225:(contribs)
1174:Cbrown1023
774:: Notable
579:he scores!
411:Elektrared
399:Elektrared
86:discussion
61:AnonEMouse
1266:JChap2007
1238:Pete.Hurd
589:Weak keep
575:he shoots
570:NeoChaosX
246:Moved to
142:canvassed
136:canvassed
95:consensus
1617:contribs
1511:, fails
1468:in fact
1407:Question
1330:Question
1305:contribs
1124:contribs
1112:unsigned
959:contribs
947:unsigned
841:contribs
837:messages
746:contribs
642:contribs
536:contribs
528:Chisrule
516:Chisrule
488:IrishGuy
470:contribs
419:contribs
369:contribs
305:Deathawk
174:username
168:{{subst:
162:username
156:{{subst:
146:username
140:{{subst:
130:username
124:{{subst:
1570:Comment
1554:Passes
1250:WP:SALT
1078:and at
609:itself.
212:protect
207:history
138:users:
1658:Jayron
1560:Djudge
1556:WP:BIO
1513:WP:BIO
1509:Delete
1495:Djudge
1455:Djudge
1285:WP:SPA
1281:WP:NOT
1262:Delete
1246:Delete
1234:Delete
1207:Delete
1188:WP:BIO
1170:WP:DRV
1166:Delete
1011:, and
908:Djudge
688:Djudge
483:Delete
361:Djudge
349:Djudge
333:WP:DRV
216:delete
1609:Zoift
1601:Zoift
1580:. --
1538:VIVA!
1515:IMO.
1353:Reply
1254:MONGO
1195:Quarl
828:ndson
317:Quarl
260:Quarl
233:views
225:watch
221:links
116:Note:
16:<
1676:Dmz5
1671:Keep
1653:Keep
1642:ecis
1613:talk
1597:Keep
1474:here
1437:ecis
1411:This
1394:KEEP
1371:Keep
1318:Keep
1301:talk
1276:Keep
1155:ecis
1140:talk
1120:talk
1105:Keep
1090:ecis
1040:ecis
1001:Keep
990:ecis
975:talk
955:talk
940:Keep
927:ecis
881:ecis
870:SPAs
868:and
833:page
807:ecis
792:talk
772:Keep
761:ecis
742:talk
722:Keep
707:ecis
678:ecis
657:ecis
638:talk
604:Keep
551:ecis
532:talk
512:Keep
499:Keep
466:talk
445:Keep
434:ecis
415:talk
395:Keep
384:ecis
365:talk
345:Keep
297:Note
284:ecis
229:logs
203:talk
199:edit
53:Keep
1466:was
1252:.--
1211:the
170:csp
166:or
158:csm
126:spa
100:not
1662:32
1656:--
1615:•
1607:—
1396:-
1303:•
1295:—
1134:—
1126:)
1122:•
1056:,
1052:,
1032:?
1007:,
969:—
961:)
957:•
839:-
835:-
786:—
744:•
736:—
699:.
640:•
632:—
577:,
568:.
534:•
526:—
468:•
460:—
417:•
409:—
367:•
359:—
335:.
303:)-
231:|
227:|
223:|
219:|
214:|
210:|
205:|
201:|
176:}}
164:}}
154::
148:}}
132:}}
122::
59:.
1637:A
1611:(
1533:c
1526:t
1432:A
1299:(
1193:—
1150:A
1138:(
1118:(
1085:A
1035:A
985:A
973:(
953:(
922:A
876:A
843:)
831:(
824:@
802:A
790:(
756:A
740:(
702:A
673:A
652:A
636:(
581:)
573:(
546:A
530:(
464:(
429:A
413:(
379:A
363:(
315:—
279:A
258:—
235:)
197:(
178:.
172:|
160:|
144:|
128:|
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
