1375:. Sourcing arguments are null and void; I have repeatedly pointed out where the sources are but there's no point editing them in because I can predict how this will end. I am fascinated how everyone seems to be dead-sure what to do with this article, yet they are utterly unable to articulate any actual notability guideline that governs timelines. (Do we need a New York Times article about each Knowledge (XXG) article? The possibilities are fascinating.) I am especially amused by the argument that Eva is somehow of lesser 'scope' than Star Wars, given that they are both multi-billion dollar franchises. I suppose some multi-billion dollar franchises are more equal than other multi-billion dollar franchises... (What's that, SW has a book on its chronology? There's Eva timeline material -
1424:
than anything else. For any article in general, it would need to have real world sources and real world perspective to some degree, and talking about the NGE franchise is whats really null and void in this discussion, Star Wars has various independent games, novels, and films which all of them don't cover in one piece of media, unlike NGE which all of it is mainly explained in one anime series and even then, Star Wars article needs to be fixed. you also admitted that they don't meet the general notability guideline when you said the only ones that seem to pass are those two articles. you're inconsistent. You admit which ones will be kept, yet you don't want to admit their reasoning is correct. And on what grounds do you base WP:IDONTLIKEIT???? We have given more than enough reasoning.
1058:
nominated for deletion and kept. That doesn't justify it for all timeline articles out there relating to more notable franchises like NGE to be kept as well. Thats what WP:FANCRUFT. Again, you're not mentioning it why it meets general notability guideline, you're the only one against the deletion, and you're reasoning is "other timelines have been kept so this one should too". LIke i said in the gloassary nomination. you're going to have to prove it. now that it's AfD. it's too late to say it can. And i've looked for reliable sources relating to the timeline, and i can safely say, there is no reliable source out there giving any information on the timeline specifically.
1109:. If there are books, why not cite them if you have copies of them?!?! DF, you're trying to use other arguments to defend your Keep vote and you attack other editors without even addressing the concerns that prompted this AFD in the first place. You expect every book that covers certain series to have a timeline? You're too speculative. I agree with Bread Ninja's points on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and FANCRUFT. You're right in a way, policies must be followed and deleting this article is part of that. So, no dice. This is happening.--
1330:
timeline and the other has a different one. then it will be harder to make an article. But for a timeline itself....that would fail WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:IINFO, and other may not be exactly appropriate to have an article. If you find any reception or impact that mentions timeline specifically, then yes, we probably could keep it. But i've looked for information such as that in the past and could not find any.
1075:
743:"That one person" often makes votes which are not only regularly contrary to our policies and practice but often bordering on outright nonsense. Such votes are surely ignored by the closing administrator so it's a mystery why "that one person" bothers making them at all. Only "that one person" knows for sure, I guess.
287:. Just looking at it confuses me and makes me think it was acquired from some EVA wiki. I've never watched the show, but this article's just ridiculous. Lacks coherent refs too. I can definitely see people like Gwern and other editors who've worked on all things EVA stepping in defense. Gwern brashly shot down a
1379:
is the source of all the dates in the timeline that precede the anime series. But wait, Eva is foreign and so all arguments are automatically less convincing when applied to it. What's that, Star Wars has a bunch of video games? Gainax makes most of its money off video games! What's that, there are a
1453:
exists, we can't help it if this article is clearly overstepping it. If the only sources available are directly tied to the creators of the show, then clearly the subject isn't notable. Attacking other contributors won't change this fact. Also, Gwern, no one will prevent you to nominate for deletion
1329:
WikiuserNI was right on the ball. And No, you're twisting it. They made the guidelines and policies stricter so we could have better articles. It also depends on what book it is. Such as if they are self-published or not. It also has to be if they are consistently to one another. If one book has one
1285:
Is that what passes now as a rationale from the Rescue
Squadron. It might help their members know that we'd take them a bit more seriously if they took themselves a bit more seriously in return. That the article stood for years before being prodded and then AfDed is of no concern, that someone found
1241:
We need a bot to do that. Or one that just automatically copied the entire
Knowledge (XXG), deleted articles included, somewhere for those of us who are "inclusionist" to work on, and we could then fully abandon this place to those who want to change it from what it once was. This article has been
1023:
to work, you need to prove it would improve
Knowledge (XXG), which you failed to do. And because there is original research in the article, not everything can be verified in primary sources. You cannot make any comparison to Star Wars because these franchises don't have the same scope (far from it).
1423:
A timeline article is basically, a list article of fictional or non fictional events. It's basically a list article. And if doesn't meet the GNG for list, then we should delete, merge or more. And even more than that it's all plot related information with no real world sources and is merely a guide
984:
has been up for deletion four times, it ending in deletion in 2007, then a few weeks later ending in keep, then no consensus for the year 2008, and again no consensus in 2009. I mention these because valid arguments were made in those AFDs, and to point out my case that consensus changes according
767:
This is the second nomination. The first one thus ended in Keep. The results are based on whatever random group of people show up to comment, and the mood and opinions of the closing administrator. And most of the articles I participate in are kept. Now can we follow the rules and focus on the
358:
It says second nomination, but I can't find the first anyway. Anyway, this aids in the understanding of a very notable fictional creation. This series revolutionized the industry, changing things forever as everyone else then went and started copying its format. It has made BILLIONS of dollars,
1300:
Do you see the Rescue
Squadron anywhere? Did I tag the article for Rescue? Why take a swing at them? Was my comment made as a reason to keep it? Thousands of articles that had been around for years were wiped out once enough deletionist campers altered the previously totally ignored guideline
979:
was up for deletion, it the same case here. "Keep Such a massive series, covering so many books, movies, animated series, merchandise, and having such a vast cultural influence, is notable enough to have side articles about its various aspects. The list helps organize all the series, and is thus
1057:
Dream focus, you point these out but they're not really related to wikipedia standards, only up to User's standards. which some of them may lead to systemic Bias. Point is, it fails alot of other real guidelines such as the ones already mentioned. And just because another timeline out there was
663:
1301:
pages, so they could finally have an excuse to delete articles they didn't like. And lets focus on the argument please. Is it not reasonable to assume that with so many books written about it, that the timeline is covered in some of them? Would this count as notable coverage?
413:
How does the fact that the series has made billions of dollars matter? Notability is not inherited and all that after all. Perhaps if an explanation of how this aids our understanding of the series, in a way the episode descriptions don't, might help.
989:. If a rule gets in the way of improving Knowledge (XXG), then ignore it. The information can all be verified in the primary source, no doubting it. It does aid in the understanding of such a notable series, and nothing is gained by destroying it.
312:. No reliable independant sources and too much OR, entirely in-universe with no element establishing notability. I also don't see the point of merging, the plot summary in the main Eva article is enough, there is nothing new and relevant in this list.
68:
1348:", ah, there we go, reasoned discussion! I notice there's no rationale for keeping this article that focusses on what it provides the reader. Yes it relates to a well known and profitable franchise, no that does not automatically confer notability.
1077:
Not sure if any are considered notable, but if they covered the series in detail, they probably listed a time line. And policy's must be followed, guidelines are just suggestions, and essays are personal opinion without any bearing at all.
255:
I liked this show but even its staunchest supporters would acknowledge that it's notoriously unclear and a timeline simply isn't possible without drifting well into the realm of fan speculation, which the article doesn't even try to deny:
592:
for the same reason
Starbind and Farix have said. Dream focus, don't worry about other articles. if other articles have timelines that are equally notable as this one, then tell us and we'll put it for AfD. It doesn't mean we should keep
166:
1380:
few hundred EU novels and whatnot? Eva has a load of official fiction, and just the non-hentai doujinshi outweigh the EU easily 10-1.) I am especially interested in how no one seems interested in going through all of
1024:
This list doesn't help to understand the plot of Eva any better than the plot summary in the main article, and much is gained by destroying this article: we get rid of original research and redundant content.
1270:
i've tried to improve it in the past, and make it the least in-universe as possible, but there are some things that can't be done. I dont think its that times changed, its more like people are noticing more
574:
as redundant to main article. It's a content fork that takes the parts of the series WITHOUT real world notability and tries to turn it into an article. We only have articles on topics where we can
975:
Hopefully such viciousness won't discourage others from posting their honest opinions here. Comment on the argument not the editor making it. And back on topic, I'll quote what I said when the
550:
917:
why do we bother? S/he has their opinion. i honestly doubt s/he's serious about this. we have yet to find a good reason why it should be kept relating to wikipedia's standards. This is clearly
1445:
those in favor of deletion. His arguments consist only in derrogatory comments and bad-faithed assumptions/accusations. As a matter of fact I like
Evangelion very much, and both Evangelion
1384:
and deleting them, especially since the only articles in that entire category which could hope to pass muster are 3 or 4 articles like the Star Wars one (unless someone wants to argue that
820:
Is automatically generated isn't it? If there was no previous AFD, then why does it say (2nd nomination) up there? Maybe its just a bug, if so my mistake, not trying to deceive people.
498:
160:
681:
Interesting that you feel the need to take a shot at that one person, instead of just commenting on the AFD itself, and that person is someone you have argued with on many occasions.
122:
1441:
As I've pointed out in the glossary AfD, I'm very disappointed in Gwern's very aggressive behavior. He defends the article with unwarranted and blind fan rage, to the point of
237:, but, since there is not even a serious reference to support a merge and there haven't been solid arguments about a possible merger, the article should be deleted altogether.
95:
90:
99:
465:
going on as well. The fictional timeline also does not contribute to the understanding of the series and is only interesting to a small population of enthusiastic fans. The
288:
82:
1409:
Gwern, tl indeed, but I took time to read. I believe I see a strawman argument or two, nobody is decrying the article for belonging to a foreign franchise for one.
524:
1449:
Star Wars are foreign to me (and even though I would also gladly delete a Star Wars timeline, I can't deny that Star Wars has a much larger scope than Eva). The
1242:
around for five years without anyone having a problem with it, but alas, times have changed, and like so many other articles, people now seek to destroy it.
392:
1509:
1467:
1436:
1418:
1357:
1346:
Thousands of articles that had been around for years were wiped out once enough deletionist campers altered the previously totally ignored guideline pages
1339:
1324:
1295:
1280:
1265:
1234:
1215:
1181:
1146:
1118:
1101:
1067:
1052:
1033:
1012:
957:
929:
902:
884:
843:
815:
791:
762:
736:
718:
704:
674:
654:
619:
602:
565:
539:
513:
488:
443:
423:
404:
382:
350:
321:
300:
279:
246:
52:
796:
The first one ended in Keep, did it? Okay, now you've stooped to just making things up. Link to the first AFD discussion that ended in Keep, please.
359:
there hordes of merchandise. Many notable fictional works that have grossed billions of dollars, have their own timelines/fictional history articles.
469:
timeline of the series can be better expressed in the preexisting episode and chapter lists and not in this construct that is a text book example of
181:
1505:
148:
1225:
can we have a default policy at AfD to transwiki to Annex.wikia.com for fiction deletions that are plot or trivia based deletion requests?
1399:
tl;dr: everything here is IDONTLIKEIT and crying it's a witch!^Wfancruft. Nobody has a clue what notability is or isn't for timelines. --
1226:
1173:
1123:
I don't have copies of them, so I don't know what's in them. I'm hoping that a fan of the series has one or more they can quote from.
17:
980:
quite helpful to those seeking information about it. Dream Focus 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)" I think that fits rather well. The
260:"). While I'm sure this might make an interesting starting point for debate on a fansite, it's not material for an encyclopedia.
142:
1427:
WikiuserNI, don't worry about it, dream focus and gwern always use that excuse. They believe the franchise justifies the article.
344:
484:
138:
893:. We are at this AfD because someone played the "do as if nothing happened and hope that this article will be forgotten". --
575:
981:
86:
934:
Fancruft is an essay, not a guideline or a policy. And once again, you are targeting me, instead of discussing the AFD.
431:
188:
1524:
127:
36:
1403:
78:
58:
985:
to whatever random bunch of editors shows up to state their opinions. Knowledge (XXG) policy is to ignore all rules
859:
1381:
1463:
1029:
317:
1385:
1523:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1048:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
973:
154:
1230:
1177:
583:
230:
234:
210:
400:
724:
470:
1432:
1335:
1276:
1063:
925:
714:
598:
579:
1486:
918:
391:
Yeah, but were any of those other fictions so terribly vague about their events? Also, yeah can't find
201:
requirements as it does not have significant coverage, the references used do not meet the criteria of
1459:
1414:
1410:
1353:
1349:
1291:
1287:
1114:
1110:
1025:
615:
611:
419:
415:
336:
313:
296:
292:
458:
1044:
898:
174:
1501:
976:
480:
1389:
732:
670:
561:
535:
509:
439:
396:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
628:
226:
1428:
1331:
1302:
1272:
1243:
1193:
1124:
1079:
1059:
990:
935:
921:
862:
821:
769:
710:
682:
594:
360:
242:
1490:
1450:
1442:
1020:
986:
462:
222:
214:
202:
1400:
330:
49:
632:
206:
894:
797:
744:
647:
261:
636:
198:
1497:
475:
258:
Dates are rarely mentioned in the anime, and often there are multiple possibilities.
728:
666:
557:
531:
505:
435:
116:
309:
238:
665:. interesting that one person votes keep despite very strong consensus here.
640:
1043:- This will only ever be in-universe information, delete also per above. -
205:
as they are not independent of the subject, the article consists mainly of
329:, only describes a fictional universe which has no notability on its own.
1189:
229:. Any relevant information here should be covered in the main article (
69:
Articles for deletion/Neon
Genesis Evangelion timeline (2nd nomination)
1485:
per Jfsglo's and Bread Ninja's reasonings. This article seriously has
578:, and no one has been able to verify the notability of this timeline.
430:
Dream Focus as an experienced editor, you do realise you are using a
218:
1494:
1517:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
972:
I find the Ad
Hominem attacks against me to be rather immature.
1165:
889:
It was only a PROD that you can verify by look at the article
727:
not because I like to vote everything keep regardless policy.
858:
Note: The first AFD for this was last month, it mentioned at
768:
article, and not go ganging up on someone you disagree with?
461:, with no secondary information. There is clearly a level of
1454:
any of the other timeline articles, but here, we comment on
1286:
fault with it (and apparently many other editors agree) is.
1169:
1161:
395:
for some reason. Can't even find a deletion log for it.
890:
610:, irrelevant plot reiteration, no inherent notability.
551:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
112:
108:
104:
173:
457:
Almost entirely plot points, which is a violation of
499:
list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions
187:
217:. The article also fails to meet the criteria of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1527:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
1192:a couple of days ago, full history and all.
861:. Why can we not find a link to that AFD?
709:it's a wake up call....accept it, or dont.
545:
525:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
519:
493:
549:: This debate has been included in the
523:: This debate has been included in the
497:: This debate has been included in the
1392:sold billions while I wasn't looking?).
66:
1489:issues and furthermore, it fails the
982:Chronology of the Harry Potter series
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1190:http://evangelion.wikia.com/Timeline
225:. More importantly, it doesn't have
65:
1074:There are books written about it.
209:and, in my opinion, it falls into
24:
1458:particular AfD and nothing else.
308:, per all the reasons listed by
79:Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline
59:Neon Genesis Evangelion timeline
723:agree with Bread Ninja, we use
197:The article does not meet the
1:
1510:03:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1468:10:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1437:22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1419:22:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1406:22:33 23 November 2010 (GMT)
1358:22:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1340:21:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1325:21:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1296:20:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1281:19:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1266:09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1235:07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1216:09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1182:07:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1147:09:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
1119:00:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
1102:00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
1068:17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
1053:15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
1034:22:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
1013:14:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
958:07:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
930:21:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
903:21:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
885:20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
844:07:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
816:21:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
792:20:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
763:15:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
737:02:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
719:02:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
705:02:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
675:02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
655:23:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
620:20:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
603:18:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
566:16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
540:16:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
514:16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
489:12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
444:07:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
424:20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
405:15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
383:12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
351:10:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
322:09:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
301:07:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
280:02:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
247:02:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
221:and it's more in line with a
53:22:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
1491:general notability guideline
1451:general notability guideline
1382:Category:Fictional timelines
1188:I already transwikied it to
1166:http://evangelion.wikia.com
1544:
1386:World of Greyhawk timeline
1520:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
231:Neon Genesis Evangelion
1170:http://annex.wikia.com
1162:http://anime.wikia.com
64:AfDs for this article:
227:real-world notability
1377:Evangelion Chronicle
576:WP:verify notability
289:PROD a few weeks ago
627:- clearly violates
432:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
977:Star Wars timeline
44:The result was
1390:Shannara timeline
635:, not to mention
568:
554:
542:
528:
516:
502:
463:original research
347:
339:
219:MOS:AM#Notability
207:original research
1535:
1522:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1306:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1000:
997:
994:
954:
951:
948:
945:
942:
939:
881:
878:
875:
872:
869:
866:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
825:
813:
810:
807:
804:
788:
785:
782:
779:
776:
773:
760:
757:
754:
751:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
645:
555:
529:
503:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
345:
337:
333:
277:
274:
271:
268:
192:
191:
177:
130:
120:
102:
34:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1525:deletion review
1518:
1460:Folken de Fanel
1319:
1316:
1313:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1132:
1129:
1126:
1096:
1093:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1026:Folken de Fanel
1007:
1004:
1001:
998:
995:
992:
952:
949:
946:
943:
940:
937:
879:
876:
873:
870:
867:
864:
838:
835:
832:
829:
826:
823:
811:
808:
805:
802:
786:
783:
780:
777:
774:
771:
758:
755:
752:
749:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
651:
641:
377:
374:
371:
368:
365:
362:
331:
314:Folken de Fanel
275:
272:
269:
266:
134:
126:
93:
77:
74:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1541:
1539:
1530:
1529:
1513:
1512:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1425:
1394:
1393:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1298:
1238:
1237:
1219:
1218:
1185:
1184:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1071:
1070:
1055:
1045:Knowledgekid87
1037:
1036:
1016:
1015:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
908:
907:
906:
905:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
798:Andrew Lenahan
745:Andrew Lenahan
741:
740:
739:
678:
677:
657:
649:
622:
605:
587:
569:
543:
517:
491:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
427:
426:
408:
407:
386:
385:
353:
324:
303:
282:
262:Andrew Lenahan
195:
194:
131:
128:Afd statistics
73:
72:
71:
63:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1540:
1528:
1526:
1521:
1515:
1514:
1511:
1507:
1506:contributions
1503:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1405:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1227:76.66.194.212
1224:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1174:76.66.194.212
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1022:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1010:
988:
983:
978:
974:
971:
970:
959:
956:
955:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:
886:
883:
882:
860:
857:
856:
845:
842:
841:
819:
818:
817:
814:
799:
795:
794:
793:
790:
789:
766:
765:
764:
761:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
708:
707:
706:
703:
702:
680:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
660:Strong delete
658:
656:
653:
652:
646:
644:
638:
634:
630:
626:
623:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
591:
588:
585:
581:
580:Shooterwalker
577:
573:
570:
567:
563:
559:
552:
548:
544:
541:
537:
533:
526:
522:
518:
515:
511:
507:
500:
496:
492:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
453:
452:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
412:
411:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
389:
388:
387:
384:
381:
380:
357:
354:
352:
348:
343:
340:
334:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
263:
259:
254:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
236:
235:WP:AVOIDSPLIT
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:WP:DEL#REASON
212:
211:WP:INUNIVERSE
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
129:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
70:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1519:
1516:
1482:
1455:
1446:
1376:
1372:
1345:
1303:
1244:
1222:
1194:
1157:
1125:
1106:
1080:
1040:
991:
936:
863:
822:
801:
770:
748:
725:WP:CONSENSUS
683:
662:no coverage
659:
648:
642:
624:
607:
589:
571:
546:
520:
494:
474:
471:WP:SYNTHESIS
466:
454:
397:NotARealWord
361:
355:
341:
326:
305:
284:
265:
257:
252:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1429:Bread Ninja
1332:Bread Ninja
1273:Bread Ninja
1060:Bread Ninja
922:Bread Ninja
919:WP:FANCRUFT
711:Bread Ninja
595:Bread Ninja
161:free images
1411:WikiuserNI
1404:(contribs)
1350:WikiuserNI
1288:WikiuserNI
1111:Eaglestorm
612:WikiuserNI
459:WP:NOTPLOT
434:argument?
416:WikiuserNI
332:DragonZero
293:Eaglestorm
199:notability
50:Courcelles
1443:attacking
1158:Transwiki
895:KrebMarkt
558:• Gene93k
532:• Gene93k
506:• Gene93k
393:first AfD
1498:Sjones23
1487:fancruft
586:) 16:51,
346:Contribs
123:View log
1223:Comment
1168:and/or
1164:and/or
1107:Comment
891:history
729:LibStar
667:LibStar
629:WP:PLOT
436:LibStar
223:fansite
167:WP refs
155:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1483:Delete
1271:flaws.
1041:Delete
1021:WP:IAR
987:WP:IAR
625:Delete
608:Delete
590:Delete
572:Delete
467:actual
455:Delete
327:Delete
310:Jfgslo
306:Delete
285:Delete
253:Delete
239:Jfgslo
233:) per
203:WP:IRS
139:Google
100:delete
46:delete
1495:Darth
1401:Gwern
1320:Focus
1261:Focus
1211:Focus
1142:Focus
1097:Focus
1008:Focus
953:Focus
880:Focus
839:Focus
787:Focus
700:Focus
633:WP:OR
476:Farix
378:Focus
182:JSTOR
143:books
125:) •
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1502:talk
1464:talk
1456:this
1433:talk
1415:talk
1373:Keep
1354:talk
1336:talk
1292:talk
1277:talk
1231:talk
1178:talk
1115:talk
1064:talk
1049:talk
1030:talk
1019:For
926:talk
899:talk
733:talk
715:talk
671:talk
643:Reyk
637:WP:N
631:and
616:talk
599:talk
584:talk
562:talk
547:Note
536:talk
521:Note
510:talk
495:Note
440:talk
420:talk
401:talk
356:Keep
338:Talk
318:talk
297:talk
243:talk
213:and
175:FENS
149:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1447:and
1388:or
1172:--
1160:to
809:bli
756:bli
650:YO!
593:it.
556:--
530:--
504:--
473:. —
291:.--
273:bli
189:TWL
121:– (
1508:)
1504:-
1493:.
1466:)
1435:)
1417:)
1356:)
1338:)
1294:)
1279:)
1233:)
1180:)
1117:)
1066:)
1051:)
1032:)
928:)
901:)
812:nd
806:ar
803:St
800:-
759:nd
753:ar
750:St
747:-
735:)
717:)
673:)
639:.
618:)
601:)
564:)
553:.
538:)
527:.
512:)
501:.
487:)
483:|
442:)
422:)
403:)
349:)
320:)
299:)
276:nd
270:ar
267:St
264:-
256:("
245:)
169:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
48:.
1500:(
1462:(
1431:(
1413:(
1352:(
1344:"
1334:(
1317:m
1314:a
1311:e
1308:r
1305:D
1290:(
1275:(
1258:m
1255:a
1252:e
1249:r
1246:D
1229:(
1208:m
1205:a
1202:e
1199:r
1196:D
1176:(
1139:m
1136:a
1133:e
1130:r
1127:D
1113:(
1094:m
1091:a
1088:e
1085:r
1082:D
1062:(
1047:(
1028:(
1005:m
1002:a
999:e
996:r
993:D
950:m
947:a
944:e
941:r
938:D
924:(
897:(
877:m
874:a
871:e
868:r
865:D
836:m
833:a
830:e
827:r
824:D
784:m
781:a
778:e
775:r
772:D
731:(
713:(
697:m
694:a
691:e
688:r
685:D
669:(
614:(
597:(
582:(
560:(
534:(
508:(
485:c
481:t
479:(
438:(
418:(
399:(
375:m
372:a
369:e
366:r
363:D
342:·
335:(
316:(
295:(
241:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.