586:. I'm seeing a lot of keep votes and very few sources. If there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources, then the article should probably be redirected or merged somewhere. You don't inherit notability from your parent operating system. Otherwise, we'd have an entire encyclopedia full of Linux kernel miscellany. Or, at least, it would be even worse than what we do have. The problem is that the Amiga has been dead for 20 years. I'm not even sure where to start looking for sources, but there may be something useful on Google Books. My searches didn't really turn up much there. This could probably be redirected to
843:
matter of local versus community consensus is this: "The term local consensus should also be avoided. Consensus is always understood to refer to those editors who take part in a discussion, whether current or historical. All consensus is local..." It's unfortunate so many areas of
Knowledge (XXG) are being eaten away at in this fashion, but given the current system, everyone must use their own judgement and try to act in good faith.--
1102:(which, as a guideline and not a policy, "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense"), and in particular I ask that the requirements of notability "proof" are weighed against the conceivably possible "proof" that you could obtain for this
1110:
article, then you would exclude pretty much everything else. Instead, I think notability requirement should be toned down common-sensically (not waived) for topics that are quite technical and narrow, and as such, while still useful information to have, may not be on every book and magazine on Earth.
842:
is saying, I think he may be mistaking guidelines (of which there are many) for policy (of which there are few) and substituting personal judgement for clear consensus. But the best any of us can do is employ our judgement, guided by guidelines and experience. The only statement I found on WP on the
485:
says!), and if there aren't, you'll never be able to write a verifiable article and thus it should be deleted. Seeing the conversation above made me fear that the article couldn't be verified (a one-sentence mention isn't really enough), but although some of the existing citations are dubious, there
1042:
Uhm, because it's a computer file system, making it not exactly everyone's favorite conversation topic, but if this intrinsic paucity of secondary sources is not accounted for, then many legitimate technical topics will never have the amount of coverage some editors want for everything. I must also
752:
The requirement for policy-based arguments merely represents the greater community consensus. A local consensus that is not rooted in community consensus cannot be interpreted as a valid consensus. So, while a clear majority are in favor of keeping, I don't see policy-based arguments in response to
683:
As a general guidelines, I would agree that notability isn't inherited from a parent entity. But part of an enterprise like
Knowledge (XXG) is a certain level of completeness. If I can find out every release date of Amiga and a changelog on that page, but not get any detail about a file system that
1224:
I assure you I usually go to great lengths to make "proper" citations whenever I'm able. I see I've added two books by ISBN+title only, I must have been in a hurry. There is also the problem that I don't exactly know how to refer to different page numbers within the same source, unless I duplicate
1206:
Ok, that's starting to make sense to me. But please do other editors a favor and provide external links, page numbers, etc along with your sources, so it's easier to verify. If you make it easy for other editors to figure out what you're talking about, then more people are encouraged to do so. For
1057:
Why should software be the exception to GNG? Note that I'm not somehow opposed to software; I'm very interested in it and in fact know some coding myself. But if a certain piece of software is actually notable and deserves coverage in
Knowledge (XXG), it shouldn't be especially difficult to find
1009:
entry has some substance, but it's still not really enough to establish notability. It's the only (somewhat) good source on the article, and GNG says that multiple in-depth sources are expected. Think about it: if this subject was really notable, why must we press really hard through obscure
559:
had been created, which effectively defines notability in terms of verifiability, and I'm fine with that. Something doesn't get covered in multiple unconnected sources without being notable to some extent, and if something is notable, then unconnected sources will start covering it.
1308:, it's naturally more difficult to locate sources for this subject, but they probably exist in archives somewhere (e.g. old magazines). As evidenced by the amount of discussion and edits since the AfD begun, there are interested editors around to keep the article maintained. --
684:
ran on it, something is wrong. I would agree to a proposal to cut back some of the needlessly gory detail on the Amiga page and merge things like this article in, but the content on this page is worth keeping around and is in keeping with the other topics in this area.--
440:
have few independent published sources available. File systems developed in academia or for major commercial computers get written about publicly. Other file systems produced by companies are documented internally. They aren't usually written about in consumer
817:. Given that, I think at this point you're twisting process, and it's interesting that other filesystem-related articles that were AfD'd were hastily deleted (even though they were receiving sources and improvements), this one is being hastily... relisted. --
631:. Am I proposing that all these filesystems be considered for turning into oblivion from Knowledge (XXG)? Hell no. They are all pretty relevant, even if lengthy features in magazines or whatnot have not been pinpointed. But if nothing else, I
1058:
somewhat in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. It should meet this criteria if it is actually "legitimate"; in fact, the standard of "legitimate" on
Knowledge (XXG) is defined by the policy. There is always
348:, it just so happens to have been chosen as the default filesystem for MorphOS after being made open source. And again, do we need, what, a book written entirely about the topic of SFS for this article to warrant staying?
173:
239:. Maybe we can't expect it to be documented by very major computer science books, but nonetheless it has the same standing as the plethora Amiga and non-Amiga filesystems that are documented on this encyclopedia.
871:. All mentions in books are brief one-liners. The mentions I found elsewhere on the web were from obscure and likely non-reliable sources. This certainly does not satisfy the requirement that the software be the
924:
is an essay -- not a guideline, policy, or rule. It has been rejected as a policy in the past as it lacks community consensus, which (as its header pointedly mentions) makes it not terribly applicable in these
657:: that article has only one source, and I'd like to see more, but I'm not suggesting it be deleted because if what the article states can be corroborated, this should be a perfectly notable file system.
551:
Although I respect that opinion, I strongly disagree with it. To me, verifiability is the line between what
Knowledge (XXG) should cover and what it shouldn't. (When I started at Knowledge (XXG),
987:
magazine elaborating on how to make the best use of hard drives, and including some information about SFS previously not on our article (deleted files directory), and another to a mention on
1136:. Without good substantial sources, it's really not possible to write a neutral and verifiable article. Common sense tells me this applies regardless of what kind of subject it is. --
126:
1296:: Four independent published sources are cited in the article, but with limited coverage; substantial coverage exists in primary sources. This article does not strictly satisfy
721:- Doesn't pass notability criteria, and searches turned up nothing to suggest it does. Arguments to keep above, while passionate and well-thought out, are not policy based.
399:
167:
416:
1336:
It is only fair to give this AfD one more run through, if only to give the editors who have commented "this is notable, but sources are hard to find" one more chance.
957:, so the argument still stands. (I think people should stop using subject-specific guidelines entirely. All subject-specific guidelines are largely a restatement of
1177:" (emphasis mine); so the strict insistence on having multiple secondary sources available may be a bit over the top, and given 1) we have at least one or two
1225:
the entire citation each time (or we change the article to
Harvard referencing, which I don't even like). As to official documentation, there is the original
1062:, but invoking it for only one file system would set a bad precedent. ("Upset that your article doesn't meet the notability guidelines? No problem! Just cite
1211:. Also, is the cited "Smart Filesystem documentation" available on the Internet somewhere? If you do that, I'll have a look at the sources and vote here. --
481:; if there are enough third-party sources to be able to verify an article, that should be considered notability enough (and this is pretty much exactly what
555:
was just an essay, but enough people agreed with it that it eventually got promoted to a guideline. Then I took a very long wikibreak. When I came back,
635:
try to go for consistency on this encyclopedia if it is decided that only some roughly-equally-as-documented filesystems are not worthy of articles.
133:
1043:
mention I find it a slight symptom of bias when I comment about adding sources and people consistently counter-comment "but it's still not enough".
503:
Notability is not the same thing as verifiability and the two should not be confused. In short, notability is the requirement for inclusion of a
753:
the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Those in favor of keeping need to make a better argument or their comments may be discarded.
321:
is a bit better, but still only an entry in an exhaustive listing of file systems (though I guess it hints at real-world use). Is merging to
99:
94:
103:
926:
844:
685:
486:
seems to be enough valid ones around that it's possible to write a verifiable article (perhaps a shorter one than currently, though). --
86:
1185:
sources telling us the details about this filesystem, I think that can be enough. And so does the section you linked, in my reading.
344:
I do not find that makes logical sense. The filesystem wasn't created on or for MorphOS, and it is still in use on AmigaOS (and IIRC
17:
702:, as if we put every relevant filesystem there, that article would become quite a mess. Independent article is right in my opinion.
1237:(the "developer's manual" if you like), though both refer to the original version, not the "modern" versions in MorphOS/AROS/etc.
867:
is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Ultimately, I'm not seeing any convincing evidence at all that this article meets
813:
I'd say that since "a clear majority is in favor of keeping", and the current state of thing is that the article exists, there is
188:
446:
File systems are notable as components of notable systems and an important part of a system's historical development. See also
345:
1380:. This was a very difficult decision, but I think, after examining the new sources added to the article, that it does satisfy
155:
1388:. (There are a couple of linked manuals exclusively about the file system.) Therefore, I am changing my opinion to "keep". --
1106:
of topic. If you, for example, set the bar as high as the amount of references you can find to establish notability for the
1325:
864:
741:
571:
497:
1444:
40:
991:
claiming that (as of 2008, when the article was written) the filesystem was still in active use among "Amiga fans". --
1304:
do not apply — SFS is now mostly a fact of history, there is no risk of it being an advertisement or a hoax. Due to
595:
437:
149:
64:
1425:
1407:
1372:
1349:
1340:
1316:
1268:
1246:
1219:
1194:
1144:
1120:
1085:
1052:
1029:
1000:
969:
948:
934:
915:
852:
826:
806:
777:
732:
711:
693:
671:
644:
599:
539:
467:
455:
425:
408:
380:
357:
339:
308:
290:
248:
222:
68:
145:
930:
848:
689:
463:
1099:
961:
along with arbitrary shortcuts, that some people assumed would only include clearly notable instances) --
451:
90:
1416:
1385:
1305:
1208:
921:
868:
264:
criteria. I agree with
Qwertyus that notability is not established — the only sources in the article are
195:
1440:
1207:
example, with most books you can create links to a Google Books preview directly to the right page, see
654:
591:
447:
421:
404:
36:
1398:
1346:
1337:
1076:
1020:
906:
885:
587:
60:
615:
filesystem) doesn't have this plethora of non-primary sources, while now the article about Amiga's
276:
181:
1095:
363:
666:
459:
375:
334:
217:
604:
366:
in multiple third-party sources. Aren't their any Amiga mags or books that cover file systems?
161:
1420:
650:
620:
82:
74:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1439:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1301:
1133:
265:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
624:
568:
494:
1381:
1363:
until the somewhat overwhelming "keep"s somehow start turning into overwhelming "delete"s?
1297:
1091:
1063:
1059:
958:
954:
556:
482:
261:
205:
204:
I can find no reliable, third-party sources that cover this filesystem in any depth. Fails
1389:
1313:
1216:
1141:
1067:
1011:
966:
897:
876:
799:
770:
532:
287:
269:
1230:
939:
But maybe it only lacks local consensus but it has global consensus... </sarcasm: -->
698:
While my vote is also to keep, I disagree that it would be practical to merge this with
628:
1300:, but I think it's fair to relax GNG requirements somewhat, as some of the reasons in
623:
also has only one third-party source, while funnily enough, the other two sources are
552:
478:
1368:
1264:
1242:
1190:
1116:
1048:
996:
944:
822:
722:
707:
658:
640:
367:
353:
326:
304:
244:
209:
988:
120:
477:
AfD talks a bunch about notability, but the underlying policy behind all this is
565:
561:
491:
487:
875:(not merely mentioned) in multiple manuals, reviews, instruction books, etc. --
511:
an article. A non-notable article does not merit inclusion on
Knowledge (XXG),
1309:
1226:
1212:
1137:
962:
839:
783:
754:
546:
516:
283:
863:. Just because AmigaOS is notable does not mean that all its components are.
1234:
1364:
1260:
1238:
1201:
1186:
1127:
1112:
1044:
992:
940:
833:
818:
703:
636:
349:
300:
255:
240:
1107:
322:
236:
232:
1181:
sources establishing we aren't making things up and 2) we have some
1010:
fans-only magazines to find even a single one-paragraph mention? --
699:
612:
1433:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1256:
1132:
The notability requirements are like that for good reasons, see
1005:
The Ars
Technica magazine is just a brief one-line mention. The
608:
507:. Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion of any content
1328:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
744:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
649:
Thanks for the check; I just added some secondary sources to
260:
Then please help save if by finding sources that satisfy the
983:- I've added another two sources, one to an article on the
619:
by the editor who proposed this AfD. The article about the
605:
Is notability based on how long something has been 'dead'
1252:
616:
296:
116:
112:
108:
180:
1415:Agree with Biblioworm, the manuals show SFS passes
1345:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
782:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
458:for the Amiga which would also have to be deleted.
194:
653:(and removed Torvalds's autobiography). Regarding
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1447:). No further edits should be made to this page.
400:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
417:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
953:Biblio's statement applies just as well for
415:Note: This debate has been included in the
398:Note: This debate has been included in the
414:
397:
362:Ok, that's a fair point. What we need is
513:even if the content in it is verifiable
317:is a single sentence. The coverage in
299:about some statements in the article.
231:- This is a widely-used filesystem on
436:. Many of the file systems listed in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1255:a bit (and added a cited fact about
838:I agree. Attempting to parse what
590:if no in-depth sources are found.
24:
617:OFS has been tagged as one-source
235:, and the default filesystem in
1359:: is this going to be relisted
1235:description of the block format
1:
1426:18:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
1408:02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
1373:22:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1350:22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1341:22:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1317:13:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1269:13:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1247:11:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1220:10:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
1195:20:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
1171:We require the existence of
1169:I note that section states "
1145:19:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
1121:20:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
1094:, if anything I just invoke
1086:20:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
1053:15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
1030:15:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
1001:12:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
970:07:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
949:11:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
935:04:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
916:02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
894:18:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
853:14:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
827:11:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
807:06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
778:06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
733:01:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
540:06:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
69:19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
712:12:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
694:20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
672:08:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
645:11:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
600:08:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
468:06:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
426:16:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
409:16:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
381:17:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
358:17:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
340:17:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
309:16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
291:12:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
249:11:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
223:10:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
1464:
1233:already, and I will add a
438:Comparison of file systems
1175:secondary source so that
607:? Even the article about
1436:Please do not modify it.
564:23:15, 14 October 2015 (
456:Professional File System
282:tag since July 2009. --
272:. The article has had a
32:Please do not modify it.
920:Please be mindful that
490:06:42, 3 October 2015 (
315:Digital Image Forensics
297:cited a couple of books
1253:improved the citations
815:no consensus to delete
452:Amiga Fast File System
655:Amiga Old File System
448:Amiga Old File System
588:list of file systems
364:significant coverage
1251:I've now hopefully
896:Changed to keep. --
1334:Relisting comment:
750:Relisting comment:
319:Computer Forensics
1352:
1347:Black Kite (talk)
1338:Black Kite (talk)
1315:
1218:
1143:
968:
809:
796:
767:
670:
662:
651:MINIX file system
621:MINIX file system
529:
428:
411:
379:
371:
338:
330:
289:
221:
213:
83:Smart File System
75:Smart File System
59:
56:non-admin closure
1455:
1438:
1423:
1405:
1396:
1344:
1331:
1329:
1312:
1231:an external link
1215:
1205:
1140:
1131:
1083:
1074:
1027:
1018:
965:
913:
904:
892:
883:
865:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
837:
804:
797:
790:
781:
775:
768:
761:
747:
745:
729:
726:
664:
660:
625:Andrew Tanenbaum
592:NinjaRobotPirate
550:
537:
530:
523:
424:
407:
373:
369:
332:
328:
313:The coverage in
286:
281:
275:
259:
215:
211:
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
53:
34:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1445:deletion review
1434:
1421:
1399:
1390:
1353:
1324:
1322:
1199:
1125:
1090:I don't invoke
1077:
1068:
1021:
1012:
907:
898:
886:
877:
831:
810:
803:
800:
789:
784:
774:
771:
760:
755:
740:
738:
727:
724:
544:
536:
533:
522:
517:
420:
403:
279:
273:
266:primary sources
253:
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
61:DavidLeighEllis
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1461:
1459:
1450:
1449:
1429:
1428:
1410:
1375:
1343:
1332:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1229:documented as
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
951:
925:discussions.--
857:
856:
855:
801:
785:
780:
772:
756:
748:
737:
736:
735:
716:
715:
714:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
629:Linus Torvalds
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
534:
518:
471:
470:
443:
442:
430:
429:
412:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
202:
201:
138:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1460:
1448:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1403:
1397:
1395:
1394:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1203:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1135:
1129:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:WP:Notability
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1081:
1075:
1073:
1072:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1017:
1016:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
979:
978:
971:
967:
964:
960:
956:
952:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
927:69.204.153.39
923:
919:
918:
917:
914:
912:
911:
905:
903:
902:
895:
893:
891:
890:
884:
882:
881:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:69.204.153.39
841:
835:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:
808:
805:
798:
795:
794:
788:
779:
776:
769:
766:
765:
759:
751:
746:
743:
734:
731:
730:
720:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
686:69.204.153.39
682:
679:
673:
668:
663:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
573:
570:
567:
563:
558:
554:
548:
543:
542:
541:
538:
531:
528:
527:
521:
514:
510:
506:
502:
501:
499:
496:
493:
489:
484:
480:
479:verifiability
476:
473:
472:
469:
465:
461:
460:StarryGrandma
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
439:
435:
432:
431:
427:
423:
422:North America
418:
413:
410:
406:
405:North America
401:
396:
395:
382:
377:
372:
365:
361:
360:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
342:
341:
336:
331:
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:
310:
306:
302:
298:
294:
293:
292:
288:
285:
278:
271:
267:
263:
257:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
219:
214:
207:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1435:
1432:
1422:AlbinoFerret
1417:WP:NSOFTWARE
1412:
1401:
1400:
1392:
1391:
1386:WP:NSOFTWARE
1377:
1360:
1356:
1333:
1323:
1306:WP:Recentism
1293:
1209:WP:BOOKLINKS
1182:
1178:
1173:at least one
1172:
1170:
1103:
1098:in applying
1096:common sense
1079:
1078:
1070:
1069:
1023:
1022:
1014:
1013:
1006:
989:Ars Technica
984:
980:
922:WP:NSOFTWARE
909:
908:
900:
899:
888:
887:
879:
878:
872:
869:WP:NSOFTWARE
860:
859:
814:
792:
791:
786:
763:
762:
757:
749:
739:
723:
718:
680:
632:
583:
525:
524:
519:
512:
508:
504:
474:
433:
318:
314:
228:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1007:Total Amiga
985:Total Amiga
325:an option?
295:I have now
270:independent
168:free images
1361:ad libitum
1259:support).
1227:AmigaGuide
441:magazines.
277:Refimprove
1441:talk page
1179:secondary
37:talk page
1443:or in a
1326:Relisted
742:Relisted
661:VVERTYVS
370:VVERTYVS
329:VVERTYVS
268:and not
212:VVERTYVS
127:View log
39:or in a
1357:Comment
1302:WP:WHYN
1183:primary
1134:WP:WHYN
1108:Physics
981:Comment
873:subject
584:Comment
505:subject
323:MorphOS
237:MorphOS
233:AmigaOS
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
1393:Biblio
1382:WP:GNG
1298:WP:GNG
1092:WP:IAR
1071:Biblio
1066:!") --
1064:WP:IAR
1060:WP:IAR
1015:Biblio
959:WP:GNG
955:WP:GNG
901:Biblio
880:Biblio
861:Delete
719:Delete
562:ais523
557:WP:GNG
509:within
488:ais523
483:WP:GNG
454:, and
262:WP:GNG
206:WP:GNG
146:Google
104:delete
1310:intgr
1213:intgr
1138:intgr
963:intgr
840:Swarm
700:Amiga
613:Linux
611:(the
547:Swarm
284:intgr
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1413:Keep
1402:worm
1384:and
1378:Keep
1369:talk
1294:Keep
1265:talk
1257:UEFI
1243:talk
1191:talk
1117:talk
1104:sort
1080:worm
1049:talk
1024:worm
997:talk
945:talk
931:talk
910:worm
889:worm
849:talk
823:talk
793:warm
764:warm
728:5969
725:Onel
708:talk
690:talk
681:Keep
641:talk
633:will
627:and
609:ext2
596:talk
553:WP:N
526:warm
475:Keep
464:talk
434:Keep
354:talk
346:AROS
305:talk
245:talk
229:Keep
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
50:keep
1365:LjL
1261:LjL
1239:LjL
1202:LjL
1187:LjL
1128:LjL
1113:LjL
1045:LjL
993:LjL
941:LjL
834:LjL
819:LjL
704:LjL
667:hm?
637:LjL
376:hm?
350:LjL
335:hm?
301:LjL
256:LjL
241:LjL
218:hm?
196:TWL
125:– (
52:.
1419:.
1371:)
1267:)
1245:)
1193:)
1119:)
1051:)
999:)
947:)
933:)
851:)
825:)
710:)
692:)
643:)
598:)
560:--
515:.
500:)
466:)
450:,
419:.
402:.
356:)
307:)
280:}}
274:{{
247:)
208:.
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
1367:(
1263:(
1241:(
1204::
1200:@
1189:(
1130::
1126:@
1115:(
1047:(
995:(
943:(
929:(
847:(
836::
832:@
821:(
802:♠
787:S
773:♠
758:S
706:(
688:(
669:)
665:(
659:Q
639:(
594:(
574:)
572:C
569:T
566:U
549::
545:@
535:♠
520:S
498:C
495:T
492:U
462:(
378:)
374:(
368:Q
352:(
337:)
333:(
327:Q
303:(
258::
254:@
243:(
220:)
216:(
210:Q
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.