356:
something that is titular in nature, has appeared in multiple major games across a host of systems, and has even been made into a replica is simply notable by any reasonable standard by these achievements alone and thus should be covered in some capacity as clearly people come here to read about and work on this article. I cannot imagine any reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect without deletion or use the article for navigational purposes to comment in a concise manner on the differences of the sword across these games and as a replica. --
679:? Because it specifically states that's needed, and plenty of AfD's have revolved whether a subject can secure notability or not. The majority of the sources within the article to cite it properly would all be first party. There is no available information on the development of the sword save basic sketches amongst Nightmare's design bio. Right now not even *one* third party source discusses the subject in a fashion strong enough. Can you as an admin really say reception and development should be omitted because there are no sources discussing them?--
234:. Although there are lots of mentions of the weapon in articles, like the nominator said, the mentions are of a trivial nature and not substantial to the conception and the cultural/sociological impact of a fictional weapon. I highly doubt there is such information in the current article, so the article can be totally deleted without concerns. Any in-game description on the weapon can be gotten from the game or guides and need not be attributed to this article.
746:. Thus, it is notable by any reasonable or logical standard of notability and I cannot imagine any reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not cover this verifiable information that is obviously significant in the context of video game culture. That a video game weapon would be made into a replica, appear in other media (comic book), etc. demonstrates real world notability and cultural influence/phenomenon. --
1036:(preemptively linking!) and comprehensive as a paperless reference guide than not. Surely given enough time and effort (more than the five day AFD ultimatum) we can eventually augment the reception section with even better comments from reviews on the descrition of the sword or reviews/previews of the toys/replicas. I see potential here and not a critical need to squash that potential this week. --
1290:
to have to prove what anyone should be able to find for themselves. The idea that someone cannot at least merge information noting that the sword has been made into a replica as demonstrative of the influence of this article or that it could not at worst be redirected is outright baffling and I am not willing to humor such things. --
1184:
by Brady games--their editorial control over selection of material is probably nil or close to it. As such I'm not inclined to treat those as possible sources conferring notability to the subject. Given this dearth of sourcing, I don't really have any choice but to say that the article doesn't meet
1012:
And I'm stating that that shouldn't count as a bit for notability: should we start an article called "Azure armor" becuase he happens to be wearing that if other sources talk about azure armor? It's a "duh" reference: it's an action figure modelled after
Nightmare. Why would it *not* be included with
594:
Saying this is not notable and that reliable third party sources do not cover this topic is just dishonest. The majority of the community in practice, i.e. those who actually create and work on these articles and come here to read them believe them notabile, regardless of a vocal minority in any one
287:
as nomination rationale is to merge, not delete, which is a separate discussion. Also, we're talking about a titular weapon that has been made into a real life replica steel sword. Few video game weapons have actually been made into purchaseable replicas or are titular. Astonishingly notable video
1289:
Bringing an article to AfD with the proposal to merge is disruptive abuse of AfD. I strongly urge you to withdraw this nomination. Usually I do not mind presenting additional sources in discussions, but some topics are so easily sourceable from any reasonable searches that it is outright insulting
1031:
to the character page for nightmare. And again, it's apples and oranges. Azure armor has as far as I know not also been made into a lifesize replica like Soul Edge has. Nor is Azure armor the TITLE of a game like Soul Edge is. Given the request for comment on notability, it is obvious that it is
992:
Perhaps if that was the only example of notability, but it is notable because not only is there a miniature version of it, but also a life size steel replica, and due to its titular appearance in several major games, a comic, etc. All of these factors combined make it notable and stand out from the
656:
First of all, per
Randomran, who admits there are reliable third party sources that provide evidence for notability; the details can be taken from any reliable source--third party sources are not needed for content if uncontroversial and straightforward descriptive like this is. And per Kung Fu Man,
546:
is beyond not valid in this case when it is a titular weapon that has appeared in numerous major games and that is one of only a hanful that has been made in life-size replicas and that is discussed in secondary source reviews. As for the whole "so prove it" line; somethings are notable enough that
340:
Yes I'm more than aware of that. However none of those are actively discussing the sword in a citable context. There's a difference between mentioning something in an article and discussing it even if briefly. Instead of blind links, show quotes that will be sufficient to get it to GA status through
385:
I have thought that maybe running for some office down the road could be worthwhile. Third party references exist in an adequate fashion for the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You have presented no compelling reason as to why this article should be redlinked. In fact by bringing an
370:
Have you considered a career in politics? You dance around the issue enough for it. The problem isn't that Soul Edge isn't an important topic or not that could be worthy of an article, it's that third party discussion revolving around it doesn't exist in an adequate fashion. There's been a replica,
1256:
I can find plenty of sources and any honest search by anyone demonstrates substantial coverage to any reasonable editor. For once, I would like to see someone else actually use the relevant sources that are found with ease and add them to the article in question. To be honest, on this particular
997:
covers this non-hoax, non-liberlous information is suggestive enough that at worst we would be doing our community a service by redirecting without deletion or merging, but I see no convincing reason why right now all work must stop and the article must be outright redlinked. That simply does not
693:
And also forgive me for saying it, but you're skewing the facts: I can find an article saying someone wielded a rapier named Tiny Tim as a weapon, that does not validate an article called "Tiny Tim (weapon)". Nor does an article saying "Tiny Tim is powerful." Which is what
Randomran stated existed
1172:
constitutes work from a reliable source. I can, however, not agree that the other sources cited (a forum and two merchandise sites) are reliable. Even if those sources were reliable, the sum total of the content that could be attributed to them would be "models of the Soul Edge can be purchased
954:
The idea that a titular weapon that appears in several games, toys, a comic, as a replica, is covered in numerous published strategy guides, and referenced in reviews is deletable "cruft" defies the imagination. Sometimes I can maybe see where people are coming from on the deletion side of these
355:
Any search of reviews show enough comments on the sword to justify at worst a merge and redirect without deletion. To be honest, there are times when the topic is so obviously notable such as this where I feel that looking for and posting additional sources in the AfD is just unnecessary as
657:
who admits that the topic and could be worthy of an article; he is however wrong that it matters whether third party discussion revolving around it exist in an adequate fashion. All we need is enough good information from any source to write the article, once we now its important.
993:
typical game weapon. Only a handful of game weapons are titular. Only a handful have been made into toys and museum quality replicas. Only a handful are covered in multiple strategy guides. And so on. That obviously thousands of editors and readers come here for and believe
818:
I have never been warned in good faith or honesty by anyone. You are repeatedly making up your own criteria, which has been resoundingly rejected in practice. Instead of using AfD to propose changes to long standing guidelines, why not actually help to improve articles?
371:
dandy. But you brought that up in the previous AfD. How will discussions about the blade's changes bring any real-world relevance to the table? If you're so certain there are sources, please by all means introduce them yourself in the article, because talk is cheap.--
1340:
Agree with common sense and logic. I rely on proof of simple Google searches that turn up reviews that mention the sword of that demonstrate the sword has particular notability for a video game weapon. Saying otheriwse is disruptive.
1179:
the game) is minimal. And by minimal I mean it is a stretch of logic to claim that anything in that interview refers to "Soul Edge" the sword in any meaningful sense. The uncited but mentioned sources are published as
386:
article to AfD claiming it should be merged, you don't seem to understand how AfD works. I strongly suggest you withdraw this AfD, which should be speedy closed as keep. Finally, I and others have indeed already been
799:
Actually, I don't know that I'm wrong, and you don't either. There still isn't substantial coverage by reliable third-party source. On the other hand, you DO know better, because you've been repeatedly warned against
939:
It's a good job that I didn't use the "its cruft" reason then. Please take another look at that essay, and then look at the reasons I cited (which detail the relevant policies and guidelines as ITSCRUFT suggests.)
1275:
that can be built into the article I'd love to see them worked in there, because a suitable Soul Edge article would be nice for the featured topic project. As it stands though there's nothing suitable there.--
1241:
The only sources you can find do little more than confirm the item's existence. The only reliable third-party information is "the sword represents evil". I see no substantial coverage, as required by the GNG.
978:
I don't understand how a sword should be considered notable because a miniature version of it is packaged with an action figure of a character that wields it. That seems to be putting undue weight there.--
520:
as non-notable. There are a few reliable third-party sources that mention the weapon, but they offer only trivial facts about it such as that it's powerful, or that a character wields it. Not enough to
155:
1129:. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable.
908:. No independent substantial coverage of this game item alone (the gamercc interview will serve the SC IV article well, and I'm not considering tripe like the ScrewAttack reference as reliable.)
1032:
interpeted incredibly subjectively by the community and that the community has strong disagreements about it. I would much rather err on the side of being more informative and therefore
730:
That is patently false and any honest search of sources reveals otherwise. It is notable, because it is one of only a handful of the millions of video game weapons to be made into a
525:
the article's massive contents, and no significant facts about this topic are notable. In the alternative, I'd support a drastic clean-up of most of the information that doesn't meet
1189:. No daughter guideline for fictional works has found consensus within the community, so we have no other inclusion criteria to turn to. The article itself represents in universe
1355:
121:
572:
I explained why this was not notable, so please do not misrepresent my position as "just not notable". This line of argument is completely unproductive: the Soul Edge is not
288:
game weapon (arguably one of THE most notable weapons) covered in profound number of reliable sources. Also, additional references and mergeable information can be found at
883:
by removing all excess material and actually using some of those reliable sources Le Grand Roi discovered above instead of using some asininely-described strategy guide.
742:
have seen fit to volunteer their time over two years to work on this article. It is notable because the sword is a major part of a series that has also been made into a
1322:
according to our policy standards is disruptive. It's not personal or subjective. It's about constantly ignoring policy, despite repeated warnings to actually read
135:
Proposing deletion (see below), because as a stand alone article on the blade will not have adequate discussion in third party sources (they simply don't exist).
196:
580:. It would be much more productive to actually address the article's failure to meet policy: the lack of reliable third party sources for this topic.
716:. That's why this is not notable. You're welcome to your own interpretation, but you're NOT welcome to misrepresent my argument to prove a point.
289:
1257:
topic, the mere idea that Soul Edge is not notable by any stretch of the definition is outright laughable and I refuse to pretend otherwise. --
88:
83:
801:
577:
92:
955:
AfDs and I believe it worthwhile to grant them some deal of reasonability with their contentions, but times like this are another story. --
75:
17:
1344:
1293:
1260:
1227:
1152:
1087:
1039:
1001:
958:
928:
850:
822:
788:
749:
731:
632:
598:
561:
393:
359:
329:
295:
179:
150:
This is actually the second nomination for the article subject matter: the original subject matter was merely spliced directly into
1173:
whole or as part of nightmare". The discussion of the reliable source cited (insofar as it discusses Soul Edge the weapon, not
763:
is a
Knowledge (XXG) guideline that has to do with reliable third-party sources, not whatever standard you feel like making up.
323:
173:
1436:
36:
804:
This is not the venue for proposing changes to longstanding guidelines, and you already know that. So just stop it.
767:
and then simply start making up your own guidelines. You know what the notability guideline requires. You know what
576:, and you can't just make up your own metrics for what is notable. In fact, that reinterpretation of notability was
308:
Those aren't really references at all there that I'm seeing...at least nothing to confirm third-party notability.--
1111:
1067:
222:
1421:
1404:
1375:
1350:
1335:
1299:
1284:
1266:
1251:
1233:
1206:
1158:
1140:
1115:
1093:
1071:
1045:
1022:
1007:
987:
964:
949:
934:
917:
892:
856:
842:
828:
813:
794:
780:
755:
725:
703:
688:
668:
638:
621:
604:
589:
567:
538:
512:
487:
464:
428:
399:
380:
365:
350:
335:
317:
301:
279:
260:
243:
226:
208:
185:
167:
144:
57:
1435:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
743:
79:
1356:
Google is not a reliable source, and will turn up TONS of sources regardless of reliability or independence.
53:
760:
1417:
1135:
1033:
901:
609:
1280:
1018:
983:
945:
913:
838:
699:
684:
617:
483:
376:
346:
313:
204:
163:
151:
140:
71:
63:
922:
1107:
1063:
218:
1319:
802:
making up your own criteria (such as "multimedia makes it notable") which was resoundingly rejected.
526:
1400:
1371:
1331:
1247:
833:
Then consider this a good-faith warning from someone actively improving these articles. Sincerely,
809:
776:
721:
585:
534:
424:
239:
1359:
1323:
768:
522:
1307:
1028:
888:
554:
can be verified as anyone is able to find sources with ease. Similarly, I cannot imagine anyone
496:
460:
1194:
1169:
440:
154:
after the deletion. Subject matter was not improved afterwards. Previous AfD can be found here:
1413:
1202:
1130:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1190:
1276:
1014:
979:
941:
909:
834:
735:
695:
680:
613:
479:
372:
342:
309:
270:- If this is being proposed for a merge, what is it doing here at articles for deletion? --
256:
200:
159:
136:
1363:
1186:
1146:
905:
764:
543:
444:
1271:
If you have sources then post them. Otherwise you're just being disruptive. If there are
547:
if those wanting to delete cannot see the sources, then... After all, we don't have to
172:
If anything had been merged, then that article needs to be undeleted per the GFDL. See
1396:
1395:
per Le Grand Roi des
Citrouilles and subsequent improvements demonstrating notability.
1367:
1327:
1243:
805:
772:
717:
581:
530:
420:
275:
235:
676:
1181:
884:
785:
This article meets that guideline. Saying it doesn't is false. You know better. --
734:. It is notable because regardless of a few delete votes in a snapshot in time AfD,
664:
456:
130:
1198:
109:
714:
no reliable third party sources that provide significant coverage of the subject
252:
49:
1311:
1358:
We can't find the sources. If you think they exist, find them. Don't ignore
1175:
271:
771:
says about articles without reliable third party sources. You know better.
659:
573:
551:
529:, and a merge with a brief summary into the main soul series article.
925:
is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when it isn't. --
156:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Soul series mystical weapons
1224:
enough to be at least merged and redirected without deletion. --
1429:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1221:
1081:
1062:- No assertion of notability through reliable sources.
739:
626:
387:
217:- NO assertion of notability through reliable sources.
116:
105:
101:
97:
694:
for the subject in terms of third party coverage.--
129:Proposing a merge of salvageable information into
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1439:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1168:I will assume, for the sake of discussion, that
439:— Le Grand Roi is correct. A merge proposal per
8:
1197:. As such, this article should be deleted.
1106:Sigh, thought this page looked familiar :)
251:per nom. This is not a necessary article.
1149:is never a valid reason for deletion. --
1366:about where these sources actually are.
195:Note: This debate has been added to the
765:Don't accuse me of spreading falsehoods
558:being able to find sources on this. --
443:should be initiated, as suggested per
1145:Everything you wrote is not true and
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1027:I see no reason why not to redirect
197:list of video game related deletions
1306:Agree with Kung Fu Man. Relying on
1080:I am assuming good faith, but you
495:Per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.
24:
447:guidelines. This is articles for
390:the article during this AfD. --
174:Knowledge (XXG):Merge and delete
1:
1422:07:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1405:04:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1376:02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1351:01:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1336:01:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1300:01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1285:01:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1267:01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1252:22:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1234:16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1207:04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1159:16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1141:01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1116:20:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1094:16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
1072:23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1046:21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1023:21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1008:21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
988:20:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
965:01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
950:17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
935:20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
918:17:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
893:02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
857:01:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
843:01:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
829:01:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
814:22:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
795:20:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
781:18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
756:16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
726:13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
704:23:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
689:23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
675:Um...are we reading the same
669:23:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
639:16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
622:19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
605:18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
400:16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
381:19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
366:18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
186:16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
58:10:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
1346:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1295:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1262:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1229:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1187:general notability guideline
1154:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1089:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1041:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1003:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
960:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
930:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
852:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
824:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
790:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
751:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
634:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
600:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
563:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
395:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
361:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
331:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
297:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
181:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1343:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1292:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1259:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1226:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1151:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1086:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1038:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1000:Happy editing! Sincerely,
957:Happy editing! Sincerely,
927:Happy editing! Sincerely,
849:Happy editing! Sincerely,
821:Happy editing! Sincerely,
787:Happy editing! Sincerely,
748:Happy editing! Sincerely,
631:Happy editing! Sincerely,
597:Happy editing! Sincerely,
590:23:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
568:22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
560:Happy editing! Sincerely,
539:18:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
513:14:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
488:02:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
465:02:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
429:23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
392:Happy editing! Sincerely,
358:Happy editing! Sincerely,
351:22:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
336:22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
328:Happy editing! Sincerely,
318:23:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
302:22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
294:Happy editing! Sincerely,
280:20:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
261:05:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
244:00:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
227:22:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
209:22:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
178:Happy editing! Sincerely,
168:23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
145:22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1456:
1195:indiscriminate information
998:make any sense to me. --
847:No because, it isn't. --
595:talk page discussion. --
1432:Please do not modify it.
1273:genuinely useful sources
32:Please do not modify it.
1222:satisfactorily improved
1220:: Article has now been
478:to SoulCalibur Wikia.
1318:refusing to actually
578:resoundingly rejected
152:Inferno (Soulcalibur)
1364:good faith questions
455:(at least not yet).
1170:Gamercc's interview
1136:robe and wizard hat
736:hundreds of readers
451:, not articles for
1310:, let alone proof
1308:proof by assertion
900:- Almost entirely
72:Soul Edge (weapon)
64:Soul Edge (weapon)
44:The result was
1139:
740:scores of editors
504:
1447:
1434:
1349:
1347:
1298:
1296:
1265:
1263:
1232:
1230:
1157:
1155:
1133:
1092:
1090:
1044:
1042:
1013:the character?--
1006:
1004:
963:
961:
933:
931:
904:, largely fails
855:
853:
827:
825:
793:
791:
754:
752:
637:
635:
603:
601:
566:
564:
509:
502:
497:
398:
396:
364:
362:
334:
332:
300:
298:
211:
184:
182:
119:
113:
95:
34:
1455:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1437:deletion review
1430:
1362:and filibuster
1345:
1342:
1294:
1291:
1261:
1258:
1228:
1225:
1215:
1191:plot repetition
1153:
1150:
1108:Judgesurreal777
1088:
1085:
1064:Judgesurreal777
1040:
1037:
1002:
999:
995:Knowledge (XXG)
959:
956:
929:
926:
881:heavily cleanup
851:
848:
823:
820:
789:
786:
750:
747:
633:
630:
599:
596:
562:
559:
507:
500:
394:
391:
360:
357:
330:
327:
296:
293:
219:Judgesurreal777
194:
180:
177:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1453:
1451:
1442:
1441:
1425:
1424:
1407:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1182:works for hire
1163:
1162:
1161:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
895:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
709:
708:
707:
706:
672:
671:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
515:
490:
432:
431:
419:as per LGRdC.
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
305:
304:
282:
264:
263:
246:
229:
212:
191:
190:
189:
188:
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1452:
1440:
1438:
1433:
1427:
1426:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1223:
1219:
1213:Section break
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1177:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1083:
1082:already voted
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1047:
1043:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
996:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
974:
966:
962:
953:
952:
951:
947:
943:
938:
937:
936:
932:
924:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
858:
854:
846:
845:
844:
840:
836:
832:
831:
830:
826:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
803:
798:
797:
796:
792:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:WP:NOTABILITY
759:
758:
757:
753:
745:
744:DC comic book
741:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
705:
701:
697:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
673:
670:
666:
662:
661:
655:
652:
640:
636:
628:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
607:
606:
602:
593:
592:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
557:
553:
550:
545:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
519:
516:
514:
511:
510:
503:
494:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
430:
426:
422:
418:
415:
414:
401:
397:
389:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
369:
368:
367:
363:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
337:
333:
325:
321:
320:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
303:
299:
291:
286:
283:
281:
277:
273:
269:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
247:
245:
241:
237:
233:
230:
228:
224:
220:
216:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
193:
192:
187:
183:
175:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
147:
146:
142:
138:
134:
132:
131:Soul (series)
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1431:
1428:
1414:WikiScrubber
1409:
1392:
1315:
1272:
1217:
1216:
1174:
1165:
1131:Doctorfluffy
1126:
1059:
1057:
1056:
994:
975:
902:WP:GAMECRUFT
897:
880:
876:
713:
658:
653:
610:WP:DIRECTORY
555:
548:
517:
505:
498:
492:
480:Zero Kitsune
475:
471:
452:
448:
436:
434:
433:
416:
341:reception.--
284:
267:
248:
231:
214:
128:
127:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1277:Kung Fu Man
1029:Azure armor
1015:Kung Fu Man
980:Kung Fu Man
942:Marasmusine
923:WP:ITSCRUFT
910:Marasmusine
835:Kung Fu Man
696:Kung Fu Man
681:Kung Fu Man
614:Kung Fu Man
373:Kung Fu Man
343:Kung Fu Man
310:Kung Fu Man
285:Speedy keep
201:Kung Fu Man
160:Kung Fu Man
137:Kung Fu Man
1412:as above.
1320:WP:PROVEIT
1316:repeatedly
1312:ad nauseum
875:Change to
712:There are
527:WP:PROVEIT
453:discussion
1397:Everyking
1368:Randomran
1360:WP:BURDEN
1328:Randomran
1324:WP:BURDEN
1244:Randomran
1176:Soul Edge
806:Randomran
773:Randomran
769:WP:BURDEN
718:Randomran
582:Randomran
531:Randomran
523:WP:VERIFY
476:Transwiki
421:Edward321
388:improving
290:this page
236:Jappalang
885:MuZemike
574:Napoleon
552:Napoleon
457:MuZemike
449:deletion
441:WP:MERGE
122:View log
1199:Protonk
976:Comment
732:replica
268:Comment
89:protect
84:history
1314:, and
1218:Update
1166:Delete
1147:WP:JNN
1127:Delete
1060:Delete
1034:useful
906:WP:WAF
898:Delete
544:WP:JNN
518:Delete
445:WP:AFD
253:JuJube
232:Delete
215:Delete
117:delete
93:delete
50:Stifle
1410:Merge
1084:. --
629:. --
627:WP:IS
549:prove
472:Merge
437:Merge
326:. --
292:. --
249:Merge
176:. --
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1418:talk
1401:talk
1393:Keep
1372:talk
1332:talk
1281:talk
1248:talk
1203:talk
1193:and
1185:the
1112:talk
1068:talk
1019:talk
984:talk
946:talk
914:talk
889:talk
879:but
877:keep
839:talk
810:talk
777:talk
738:and
722:talk
700:talk
685:talk
677:WP:N
665:talk
654:Keep
618:talk
586:talk
535:talk
499:Banj
493:Keep
484:talk
461:talk
425:talk
417:Keep
377:talk
347:talk
324:here
322:See
314:talk
276:talk
272:Whpq
257:talk
240:talk
223:talk
205:talk
164:talk
141:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
660:DGG
612:.--
556:not
474:or
1420:)
1403:)
1374:)
1341:--
1334:)
1326:.
1283:)
1250:)
1205:)
1114:)
1070:)
1021:)
986:)
948:)
916:)
891:)
841:)
819:--
812:)
779:)
724:)
702:)
687:)
667:)
620:)
588:)
537:)
508:oi
486:)
463:)
427:)
379:)
349:)
316:)
278:)
259:)
242:)
225:)
207:)
199:.
166:)
158:--
143:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
1416:(
1399:(
1370:(
1330:(
1279:(
1246:(
1201:(
1138:)
1134:(
1110:(
1066:(
1058:*
1017:(
982:(
944:(
912:(
887:(
837:(
808:(
775:(
720:(
698:(
683:(
663:(
616:(
584:(
533:(
506:b
501:e
482:(
459:(
435:*
423:(
375:(
345:(
312:(
274:(
255:(
238:(
221:(
203:(
162:(
139:(
133:,
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.