1085:
However, I do believe that if the skits are found to be non-notable individually, they will almost certainly be turned into sections of other articles shortly thereafter. If that is the case, then deleting them now, before such notability can be established by the comparatively few individuals who have had any activity with the subject area, might prove to be counterproductive. If they do qualify as non-notable, though, like I said, I am certain the content will be merged into other articles, probably individual episode articles, and probably shortly after non-notability is determined. I just don't see a need to rush to judgement here.
1054:- Several books regarding Monty Python have been published, going into often extraordinary detail regarding the subject, yes, including individual skits. I think that those volumes help establish the notability of these skits. Having said that, I have no objections to the possibility of merging and/or otherwise combining several of these articles into a reduced number of articles, perhaps one per episode, after the articles have been worked on a bit more and it is clearer exactly how long they are likely to ultimately be. But deletion at this point seems uncalled for.
681:
material might not have verifiable sources to show notability, but others certainly will. I haven't researched it, but then neither did you, you just marked it as delete, when it seems to me that again, you mark something for delete that you really want improved. stop WP:Bureucracy in favor of WP:common. I also want to note that I saw at least one Prod of yours in recent history that wasn't marked with an edit summary. It might be that some of these need deletion review. please use edit summaries on deletion proposals. --
185:, but really the segue pieces. I am therefore requesting removal of the deletion notice on the grounds that it is arbitrary, and that Knowledge (XXG) provides an excellent repository for showcasing Monty Python skits. There are after all 100s of Monty Python Skits and only a handful that have been made into articles in Knowledge (XXG). I could also propose merging all proposed deleted articles into one related article to save some fine contributions from the wiki community. Thank You.--
1106:
least some active work on the articles, I think it would be extremely presumptuous to assume that that much time would be required. And I could certainly agree to a potential renomination in a much shorter time if no action were taken in the interim. Actually, if that heppened, I'm fairly sure I'd support deletion myself. But I do think that perhaps a period of one or two months to work on all the articles invovled would not be necessarily onerous.
783:
find material showing notability of these skits. Unless the nominator can prove that they are not notable, at this point I recommend speedy keep and close this AFD, give the authors a chance to beef up the articles to show notability (say a couple months), and if the nominator really wants to, he can renominate these articles individually after the authors have beefed up the articles.
712:
sources, then you need to mark that first, and stop wasting people's time with unwarranted deletion nominations. if it requires cleanup and you are allowing for that, that is where it should start. I'm not wikilawering here, not deleting python sketches to me seems like wp:common, i did make a request that you mark prods on their edit summary, i think that is reasonable. --
455:. IMDB allows anyone to upload information and exercises varying degrees of editorial control over the uploaded information. Its use as a source on Knowledge (XXG) has been contentious. However, even if IMDB were an impeccable source, the existence of a transcript of a particular sketch does not establish that the sketch is notable. Existence does not equal notability.
599:
society. It might be interesting to consider the recent actions on another monty python sketch that was not added in here, which is the football sketch which was recently kept. Did these prods happen at the same time? or after. I suspect the same time. Monty Python's work is notable, some of it is more notable than others. --
472:'I will call such minimal contentful accounts "Elk Theories" in honour of John Clease's Monty Python character. To the increasing high brow television presenter, Miss Anne Elk lovingly repeats her ("That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too") the theory of the brontosaurus'
698:. The notability of Monty Python does not extend to every three-minute segment that the troupe committed to film. This is honestly not that complex of a position, and all of your Wiki-lawyering and (incorrect) supposition about my motives, my desires or my actions does not suddenly make what is not notable, notable.
165:- expired prods removed by editor who acknowledges that the sketches are not independently notable yet for some reason feels that the prods were "arbitrary." Given that the de-prodder acknowledges the lack of independent notability of the sketches and given that in addition to not being notable the sketches all fail
1105:
Neither do I, and, in fact, I made no such statement. If that is the amount of time they have been "sitting around", however, I could agree that you might have been justified in starting the conversation. However, I believe with at least a few people, myself included, with any luck now engaging in at
782:
are fansites and other unreliable sources)". He is obviously arguing that they are not notable unless we can prove that they are notable. Given that the subject matter decades old and has many hits with a google search and given that there are 7 skits, it's time consuming for us to search through and
725:
You're still falsely assuming that I did no research before prodding and then nominating these articles. I do mark prods in their edit summary. I missed one? So sorry, big deal. Is anyone going to miss the big PROD notice on the article? No. And, I again call attention to the fact that the person who
831:
You're free to take it as an admission of anything you'd like, but sadly, your interpretation has absolutely no basis in reality. And gee, excuse me for including links to the policies I cite. Although I think you'll find that it's pretty standard practice, when citing a policy one believes supports
909:
which was a keep and I have also added the reference I mentioned above which "Philophers'" didn't have, so I believe this article should also be a keep. Other than this particular edit, I am not an author of these articles but as I mentioned, I believe that time is warranted to give the author(s) a
598:
These are all notable sketches to some degree or another, especially when considered as a whole. On individual basis, i could see deleting one or two of them as non-notable, but as a block, i'm sorry, several are important cultural and historical events that reveal quite a bit about other things in
332:
I'm not arguing for deletion. And I was using the
Frasier example illustritively. There are plenty of situations where it makes sense as an encyclopedia to have a complete set. We had similar discussions about NY subway stops. Some are clearly notable, some maybe not so much, but if we're going
502:
The problem is that most of us do online searches as we can't be bothered to go to a library over something like this and it might be difficult to get the rigorous standards that you demand for something that was a skit over 30 years ago online. During it's time, this skit was popular, it occurred
680:
yes many have been deleted, and i suspect they will be remade eventually, it is that people recognize them as notable. if your point is about it needs verifiable material, then you should have marked them with cleanup, expert, and improve. No i am saying that at this point in time, some of the
1084:
My statement above was not intended to deal directly with the subject of these skits per se. I don't think any of us know one way or another whether these skits do receive substantive treatment in the relevant books yet. I know I don't, having just started doing anything with that subject today.
1001:
The current python project for instance does little service to the particular phenomenon of Monty Python - and its effect on many in the english speaking word - any traces/aspects of the phenomenon - however slight in some editors views - need careful preservation from the lumberjacks. cheers
986:
and (those who do it or are contemplating doing so), please refrain from responding to every comment or opinion that disagrees with yours. It's bad form, intimidating to some, and not good evidence of your individual brilliance. Better use of that brilliance would be to improve the articles in
711:
I have no suppositions about your actions other than to assume you are trying to do the right thing. That said, these are notable and python's notability does extend to some extent and your claim that they are not only requires reliable sources to show that they are, if you only need reliable
521:
I'm sorry, but notability is not some rigorous unattainable standard. And the fact that you keep using words like "popular" indicates that you don't understand what notability is. It is not popularity. It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which I'm sure are
297:
why delete two sheds but keep nudge nudge? Either get rid of every MP sketch article or keep them all. The only other sensible alternative is to only keep "notable" sketches, which would be sketches that have been written about or reviewed independently. But that would be silly. We have a
554:. At the time this comment is written, none of the sketches have any sources demonstrating their independent notability beyond the fact that they're all Monty Python routines and therefore hilarious. If there are sources which can be added for any of them, I'll gladly review my opinion.
318:
against deletion. Maybe we shouldn't have an article on every
Frasier episode. I don't know. It doesn't matter, because the existence of those articles has nothing to do with the existence of these. The existence of other MP sketch articles is not a valid reason for keeping these.
507:
but what can I say. This skit generates almost a thousand hits on google and there are some reliable sources like the one I mentioned above that make reference to it. Right now I don't have time to do a more extensive search at the different hits, perhaps later.
1022:
should have its own article? With no regard to the actual notability of the thing in question? That viewpoint does not appear to have any foundation in our policies and guidelines, which establish standards of notability for
Knowledge (XXG) articles.
813:
when you accuse me of wikilawyering when you've been doing a great deal of wikilawyering above. Just look at the number of times you've linked in a wikipedia policy link above and I also believe you are trying to get us to abide by the letter of
181:- While its true that these Monty Python skits can not be absolutely defined as notable, I would argue that was actually the nature of Monty Python. Some of the funniest bits of that show were not the sketches which are commonly known, such as
844:
can be read either in letter or in spirit to mean that articles on subjects that are not notable should be retained. So I'll ask again, can you offer any reliable sources that establish the independent notability of any of these subjects?
433:
How? My impression is that IMDB does not follow the wikipedia model of everybody editing articles, especially memorable quote articles. IMDB is used extensively in wiki as a source. Besides, shouldn't you show why Anne Elk is not notable?
758:
I havent the least idea whether any MP sketch is notable, as I avoid him altogether. But I think it reasonable a priori that the notability of them will differ, and so I ask that the nom be withdrawn and they be listed individually.
649:
778:. It is clear that the nominator has not made any effort to investigate whether these skits are notable as he says above (emphasis is mine) " It is not a measure of how many Google hits it generates (the majority of which
633:
66:
221:
all. I love the
Fliegender Zirkus as much as the next geek, but this is not Pythonpedia. I was prepared to say that these should be kept, but I was thinking of things like the Spam sketch or the Parrot Sketch.
637:
882:
The major difference between that discussion and this one is that a source (however useful it may have been) was provided. To use the legal term, I don't think the precedent is "on all fours" with this AfD.
661:
641:
469:
624:
is not a valid reason for keeping. However, if you want to make the argument, then consider that for every AFDed MP sketch article that's been kept several have been deleted, including "Blackmail" (
629:
625:
522:
fansites and other unreliable sources). It is not about things "referencing" the sketch in passing. It is about having independent reliable sources that are substantially about the sketch.
489:. Notability means that the subject of the article is the substantial subject of reliable sources. A one-line mention in a book of at least 127 pages is not substantially about the sketch.
120:
657:
645:
653:
620:
is not a valid argument for keeping. The fact that the football sketch article was (wrongly IMHO) kept has no bearing on whether any of these articles should be kept, because
242:
sketch. Summarize each and include in the list. For a model of that, see Series 3, Episode 7 in the list, where a skit is described. I don't think redirecting is worthwhile.
570:
These are all plot summaries that don't do the show justice. Why should they be on
Knowledge (XXG)? I'm sure the vast majority of Monty Python sketches are non-notable.
420:
Someone's typing up a transcript of the sketch and uploading it to IMDB doesn't make the sketch notable. Anyone can type up a scene from a TV show and upload it there.
370:
so that we can discuss the merits of each separately. I know that the Anne Elk
Brontosaurus episode is notable and the Kilamanjaro episode might be considered notable.
383:
I have confidence in the ability of my fellow editors to be able to review this small selection of similar and related articles and come to a decision. If you have
235:
333:
to cover subway stops, it makes sense to cover all of them. If we're going to cover Monty Python sketches (and we should), it makes WP:SENSE to cover them all.
255:
Oh, and by the way, there's no assertion of notability, usually no references and nothing but a plot summary in any of these articles. All against policy.
48:- in any event, no consensus to delete them all, and no clear visibility to what the outcome of individual discussions would be based on this discussion.
616:. You're admitting here that at least some of this material does not meet Knowledge (XXG) notability guidelines yet you're arguing to keep it anyway.
832:
one's position, to include a link to it in one's argument as a courtesy to those who might want to review the policy. It is not within the spirit of
730:
but was apparently upset that not every single MP sketch was prodded at the same time. And now the nomination is being criticised because they
503:
before my time but people still talked about it when I was a kid. I know your going to start putting in a whole bunch of wikipedia links like
902:
583:
126:
93:
88:
97:
298:
separate article for every
Frasier episode, not just the "notable" ones. Likewise, it is fine to have an article for every MP sketch.
866:
17:
906:
871:
80:
1110:
1098:
1089:
1075:
1058:
1046:
1027:
1009:
991:
976:
963:
935:
914:
891:
877:
849:
822:
800:
787:
770:
738:
716:
702:
685:
668:
612:
It is very easy to state that something has some sort of cultural significance. It is quite another to back up that claim with
603:
590:
574:
562:
526:
512:
493:
476:
459:
438:
424:
411:
391:
374:
350:
337:
323:
302:
289:
277:
259:
246:
226:
209:
189:
173:
52:
1039:- nowhere in this did i say what you are attributing to me - I concur with Lou Sander above - take careful note of the advice
146:
1094:
I don't think allowing non-notable plot summary articles to sit around unchallenged for six months is a "rush to judgment."
1071:. In the absence of substantial coverage of these sketches the coverage of other sketches in these sources is irrelevant.
947:
or at least renominate separately. Monty Python is very famous and thus all of its sketches should be at least mentioned.
621:
131:
810:
156:
1131:
36:
1067:
The notability of Python as a whole and the notability of other Python sketches does not translate to notability for
809:
I'll take that as admission that you haven't investigated whether these sketches are notable. Also, I think it's
1130:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
223:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1107:
1086:
1055:
141:
911:
819:
784:
587:
509:
473:
435:
408:
371:
275:
239:
151:
84:
968:
There's a considerable difference between "mentioned" and "have articles written about them", though.
238:. Fancruft. Unencyclopedic. We don't need, for instance, a list of all the composers mentioned in the
694:
My point is not that they need to be cleaned up. My point is, has been and will continue to be that
617:
571:
182:
1043:
1006:
346:
I don't agree that it makes sense to cover every MP sketch simply for the sake of completeness.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
166:
973:
888:
586:. That is the theory, it is mine, and it belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too. :)
559:
206:
76:
311:
988:
796:
You can't demonstrate the notability of the sketches so you resort to more
Wikilawyering.
387:
that attest to the notability of the Anne Elk sketch then please add them to the article.
613:
504:
448:
384:
931:. You have failed to demonstrate that this sketch is in any way independently notable.
286:
841:
837:
833:
815:
486:
452:
198:
1095:
1072:
1040:
1024:
1003:
960:
932:
846:
797:
766:
735:
699:
665:
523:
490:
456:
421:
388:
347:
334:
320:
299:
272:
186:
170:
923:
Congratulations, you have successfully established that the sketch exists. However,
713:
682:
632:), "Court Scene with Cardinal Richelieu," "Court Charades" and "Dennis Moore" (all
600:
256:
243:
136:
49:
114:
969:
884:
555:
202:
470:
Natural Kinds, Laws of Nature and
Scientific Methodology by Peter Biggs pg 127
404:
451:
that are substantially about the particular sketch demonstrate its lack of
948:
761:
910:
chance to beef up the articles similar to how I've beefed up Anne Elk.
987:
question, seek out whatever you think is missing and add it, etc.
1124:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
836:
to retain material that is not notable; indeed, the spirit of
840:
is that subjects should be notable. I do not understand how
285:. Information is worthwhile, but not as separate articles.
865:, as the tide against these articles may be turning per
110:
106:
102:
67:
Articles for deletion/Accidents Sketch (2nd nomination)
664:) and many others that did not survive being prodded.
403:. Anne Elk is notable because the whole sketch is in
1020:
every single thing associated with Monty Python ever
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1134:). No further edits should be made to this page.
728:acknowledges that the sketches are not notable
648:), "Mr. Hilter and the Minehead by-election" (
236:List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes
8:
696:the sketches are not independently notable
169:these seem like pretty obvious deletes.
64:
660:) and "Restaurant Abuse/Cannibalism" (
271:(plot summaries) into one article. --
901:, I have added a script and video of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
903:Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses
640:), "Conquistador Coffee Campaign" (
584:Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses
127:Anne Elk's Theory on Brontosauruses
63:
24:
907:The Philosophers' Football Match
582:. The theory on notability of
147:Vocational Guidance Counsellor‎
1111:14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1099:22:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1090:20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1076:19:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1059:16:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1047:00:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
1028:12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
1010:02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
992:12:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
977:04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
964:04:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
936:12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
915:02:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
905:similar to how it is done for
892:22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
878:15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
850:01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
823:00:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
801:04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
788:00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
771:22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
739:04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
717:00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
703:22:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
686:22:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
669:18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
604:17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
591:14:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
575:05:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
563:00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
527:21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
513:20:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
494:15:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
477:14:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
460:12:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
439:02:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
425:02:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
412:01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
392:00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
375:23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
351:12:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
338:03:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
324:00:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
303:23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
290:21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
278:21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
260:21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
247:21:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
227:21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
210:00:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
190:20:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
174:20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
53:03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
818:while violating it's spirit.
314:is not a reasonable argument
197:The threshold requirement is
157:Marriage Guidance Counsellor‎
58:Several Monty Python sketches
873:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
734:all done at the same time.
132:Arthur 'Two Sheds' Jackson‎
1151:
1018:So you're suggesting that
869:discussion. Sincerely, --
726:removed the expired prods
201:, not how funny they are.
656:), "Silly Job Interview (
644:), "Johann Gambolputty" (
405:imdb.com memorable quotes
1127:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
652:, "Medical Love Song" (
142:Kilimanjaro Expedition‎
468:OK how about this one
152:Decomposing Composers‎
62:AfDs for this article:
368:Renominate Separately
240:Decomposing Composers
622:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
636:), "Erotic film" (
984:List individually
756:List individually
1142:
1129:
957:
954:
951:
912:Pocopocopocopoco
876:
874:
820:Pocopocopocopoco
785:Pocopocopocopoco
628:), "Albatross" (
614:reliable sources
588:Pocopocopocopoco
510:Pocopocopocopoco
474:Pocopocopocopoco
449:reliable sources
436:Pocopocopocopoco
409:Pocopocopocopoco
385:reliable sources
372:Pocopocopocopoco
232:Delete and Merge
118:
100:
77:Accidents Sketch
34:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1132:deletion review
1125:
974:Schreit mich an
955:
952:
949:
927:does not equal
889:Schreit mich an
872:
870:
560:Schreit mich an
207:Schreit mich an
91:
75:
72:
60:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1148:
1146:
1137:
1136:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1102:
1101:
1079:
1078:
1069:these sketches
1062:
1061:
1049:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1013:
1012:
995:
994:
981:
980:
979:
941:
940:
939:
938:
918:
917:
896:
895:
894:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
826:
825:
804:
803:
791:
790:
773:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
720:
719:
706:
705:
689:
688:
672:
671:
607:
606:
593:
577:
572:Fee Fi Foe Fum
565:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
516:
515:
497:
496:
480:
479:
463:
462:
442:
441:
428:
427:
415:
414:
395:
394:
378:
377:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
341:
340:
327:
326:
306:
305:
292:
280:
265:
264:
263:
262:
250:
249:
229:
215:
214:
213:
212:
160:
159:
154:
149:
144:
139:
134:
129:
124:
71:
70:
69:
61:
59:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1147:
1135:
1133:
1128:
1122:
1121:
1112:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1000:
997:
996:
993:
990:
985:
982:
978:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
946:
943:
942:
937:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
919:
916:
913:
908:
904:
900:
897:
893:
890:
886:
881:
880:
879:
875:
868:
864:
861:
860:
851:
848:
843:
839:
835:
830:
829:
828:
827:
824:
821:
817:
812:
808:
807:
806:
805:
802:
799:
795:
794:
793:
792:
789:
786:
781:
777:
774:
772:
768:
764:
763:
757:
754:
753:
740:
737:
733:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
715:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
701:
697:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
684:
679:
676:
675:
674:
673:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
602:
597:
594:
592:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
573:
569:
566:
564:
561:
557:
553:
550:
549:
528:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
511:
506:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
492:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
478:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
352:
349:
345:
344:
343:
342:
339:
336:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
317:
313:
310:
309:
308:
307:
304:
301:
296:
293:
291:
288:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:
270:
267:
266:
261:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
230:
228:
225:
220:
217:
216:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
172:
168:
164:
158:
155:
153:
150:
148:
145:
143:
140:
138:
137:Conrad Poohs‎
135:
133:
130:
128:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
68:
65:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1126:
1123:
1068:
1051:
1036:
1019:
998:
983:
944:
928:
924:
898:
862:
779:
775:
760:
755:
731:
727:
695:
677:
595:
579:
567:
551:
485:Please read
447:The lack of
400:
367:
363:
315:
294:
282:
268:
231:
218:
178:
177:
162:
161:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1108:John Carter
1087:John Carter
1056:John Carter
46:train wreck
989:Lou Sander
929:notability
618:WP:ILIKEIT
568:Delete all
552:Delete all
453:notability
199:notability
163:Delete all
925:existence
287:Operating
269:Merge all
1096:Otto4711
1073:Otto4711
1052:Keep all
1037:Response
1025:Otto4711
945:Keep all
933:Otto4711
847:Otto4711
798:Otto4711
780:I'm sure
736:Otto4711
700:Otto4711
666:Otto4711
650:deleted)
596:Keep All
524:Otto4711
491:Otto4711
457:Otto4711
422:Otto4711
389:Otto4711
364:Keep All
348:Otto4711
335:Capmango
321:Otto4711
300:Capmango
273:lucasbfr
187:10stone5
179:KEEP ALL
171:Otto4711
121:View log
899:Comment
776:Comment
714:Buridan
683:Buridan
678:comment
662:deleted
658:deleted
654:deleted
646:deleted
642:deleted
638:deleted
634:deleted
630:deleted
626:deleted
601:Buridan
580:Comment
401:Comment
257:Noroton
244:Noroton
167:WP:PLOT
94:protect
89:history
50:GRBerry
970:BigHaz
885:BigHaz
556:BigHaz
312:WP:WAX
219:Delete
203:BigHaz
98:delete
811:funny
505:WP:OR
283:Merge
234:into
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
1044:Suro
1041:Satu
1007:Suro
1004:Satu
999:Keep
961:Talk
867:this
863:Keep
842:WP:N
838:WP:N
834:WP:N
816:WP:N
767:talk
732:were
487:WP:N
295:Keep
183:Spam
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
762:DGG
366:or
316:for
119:– (
972:-
959:|
887:-
769:)
558:-
407:.
224:DS
205:-
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
956:P
953:I
950:J
765:(
123:)
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.