1405:
response was quite courteous. You underscore a weakness where guideline actually seems to encourage original research when it speaks toward "large fanbase or cult following", when "large" and "fan" are subjective terms. Those who orchestrated that section of ENT should have attempted to give a more objective means by which editors might quantify those terms. And your "two cents" underscores a point I had not considered, in that as a paperless encyclopedia, Knowledge should strive to be "more" than her paperbound breathren, not less... and certainly not a mere imitation. And we do agree, her notability is very close to that line of ready or not ready. I just think it's slightly on the plus side and will grow, not diminish. Best,
1191:
this young actor to remain and grow over time. A reasonable expectation is that her coverage will continue to increase as career grows, and not diminish or evaporate. Your "good faith" but dismissive generality in regards sources leaves an incorrect impression to others, recuse yourself or no, as any proper BLP is dependent on support from many sources.. and not all are required to be substantive. And even if a few only offer only slight support, they offer support. When ENT is satisfied on several levels, as it is in this case, by the numerous sources speaking toward her
654:(and it does not matter that it does not yet have an article), is her being a major character in 96 (so far) episodes of OLTL (even if only since last year).... and the quantity is difficult to dismiss, and seem far more pertinant toward notability and meeting the spirir of WP:ENT. If she had been in three or four marginally notable films in the same period of time, the article'd probably be kept... though there'd be discussions about just what creates notability for films that do not yet have articles. She is getting (just) enough coverage in reliable sources to push at
1165:, but if they exist, someone should be able to find them, and one would think that someone with an interest in preserving this article would make it a point to add them to the article rather than posting irrelevant links here. For what it's worth, I'm recusing myself from the remainder of this decision, because I feel I sufficiently asked for sources which might alter my position, but have not been satisfied. I trust other editors to make a determination based on the lack of sources and the discussion provided herein. --
862:, in my opinion. If there is a legitimate source, then add it to the article. Also, to say that many of her fans are also fans of the show is legitimate; however, without actual evidence about a fan club that is specifically for her, to argue that a fan of the show is automatically a fan of hers is an illogical argument. On another note, the search results do indicate that someone posted a link to this Knowledge article on the soapcentral.com forums, ostensibly advocating for people to come and !vote on this matter.
1339:'cult' following", and frequent mentions of a fan club can be explained away by causes other than the size of the fan base — a small but highly active group of fans, for example, or the use by the studio of the mere existence of a fan club as a publicity tool for the series as a whole. Indeed, it is the "explained" part that is troubling here: I don't think that any of the specific references so far can be used in the article to prove a large fan base without that assertion requiring
791:, but nothing in the sources provided indicate that notability. Of the six links provided in this discussion, one is her official bio from the ABC website, another points to Soap Opera Digest articles which merely mention her but are not about her (the "OLTL Fan Club Weekend" is about the show, and is not "her" fan club... she is mentioned once in the whole article), and the rest merely show she exists and plays a role on the show. Unless something more specific can be provided,
858:
the number of "fans" cannot even be determined. Nor is there any critical commentary about the allegedly large fanbase... indeed, if an actor is notable because of a fanbase/cult following, such a thing would likely have some corroboration somewhere, which this does not. Beyond the first page of results, most of the results start becoming irrelevant. So we have no actual "proof" of an "extensive" fan base... just that there are some fans out there, which does not meet
1035:
does not over-rule the SNGs nor vice-versa... either or both may apply, else there would be no need for any subsidary guidelines to exist at all. Had the GNG been met out the gate, there would still be arguments inre interpretations of ENT, even in the face of GNG. As for fansites, many pertinent to this actor and her character in relationship to the series for which she has a following have been offered. Since
1195:, toward her directly, and the significance of her role in 92+ episodes, there are enough available, even piecemeal thrugh these sources, to properly support her BLP, and guideline is indeed thus met. While yes, some mention this person in lessor manner, not all do. She is spoken of in a soap column in context with her performance at the "First Night Gala" on December 31, 2009,
1556:. The subject of this article clearly meets notability criteria for inclusion on Knowledge. The notability criteria includes a large fan base. The two most appropriate places for fan clubs and development of a fan base are on the Facebook and MySpace social networking sites. However, Knowledge fails to recognize this source. Unbelievable. I think this
360:. The other criteria, in my opinion, are subjective. What may be significant, unique, prolific or innovative is not defined and varies with each editor according to their own understanding of the term. The subject has a large fan base, as well as a fan club, where members pay $ 65 for each event. Another event charged people $ 175 each and sold out.
1368:
inclusion criteria, i.e. the notability guidelines, should be applied more strictly in those non–traditional–encyclopedia areas than they are in the more traditional–encyclopedia areas. Thus, in this case, my feeling is that the encyclopedia is not improved by inclusion of this article and my "vote" is still, if I may analogize to
1274:
represent a grwing career and a fan base. My own conclusion is that while this article will take some while before it builds further, her career meets several criteria of ENT, and her coverage otherwise is beginning to push nicely at GNG. And there is reasonable expectation of continued coverage. The article remaining, and
1363::"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge, ignore it." This debate, then comes back to this question: Does the retention of this article about a minor actor which comes close to meeting, but does not yet meet, specific notability guidelines improve Knowledge? Here's my two cents: While
889:
Your opinion of a narowest possible interpretation of ENT is not universal, nor per guideline... else all guidelines would not first begin by encouraging editor's use of common sense and their acknowledging the occasional exception. As for SPAs... well, then we'll be on the look out for !votes from
1190:
I would have preferrred to look at whatever links you might yourself have thought to offer this discussion, specially as I have only so far gone through the first few dozen or so of the 700+ links available in a g-search. I am more convinced than ever that it serves the project for this article on
1034:
Sarcasm? Not mine, certainly. Attack on your common sense? Nope... just offering a clarification of guideline for those who might think yours is the only way to interpret them... as it is not. Per consensus and many discussions in many forums and about many articles, it is determined that the GNG
857:
to assess of notability, then let's analyze the results a little more closely rather than simply saying "one can see" the fanbase. Many of the links are user pages on
Myspace, etc.. and indeed, the OLTL fan club page links to a Myspace fan club for Shenell Edmonds, which is a private page for which
1322:
that the article is just shy of meeting one or the other, ENT by a broader significant career and GNG by some additional substantial sources (the interview noted above is a good one). (In regard to the proof of a large fan base, however, it cannot be gainsaid that there is more than adequate proof
1367:
justifies a greater coverage of topics, including entertainment, than can be covered by a paper encyclopedia, I don't think that it justifies them being covered in as much depth as the types of subject which would be covered in a traditional paper encyclopedia and that implies, at least, that the
1273:
While acknowledging your having an opinion, I do not share it. We had the same links available to us and drew diametrical opposite conclusions. But yes, I fully expect that others will actually look at the sources above, and the others available with searches, and decide for themselves if they
1132:
Of the links you have provided, some do not mention the subject of this article, some are cast lists or cast/character bio pages (which do not convey notability, just her existence and role on the show, including the one on ABC.com, which can be considered a primary source), one is a forum (not
1564:. What constitutes a "large" fan base to one person may not reflect the opinions of another individual. This has gone way beyond subjective in determining this individual's notability. Subjective criteria, factors, and opinions to determine notability. Highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
1404:
More results to dig through, certainly. Your comments are appreciated, and while we disagree about whether or not this young actress has enough notability, or whether it serves the project to allow this very new article remain and grow over time and through regular editing, the manner of your
953:" if not looking to fansites themselves for verification? ENT speaks toward such as being an indicator of notability, but is not exactly clear on how a determination is affirmed once a presumption is made. All I have for deteminination are those Knowledge articles on what comprises each.
737:, her 96 (so far) episodes of OLTL, even if only since last year, are nothing to sneeze about. Seems perhaps a bit more pertinant that if she was in three or four marginally notable films in the same period of time. She is getting enough coverage in reliable sources to push at
500:(upped from weak per Cindamuse's observations) While hesitant to suggest a "keep" for a chld actor with essentially two roles, it must be noted that two is "multiple" not singular and that she had a significant role in each project... third billing in
1282:. As for editing the article and adding the sources... I might hope someone more versed in Soap Operas will come forward and work from what has been offered here. Now... if you'll excuse me... there's another 650+ search results to dig through.
974:
Easy: please provide me a fansite which indicates such a thing. And my point is that this discussion has been going on for six days and, despite having made a good faith effort, I haven't been able to find anything which shows how the subject meets
650:. OH... I might've tended to agree if she had been a lead in the one film and then in only 3 or 6 episodes of a notable series. Such could be more easily arguable as not meeting the spirit of WP:ENT. But what we have, apart from her lead role in
1111:, and many, many more... are indicative... some in generally reliable (for what is being asserted) sites, and others in fan-centric websites... that the young woman has coverage and has a fan following. It's an insistance that sources
558:
appears to be nothing more than a non-notable student film (the director won a "Best
Student Film" award for a film made a year later). Plainly does not meet that criteria, even if "multiple" is understood to mean "more than one." —
1535:. Just want to add that while the merge has already been done, I would certainly support a redirect, over a deletion, any day. (But I still think the subject's notability has been established for a stand alone article.)Â ; )
164:
227:
944:
of notability. And I was unaware of any guideline that states that sources must be immediately added to the article. Could you share it? And also, how do you figure it best to determine if someone has a
468:
A perfect point well made. Non-notable cast members do not have the following that does she, nor the coverage on so many OLTL fan pages. And "fan pages" are eaxctly where one finds fans. No mystery there.
827:
295:
823:
913:
from coverage in secondary sources, these sources should be added to the article. Please note that my concerns about why the sources provided in this discussion do not constitute
658:. She has a large and growing fanbase based upon her work on OLTL. She is young and her career is still growing. These seem decent enough reasons for allowing this article to
830:
one can see this individual does indeed have a large and active fan base, both as herself and in relationship to her character. That many of her the fan clubs are also fans of
119:
416:
Those links do not show that she has either a significantly large fan base or a cult following. They're nothing more than routine IMDB-like listings focusing on soaps. —
158:
1003:
that this is a notable subject has not been sufficiently met. I would hope that, as someone who seems to advocate keeping this article, you would be willing to add some
221:
1247:
announced the "2010 OLTL Fan Club
Weekend!" and something called "1st ever Shenell Edmonds Dance Party", where her fans will pay $ 65 each to be with her at the event,
1352:
356:. Within the scope of notability, the subject must meet one or more of the criteria in a particular category. As such, she clearly meets the second criteria of
1047:
do not operate "fansites", one need look to the fansites themselves. And of the 700+ g-hits, a very minimum are networking sites such as
Myspace or Facebook.
1207:
is widely accepted as a reliable source for news inre soaps. That she is written of there is indicative that she is of note and that she has a fanbase.
450:. Those are soap "fan" and soap magazine sites. She is there because she has a large fan base. If she didn't have fans, she wouldn't be there.
124:
1582:
1498:
1462:
1011:
attacks about my common sense. And please refrain from the sarcasm... it is wholly unnecessary and only serves to undermine your position. --
972:
how do you figure it best to determine if someone has a "cult following" or "fanbase" if not looking to fansites themselves for verification?
49:
1560:
guideline needs to be revisited in order to accurately establish notability of persons based on existence of a large fan base according to
940:
Well, with 700+ results to look through, please pardon me if it does not happen in the next few minutes. I comment from my own having a
638:
The nom is using a rather narrow interpretation, while guideline actually encourages a broader view when they all specifically instruct "
92:
87:
1196:
1052:
96:
709:
Only one significant role, and she's played that since last year. In soap-opera terms, when some shows run decades, that's not much.
1153:. If the best you can do is provide generic links to soap opera websites, then I feel quite justified in my position. You say that
79:
1359:
may apply" should apply. I think it is worth noting that the links on "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" point back to
17:
179:
242:
146:
764:
Significant roles are only one criteria that can be used to establish notability. She clearly meets the second criteria of
1237:
1084:
392:
209:
741:, and while she is young, her career is still growing. That seems a decent enough reason for allowing this article to
1356:
1210:
1175:
1021:
927:
876:
805:
1621:
1482:
1414:
1291:
1124:
962:
899:
845:
754:
671:
603:
537:
478:
345:
140:
36:
1271:
1235:
1104:
836:
is to be expected... as it is would be impossible to seperate the individual from what gained her the fan base.
1620:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1447:
1428:
1392:
575:
432:
278:
203:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1137:), one appears to be a blog (same issue), and some are generically about OLTL. None of these sites seem to be
1080:
390:
1606:
1573:
1544:
1527:
1510:
1485:
1453:
1417:
1398:
1294:
1278:, serves the project AND its readers. An immediate demand for perfection, when such potential is there, is
1183:
1127:
1029:
965:
935:
902:
884:
848:
813:
777:
757:
728:
698:
674:
633:
606:
581:
481:
459:
438:
407:
369:
348:
327:
309:
284:
136:
61:
989:
f a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is
941:
385:. Edmonds is one of the youngest contract actors on a network (ABC) soap opera with an extensive fan base.
199:
186:
1523:
1519:
1475:
1407:
1319:
1284:
1117:
955:
892:
838:
747:
664:
629:
625:
596:
530:
471:
396:
338:
249:
83:
57:
1217:
1072:
386:
1569:
1540:
1506:
1432:
1377:
1279:
1092:
773:
642:"... specially if there is an ultimate good for the project... and this does not mean it has to be
560:
455:
417:
403:
365:
263:
235:
172:
1465:
as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig, as per
620:
per nom. Only one notable role and no other reliable secondary sources to indicate notability per
1602:
1258:
1037:
643:
525:
1224:
1088:
394:
512:... playing a character which has had coverage in multiple reliable sources... showing that as
1344:
1243:
1203:
323:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1056:
152:
1373:
1161:
appears to be satisfied. And no, there is no insistence that sources must be in the article
832:
686:
508:
303:
1216:
site provides vetted information suitable for building the required background for her BLP,
215:
1364:
1227:
1043:
75:
67:
53:
1199:
1266:
and an announcement he made regarding her 16th birthday and her expanding role on OLTL (
1248:
1208:
1100:
1076:
388:
1565:
1536:
1502:
1466:
1172:
1018:
946:
924:
873:
854:
802:
769:
710:
451:
399:
361:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1561:
1470:
1369:
1360:
1348:
1328:
1315:
1311:
1275:
1146:
1142:
984:
976:
910:
863:
859:
819:
792:
788:
765:
742:
738:
659:
655:
647:
621:
591:
547:
521:
517:
513:
382:
357:
259:
52:
with no prejudice against spinning it back of if/when better sources are available.
1340:
1240:
1150:
1134:
1096:
1064:
1004:
996:
980:
914:
695:
319:
113:
787:. The argument to keep seems to be based on the "extensive fan base" aspect of
1167:
1060:
1013:
983:
indicating such. And if we're going to discuss "presumption"... the text of
919:
868:
797:
1255:
1108:
822:, Cindamuse's argument is quite valid. In doing a search for looking for
1155:
it is determined that the GNG does not over-rule the SNGs nor vice-versa
501:
1192:
950:
1343:.) The question then becomes, as Schmidt has pointed out, whether the
1201:
Why would anyone write of her performance if it was not of note? And
1115:
be in the article immediately, that falters in the face of guideline.
398:
These links barely touch the surface of her fan base and popularity.
554:
films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions".
689:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
640:
best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
1048:
318:
She only has 1 role. WP:ENT requires multiple, significant roles.
1614:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1212:
And while always wise to be cautious on sources, her bio on the
1219:
specially as her notability is not dependendent on that bio.
1213:
993:
to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
743:
remain and be improved over time and through regular editing
660:
remain and be improved over time and through regular editing
1497:. Actually, Edmonds was already appropriately added to the
1068:
550:
multiple–appearance rule is "significant roles in multiple
296:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
109:
105:
101:
234:
171:
1141:, nor are they indicative of meeting any criteria of
979:, nor has the article been improved to include any
694:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1239:The OLTL Fanpage shows her fan base and fan sites.
1149:. Look, I've made a good faith attempt to ask for
506:and a significant role in (so far) 92 episodes of
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1624:). No further edits should be made to this page.
522:expand and add sources through regular editing
1469:she does have qualities strongly approaching
1276:growing over time and through regular editing
1234:verify her as having been put under contract.
248:
185:
8:
890:new editors, won't we? None so far though.
594:has more than one criteria that may be met.
1589:. I'm not convinced that this person meets
1223:provides required birthdate and birthplace.
336:She's had more than one significant role.
290:
1473:. I believe this compromise reasonable.
1427:(by nominator) - Per Schmidt's proposal
294:: This debate has been included in the
1310:I still think that this does not meet
1583:List of One Life to Live cast members
1463:List of One Life to Live cast members
50:List of One Life to Live cast members
7:
1461:to a possible merge and redirect to
795:does not appear to have been met. --
768:with a large fan base and fan club.
1262:has a mention of Shenell Edmonds'
1007:to the article rather than making
24:
818:Aside from meeting the spirit of
648:improvement over time is possible
590:As Cindamuse clearly points out,
1139:about the subject of the article
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
516:she has a fan/cult following.
1:
1607:17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
1574:00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
1545:06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
1528:05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
1511:00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
1486:23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1454:21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
1425:Convert to Merge and Redirect
62:17:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
1198:and is interviewed in-depth.
866:would apply in that case. --
824:"Shenell Edmonds" + fan club
733:Apart from her lead role in
524:, not delete because it has
1418:19:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1399:15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1318:, but I have to agree with
1295:11:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1250:which event is metioned at
1184:07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1128:07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
1030:03:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
966:02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
936:02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
909:Also, if the subject meets
903:02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
885:01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
849:00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
814:21:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
778:12:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
758:00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
729:11:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
699:07:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
675:00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
634:16:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
607:04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
582:20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
482:00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
460:23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
439:20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
408:07:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
370:02:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
349:23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
328:01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
310:22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
285:19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
1641:
828:"Destiny Evans" + fan club
917:have been aired above. --
1617:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1270:evidence of a fanbase).
853:If we are going to use
1351:"is best treated with
1105:Soap Opera Network (2)
1049:Soap Opera Network (1)
942:reasonable presumption
1518:- That's reasonable.
1357:occasional exceptions
1327:fan club exists, but
1101:Soap Opera Digest (4)
1093:Soap Opera Digest (3)
1077:Soap Opera Digest (2)
1057:Soap Opera Digest (1)
970:You say it yourself:
1232:Daytime Confidential
1081:Daytime Confidential
526:not (yet) been done
1501:in February 2009.
1259:Soap Opera Network
1170:
1157:... in this case,
1038:The New York Times
1016:
922:
871:
800:
44:The result was
1341:original research
1280:not per guideline
1244:Soap Opera Digest
1204:Soap Opera Digest
1168:
1014:
995:I do not see the
920:
869:
798:
701:
520:is met. Time to
312:
299:
1632:
1619:
1478:
1450:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1410:
1395:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1376:. Best regards,
1287:
1264:fan club manager
1182:
1151:reliable sources
1120:
1028:
958:
934:
895:
883:
841:
833:One Life to Live
812:
750:
726:
723:
720:
717:
693:
691:
667:
599:
578:
571:
570:
566:
533:
509:One Life to Live
474:
435:
428:
427:
423:
381:. Clearly meets
341:
306:
300:
281:
274:
273:
269:
258:Non-notable per
253:
252:
238:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
34:
1640:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1622:deletion review
1615:
1476:
1448:
1440:
1436:
1434:
1408:
1393:
1385:
1381:
1379:
1347:principle that
1285:
1228:Michael Fairman
1180:
1166:
1118:
1085:Michael Fairman
1065:Daytime Royalty
1044:Washington Post
1026:
1012:
956:
932:
918:
893:
881:
867:
855:the Google test
839:
810:
796:
748:
724:
721:
718:
715:
684:
665:
597:
576:
568:
564:
562:
531:
472:
433:
425:
421:
419:
339:
304:
279:
271:
267:
265:
195:
132:
123:
90:
76:Shenell Edmonds
74:
71:
68:Shenell Edmonds
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1638:
1636:
1627:
1626:
1610:
1609:
1597:at this time.
1576:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1530:
1513:
1489:
1488:
1467:User:Cindamuse
1456:
1421:
1420:
1335:fan base or a
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1176:
1053:Soaps.SheKnows
1022:
1001:my presumption
947:cult following
928:
907:
906:
905:
877:
806:
782:
781:
780:
761:
760:
711:Andrew Lenahan
703:
702:
692:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
585:
584:
541:
540:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
463:
462:
442:
441:
411:
410:
375:
374:
373:
372:
351:
331:
330:
313:
256:
255:
192:
129:
125:AfD statistics
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1637:
1625:
1623:
1618:
1612:
1611:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1552:
1551:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1479:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1457:
1455:
1451:
1445:
1444:
1430:
1426:
1423:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1396:
1390:
1389:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1296:
1293:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1179:
1173:
1171:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1039:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1025:
1019:
1017:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
992:
986:
982:
978:
973:
969:
968:
967:
964:
963:
960:
959:
952:
948:
943:
939:
938:
937:
933:
931:
925:
923:
916:
912:
908:
904:
901:
900:
897:
896:
888:
887:
886:
882:
880:
874:
872:
865:
861:
856:
852:
851:
850:
847:
846:
843:
842:
835:
834:
829:
825:
821:
817:
816:
815:
811:
809:
803:
801:
794:
790:
786:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
759:
756:
755:
752:
751:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
727:
712:
708:
705:
704:
700:
697:
690:
688:
683:
682:
676:
673:
672:
669:
668:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
616:
615:
608:
605:
604:
601:
600:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
579:
573:
572:
557:
553:
549:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
538:
535:
534:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:Destiny Evans
511:
510:
505:
504:
499:
497:
493:
492:
483:
480:
479:
476:
475:
467:
466:
465:
464:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
430:
429:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
397:
395:
393:
391:
389:
387:
384:
380:
377:
376:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
346:
343:
342:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
311:
308:
307:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
282:
276:
275:
261:
251:
247:
244:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
201:
198:
197:Find sources:
193:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1616:
1613:
1586:
1578:
1557:
1553:
1532:
1515:
1494:
1481:
1474:
1458:
1433:
1424:
1413:
1406:
1378:
1353:common sense
1336:
1332:
1331:requires "a
1324:
1309:
1290:
1283:
1267:
1263:
1257:
1252:Soaptown USA
1251:
1242:
1231:
1221:Soap Central
1220:
1202:
1177:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1138:
1123:
1116:
1112:
1109:Soaptown USA
1097:OLTL Fanclub
1089:Soap Central
1042:
1036:
1023:
1008:
1000:
990:
988:
971:
961:
954:
929:
898:
891:
878:
844:
837:
831:
807:
784:
753:
746:
734:
714:
706:
685:
670:
663:
651:
639:
617:
602:
595:
561:
556:Couples Only
555:
551:
536:
529:
507:
503:Couples Only
502:
495:
494:
477:
470:
447:
418:
378:
353:
344:
337:
315:
302:
291:
264:
257:
245:
239:
231:
224:
218:
212:
206:
196:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1337:significant
1163:immediately
735:Couple Only
652:Couple Only
379:Speedy Keep
305:Jujutacular
222:free images
159:free images
1520:Uncle Dick
1437:RANSPORTER
1382:RANSPORTER
1345:notability
1061:TVmagasite
1009:ad hominem
626:Uncle Dick
565:RANSPORTER
422:RANSPORTER
268:RANSPORTER
54:Beeblebrox
1566:Cindamuse
1537:Cindamuse
1503:Cindamuse
770:Cindamuse
644:right now
452:Cindamuse
400:Cindamuse
362:Cindamuse
1599:Robofish
1579:Redirect
1477:Schmidt,
1409:Schmidt,
1286:Schmidt,
1119:Schmidt,
991:presumed
957:Schmidt,
894:Schmidt,
840:Schmidt,
749:Schmidt,
687:Relisted
666:Schmidt,
598:Schmidt,
532:Schmidt,
473:Schmidt,
340:Schmidt,
120:View log
46:redirect
1554:Comment
1533:Comment
1516:Comment
1495:Comment
1320:Schmidt
1193:fanbase
1159:neither
1069:Soapbox
951:fanbase
696:Spartaz
552:notable
448:Comment
354:Comment
228:WPÂ refs
216:scholar
165:WPÂ refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1595:WP:BIO
1591:WP:ENT
1587:Delete
1562:WP:ENT
1558:policy
1471:WP:ENT
1374:NOTNOW
1355:, and
1147:WP:ENT
1143:WP:GNG
987:says:
985:WP:GNG
977:WP:GNG
949:" or "
911:WP:GNG
864:WP:SPA
860:WP:ENT
820:WP:ENT
793:WP:ENT
789:WP:ENT
785:Delete
766:WP:ENT
739:WP:GNG
707:Delete
656:WP:GNG
622:WP:ENT
618:Delete
592:WP:ENT
548:WP:ENT
518:WP:ENT
383:WP:ENT
358:WP:ENT
320:Lionel
316:Delete
260:WP:ENT
200:Google
137:Google
97:delete
1585:, or
1459:Agree
1365:PAPER
1333:large
1323:that
1226:Both
1135:WP:RS
1005:WP:RS
999:, so
997:WP:RS
981:WP:RS
915:WP:RS
646:, if
243:JSTOR
204:books
180:JSTOR
141:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1603:talk
1570:talk
1541:talk
1524:talk
1507:talk
1499:list
1449:TALK
1431:. —
1429:here
1394:TALK
1268:more
1230:and
1169:Kinu
1113:must
1041:and
1015:Kinu
921:Kinu
870:Kinu
826:and
799:Kinu
774:talk
630:talk
577:TALK
546:The
498:Keep
496:Weak
456:talk
434:TALK
404:talk
366:talk
324:talk
292:Note
280:TALK
236:FENS
210:news
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1593:or
1581:to
1370:RfA
1361:IAR
1349:GNG
1329:ENT
1316:GNG
1314:or
1312:ENT
1214:ABC
1145:or
1073:ABC
722:bli
301:--
250:TWL
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
48:to
1605:)
1572:)
1543:)
1526:)
1509:)
1452:)
1441:AN
1397:)
1386:AN
1372:,
1107:,
1103:,
1099:,
1095:,
1091:,
1087:,
1083:,
1079:,
1075:,
1071:,
1067:,
1063:,
1059:,
1055:,
1051:,
776:)
745:.
725:nd
719:ar
716:St
713:-
662:.
632:)
624:.
580:)
569:AN
528:.
458:)
437:)
426:AN
406:)
368:)
326:)
298:.
283:)
272:AN
262:.
230:)
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1601:(
1568:(
1539:(
1522:(
1505:(
1446:(
1439:M
1435:T
1391:(
1384:M
1380:T
1325:a
1254:.
1178:c
1174:/
1024:c
1020:/
945:"
930:c
926:/
879:c
875:/
808:c
804:/
772:(
628:(
574:(
567:M
563:T
454:(
431:(
424:M
420:T
402:(
364:(
322:(
277:(
270:M
266:T
254:)
246:·
240:·
232:·
225:·
219:·
213:·
207:·
202:(
194:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.