51:. In terms of keep vs delete, there seems to be a consensus that the subject and/or the events in which he is involved are notable enough for coverage in Knowledge (XXG). However, there also seems to a consensus in favour of renaming the article and reworking it to cover the eventts rather than their alleged perpetrator. Those arguing for this make strong atrguments which I feel are backed up by our policy on biographies of living persons. In addition, looking at this from a long-term perspective that an encyclopaedia should take, should the subject be acquitted by a jury, it would seem a gross BLP violation to keep an article on him that so intricately deals with the events he is accused of being a part of, thus I am closing this discussion as
347:'s case caused a police visit to a UK editor. We are not trained journalists, and someone will make a libellous mistake. Wait until after the trial. This is far more important than simple keep/delete. If the defence claims the trial has been prejudiced and it is cancelled, someone else will have to appear in front of the judge and we're the people most likely to make a mistake. A high level Wiki policy statement is needed on cases which are subjudice. Renaming is fine in principle but won't stop someone adding back the carefully removed details.
494:'real' and acting correctly (both true) I considered his request and, specifically, that it was strongly felt that should this article remain in place then the court action could be thrown out. Now, as other media coverage has noted, there is a very serious charge against this individual and given that there is a lot of history about him in this article I concurred that in the best interests of justice it would be very much preferable if the content was removed temporarily.
1125:"Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, ... and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Currently, as someone who has merely been accused, a standalone article under the name of a living person is unacceptable.
1001:- sources like this may prejudice his trial. Although this article does not say he killed them, it is strengthening the link between him and the women. The justice system of this country is based on 'innocent until proven guilty',and the jury will be selected from the general public, who are easily swayed by the media, and a wikipedia page adds sustenance to the prosecution's case, before we even know what the evidence is.
1048:- on principle, we normally don't name articles about serial killers, particularly when they are current events. We normally name the article after the victim (ie: murder of, killing of, etc), or give it an appropriate title. However, if this series of cases prove both related and significant (they still have not found two of the three bodies), then it should be renamed. Rgds, --
388:. Knowledge (XXG) doesn't have a team of lawyers checking each article. Every line will have the crucial word "allegedly" and no speculation on whether he's a cannibal. Miss it out and Knowledge (XXG), not the newspaper is committing an offence. If he's found guily you can legally say what you like. It's not subjudice, his reputation is worthless and he can't sue.
947:- I've been working on this on Wikinews and was surprised it took some time for a WP page to appear. The media coverage has been global (though I confess I've mainly stuck with British sources) and, realistically, serial killer cases are usually notable. However, I also agree that we can't name the page after Griffiths - especially without even a conviction.
1105:
is only an alleged murderer, so that we must be careful. There are severe restrictions on what UK newspapers are allowed to print about a criminal case before there is a conviction. WP should be as circumspect. UK editors are probably subject to the same restrcitions as the press. These are designed to ensure that a person can get a fair trial.
1104:
in some form (possibly renamed). I think that other articles tend to entitled as about the murder, rather than its perpetrator (in this case alleged perpetrator). However, multiple murders are particularly notorious. This article will no doubt develop as the trial process develops. At present, he
493:
In this case, I was approached by an Police
Officer, acting on behalf of the court, that there were very strong reasons why this article (and its caches, which were being dealt with separately) should not be available for the duration of the case. After making confirmatory checks that the officer was
463:
I see no trace of UK police visiting a UK editor in the paragraph you quote. That said, it seems we have no policy about the subjudice -also because if we comply to UK restrictions on content, why shouldn't we comply with, say, China or Iran restrictions on content? Again: WP is not based in the UK,
448:
Twenty years ago, the rules were total press silence after charges and 3-6 months before the trial to give people time to forget. The internet has made that more difficult and I've seen reports of juries researching cases. Tobin was very difficult as he had a very highly publicised trial, followed
1170:
and no need to rename. Clearly has sufficient coverage to be notable and I would argue that renaming to the "event" is more of a BLP issue than making it crystal clear in the article that he is a suspect rather than convicted. If it is renamed, the article will have to be completely rewritten to
1146:
or similar; focus on the details of the killings, and keep mentions of
Griffiths to a single section (so that it can easily be updated as events progress, without the risk of inadvertently leaving harmful information lying unnoticed elsewhere in the article). I presume the police have explicitly
1222:
should be concerned about, as it repeats unproven allegations about a living person which are obviously potentially harmful to that person. We've been sidetracked this year by a handful of disruptive editors (included some admins and at least one steward) into a moral panic about poorly sourced
625:
I happen to have recently discovered that the definition of serial killer used on
Knowledge (XXG) is at least three murders for psychological gratification, over a period of more than 30 days, with a cooling off period in between them. However we should be using whatever the media is using. --
266:
sad to have to go trough theese kind of Afd processes everytime when trying to start a new crime article. Even tough itd sbout s notable case like this. World attention. attention from major news sources. etc etc. I wasnt the one who started this article so i dont know why i got the Afd
967:
article. I've no objections to the rename option, but per Ă…landĂ–land, in this particular case at this time, I'm not convinced it's the best option. As far as I'm aware, these three alleged murders are only linked through the investigation and charges against this one person. --
611:. A point here though, I'm not certain it's not actually a serial murder case. Wouldn't there have needed to have been five murders for it to be a serial murder case? That's only going to be so if the earlier cases from 1992 and the early 2000s are linked to this one.
1376:
In that case, the decision on whether or not to rename it should be decided in a move debate. Although mergers, redirects and moves are often proposed in a deletion debate, ultimately a deletion debate exists to decide whether or not to delete the article completely.
425:
on the subject -any update on this subject? It seems that even BBC doesn't take information from its archives down, so I'd lean towards keeping information (and if some juror looks on the
Internet during the trial, it's the juror's fault, not ours)
761:
because he may still yet be proven innocent. Also, the guy has garnered much attention in this country (the UK) and is therefore quite possibly notable in his own right even if the killer turns out to be someone else or is never found.
1197:. It would be easy enough to spin off a section on Griffiths-the-person (or indeed any other suspect) into a separate article if he is convicted, while keeping the main treatment of the crimes and investigation in the original article.
700:
In my opinion no merge is necessary..considering that this
Stephen Griffiths has got all the attention on him not the murders itself. Its different in other cases. But here Stephen as a person is what is of interest of the media
176:
635:
If guilty, he probably passes that definition. He has been charged with three murders and one of the women has been missing for a substantial time. As for the reason why, we're still guessing until any trial.
449:
by another a long time later. The key point though is to avoid speculative references to cannibalism, or any other assumption of guilt before the end of the trial. We don't want to become notable! Regards
736:
This would never have been even a issue had this been about an american. which is totally bias. Sad that wikipedia still is america friendly when it comes to crime articles,more than rest of the world.--
876:. The amount of media coverage of the case is vast, and there can be little doubt now to the notability. However, it's better to write articles about the murders, not the alleged murderer.
422:
233:
Because of his unusual self-christened nickname, I specifically googled "crossbow cannibal wiki" to find an article on the guy, hoping to read more without sifting through media filler. –
1147:
linked the killings - though would we need that to justify us treating them jointly, as they have obviously implicitly linked them by charging one man with the three? Maybe redirect from
1283:. No-one deemed it necessary to delete that although SluggoOne is about to. SO is trying to suggest that I am unreasonable. The evidence is there for people to make up their own minds.
1223:
articles saying "Joe Bloggs is a footballer playing for
Anytown United" rather than concentrating on the cases, such as this one, that have the potential to cause real, serious, harm.
402:
Ok, I understand. But we're not a newspaper and WP is not based in the UK. That said, I am curious to know more about the Tobin case and the UK editor. Do you have a relevant link? --
715:
I personally agree, but our policies differ. In theory I could argue too for an IAR simple keep, but renaming and creating an article about the event seems the best option. --
170:
131:
1362:
Actually yet i cant see a clear pattern that most people wont it to be renamed....The discussion should be closed as no consensus. and be kept under its current name.--
796:
1258:
The above comment was made by a user who moved Sowell's page so much it got, at my request, move protected. (The first move was to the highly inappropriate and lurid "
1452:
Considering he referred to himself as 'The
Crossbow Cannibal in court I don't think we're going to influence the ruling. I'd say keep, it's certainly notable enough.
848:
822:
513:
Ouch, I've seen -I was reading the wrong paragraph. I'd say it is a very good reason for UK editors not to get involved, but not a reason to remove the content. --
468:
reasons to comply with it. If there are possible liabilities for UK editors, we can advice editing of the article and talk page to be avoided by UK editors. --
136:
1425:
under the current name - that means determining a consensus between "delete" or finding a consensus for different focus and name for the article.
104:
99:
656:
I like this concept but we may still need to be careful. The defence may say they weren't all committed by the same person, we don't know.
1086:
637:
108:
1262:.") He has been asked more than once to go to Sowell's talk page and get consensus, so this comment constitutes inappropriate canvassing.
1017:
91:
17:
1305:
778:
1275:
I would have gone with the
Imperial Avenue Murders initially, except there was no mention of Imperial Avenue in the article. If
191:
892:
Would never have becomed any discussion about merge or rename had this been about an american serial killer. Totally biased.--
158:
532:
No probs. I would be happy if the article was edit protected until completion of the trial. I won't touch with a barge pole.
283:
If he isnt notable then no other serial killer suspect of serial killer is notable. Or do we have some
American bias here?--
607:- I don't think Griffiths himself is notable, but the case itself could be, so perhaps we need to rename it something like
1382:
1288:
1249:
881:
1330:
1190:
1476:
36:
1244:? Seem to be a similar debate, and the hoops I'm being made to jump through to edit are getting smaller all the time.
207:
As somebody who has just been charged with three murders, he is not notable at present, though he may become so. See
1410:
1367:
1067:
1031:
He currently has a really high profile in the Media and thus notability. Also he has become a famous serial killer
963:, as I commented on the article's talk page there are enough noteworthy aspects, and enough media reports, to make
897:
741:
706:
288:
272:
152:
421:
Did a bit of research; found nothing about a visit to a UK editor, but understood the point better. There is this
300:- i was going to do this page myself, but my connection was so shit I couldn't operate wikipedia properly today.
1062:
I still say keep here. This article subject has becomed ntoable in his own right. To delete seems meaningless.--
1475:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1461:
1434:
1414:
1400:
1386:
1378:
1371:
1355:
1335:
1313:
1292:
1270:
1253:
1232:
1206:
1180:
1160:
1134:
1114:
1094:
1090:
1071:
1057:
1040:
1021:
993:
972:
955:
933:
914:
901:
885:
877:
863:
837:
811:
782:
745:
729:
710:
693:
665:
645:
641:
630:
620:
583:
560:
541:
527:
508:
482:
458:
440:
416:
397:
384:
Everything! English law is very harsh on newspapers who state allegations or speculative assumptions as facts
379:
356:
336:
309:
305:
292:
276:
256:
224:
73:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1284:
1245:
148:
1430:
1396:
1322:
1130:
1110:
1013:
250:
1005:
766:
1457:
1228:
1194:
980:
Unless he turns out to be a random fantastist with matching DNA, this article is likely to remain of note
948:
907:
95:
1151:
and establish a
Stephen/Steven/Steve Griffiths disambiguation page as there are now quite a few of them.
198:
1309:
1259:
1202:
1156:
1009:
774:
616:
68:
1406:
1363:
1082:
1063:
893:
737:
702:
284:
268:
906:
I'm a Brit. I want it renamed. He hasn't been convicted; he hasn't even been tried for goodness sake.
1263:
1053:
988:
301:
220:
184:
1426:
1392:
1126:
1106:
931:
919:
I am an Italian. Living in the UK. Agree with renaming. Your conspiracy theories are nonsense. --
727:
691:
581:
558:
525:
499:
Note also the final sentence in warning not to publish material which would prejudice the trial.
480:
438:
414:
377:
758:
676:
212:
164:
1453:
1224:
1176:
859:
833:
807:
332:
87:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1419:
I have seen no policy based reasoning that suggests anything close to the BLP demand that it
1279:
is so inappropriate and lurid, it's strange that this disambiguation page refers to Rose and
208:
1351:
1198:
1152:
770:
612:
60:
56:
47:
1219:
1122:
1276:
59:
from where it can be moved to another title if consensus determines it to be appropriate.
320:
1241:
1049:
981:
661:
537:
504:
454:
393:
352:
216:
1036:
920:
716:
680:
570:
547:
514:
469:
427:
403:
366:
1172:
855:
829:
803:
325:
566:
125:
1347:
969:
627:
344:
1391:
The one thing I do NOT see here is a consensus to keep under the current name!
1280:
657:
533:
500:
450:
389:
385:
348:
1304:
seems notable enough plus he has been in media enough for own notability.--
1032:
1081:
while the trial is ongoing. At the moment he would only be notable by
565:
On second thought, maybe are we too much paranoid? I mean, BBC keeps
1346:, the support is overwhelming, who is going to go ahead and do it?
1469:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
675:
into an article about the serial murders, per TheRetroGuy and
365:
Ehm, what do we have to do with prejudice of the trial? --
1085:. Were he to be found innocent, then he's not notable.
445:
121:
117:
113:
183:
197:
1218:. This is precisely the sort of article that the
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1479:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1405:Well, neither no consensus to change the name.--
1171:focus on the murders rather than the suspect. -
423:impossibly long archived discussion from 2008
8:
797:list of England-related deletion discussions
849:list of People-related deletion discussions
843:
823:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
817:
791:
55:but will immediately move it to the title
319:Lots of ongoing news coverage, plenty of
847:: This debate has been included in the
821:: This debate has been included in the
795:: This debate has been included in the
1321:to be about the case, not the accused.
1220:policy on biographies of living people
446:Fourth paragraph, response by Alison W
569:online. Why BBC can, and we can't? --
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1189:Not necessarily - see handling of
1144:2009-2010 Bradford serial killings
24:
1341:Keep and rename Bradford murders
46:Keep and provisionally rename to
1240:. Can we widen this to include
757:per Cyclopia, TheRetroGuy and
1:
1191:Steve Wright (serial killer)
1496:
546:Me neither. Thanks. :) --
70:Penny for your thoughts?
1472:Please do not modify it.
1462:13:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1435:00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1415:23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1401:21:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1387:18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1372:18:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1356:18:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
1336:19:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1314:05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1293:02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1271:00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
1254:23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1233:20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1207:16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1181:15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
1161:17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
1135:23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1115:20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1095:20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1072:17:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1058:17:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1041:15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1022:11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
994:10:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
973:21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
956:16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
934:11:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
915:16:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
902:16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
886:15:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
864:14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
838:14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
812:14:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
783:09:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
746:16:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
730:14:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
711:14:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
694:13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
666:12:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
646:20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
631:21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
621:11:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
584:20:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
561:14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
542:14:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
528:14:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
509:13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
483:13:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
459:12:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
441:11:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
417:10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
398:09:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
380:22:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
357:20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
337:08:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
310:02:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
293:00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
277:00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
257:00:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
225:23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
74:02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
609:Bradford serial murders
1195:Ipswich serial murders
1260:Ohio House of Horrors
488:About the 14th line.
1379:Chris Neville-Smith
1285:Pistachio disguisey
1246:Pistachio disguisey
878:Chris Neville-Smith
44:The result was
1319:Rename and rework
1149:Crossbow Cannibal
1025:
1008:comment added by
951:Blood Red Sandman
910:Blood Red Sandman
866:
852:
840:
826:
814:
800:
786:
769:comment added by
88:Stephen Griffiths
80:Stephen Griffiths
1487:
1474:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1268:
1120:rename or delete
1046:Delete or Rename
1024:
1002:
986:
953:
929:
923:
912:
853:
827:
801:
785:
763:
725:
719:
689:
683:
579:
573:
556:
550:
523:
517:
478:
472:
436:
430:
412:
406:
386:ahead of a trial
375:
369:
328:
249:
246:
243:
240:
237:
202:
201:
187:
139:
129:
111:
71:
65:
57:Bradford murders
48:Bradford murders
34:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1477:deletion review
1470:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1277:House of Horror
1264:
1140:Keep but rename
1003:
982:
949:
945:Keep and rename
927:
926:
921:
908:
764:
723:
722:
717:
687:
686:
681:
577:
576:
571:
554:
553:
548:
521:
520:
515:
476:
475:
470:
434:
433:
428:
410:
409:
404:
373:
372:
367:
326:
253:
247:
244:
241:
238:
235:
144:
135:
102:
86:
83:
69:
61:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1493:
1491:
1482:
1481:
1465:
1464:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1359:
1358:
1338:
1316:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1242:Anthony Sowell
1235:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1184:
1183:
1164:
1163:
1137:
1117:
1098:
1097:
1087:91.106.120.165
1076:
1075:
1074:
1043:
1026:
996:
975:
961:Keep or rename
958:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
924:
889:
888:
867:
841:
815:
789:
788:
787:
755:Rename / merge
749:
748:
734:
733:
732:
720:
697:
696:
684:
673:Rename / merge
669:
668:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
638:91.106.120.165
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
574:
551:
530:
518:
497:
496:
490:
489:
486:
485:
473:
443:
431:
419:
407:
370:
360:
359:
339:
313:
312:
302:Andrewjlockley
295:
280:
279:
260:
259:
251:
205:
204:
141:
137:AfD statistics
82:
77:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1492:
1480:
1478:
1473:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:Active Banana
1424:
1423:
1422:cannot remain
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:Active Banana
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1339:
1337:
1334:
1326:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1300:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1145:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:Active Banana
1124:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:Peterkingiron
1103:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:Sallycarrie84
1007:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
991:
987:
985:
979:
976:
974:
971:
966:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
946:
943:
942:
935:
932:
930:
918:
917:
916:
913:
911:
905:
904:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
868:
865:
861:
857:
850:
846:
842:
839:
835:
831:
824:
820:
816:
813:
809:
805:
798:
794:
790:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
760:
756:
753:
752:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
726:
714:
713:
712:
708:
704:
699:
698:
695:
692:
690:
678:
674:
671:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
647:
643:
639:
634:
633:
632:
629:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
602:
585:
582:
580:
568:
564:
563:
562:
559:
557:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
529:
526:
524:
512:
511:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
491:
487:
484:
481:
479:
467:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
447:
444:
442:
439:
437:
424:
420:
418:
415:
413:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
382:
381:
378:
376:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
340:
338:
334:
330:
329:
322:
318:
315:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
265:
262:
261:
258:
255:
254:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
200:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
150:
147:
146:Find sources:
142:
138:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
66:
64:
58:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1471:
1468:
1454:BodvarBjarki
1449:
1421:
1420:
1342:
1340:
1318:
1301:
1265:
1237:
1225:Phil Bridger
1215:
1167:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1119:
1101:
1078:
1045:
1028:
998:
989:
983:
977:
964:
960:
950:
944:
909:
873:
869:
844:
818:
792:
754:
672:
608:
604:
492:
465:
464:so I see no
341:
324:
316:
297:
263:
234:
230:
206:
194:
188:
180:
173:
167:
161:
155:
145:
62:
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1306:195.84.41.1
1199:Barnabypage
1153:Barnabypage
1083:WP:ONEEVENT
1004:—Preceding
771:-m-i-k-e-y-
765:—Preceding
701:actually.--
613:TheRetroGuy
345:Peter Tobin
171:free images
63:HJÂ Mitchell
1407:Ă…landĂ–land
1364:Ă…landĂ–land
1343:or similar
1064:Ă…landĂ–land
984:BRIANTIST
894:Ă…landĂ–land
738:Ă…landĂ–land
703:Ă…landĂ–land
285:Ă…landĂ–land
269:Ă…landĂ–land
1281:Fred West
1050:Trident13
856:• Gene93k
830:• Gene93k
804:• Gene93k
267:notice.--
217:ColinFine
1018:contribs
1006:unsigned
779:contribs
767:unsigned
759:WP:BLP1E
677:WP:BLP1E
252:galaxies
213:WP:BLP1E
132:View log
1332:Windows
1238:Comment
1173:ukexpat
327:Lugnuts
231:Comment
209:WP:PERP
177:WPÂ refs
165:scholar
105:protect
100:history
1348:Ggoere
1324:Fences
1266:Şłџğģő
1216:Delete
1123:WP:BLP
1079:Delete
999:Delete
990:(talk)
970:zzuuzz
874:Rename
628:zzuuzz
605:Rename
342:Delete
149:Google
109:delete
1328:&
466:legal
321:WP:RS
192:JSTOR
153:books
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
1458:talk
1450:Keep
1431:talk
1411:talk
1397:talk
1383:talk
1368:talk
1352:talk
1310:talk
1302:Keep
1289:talk
1250:talk
1229:talk
1203:talk
1193:and
1177:talk
1168:Keep
1157:talk
1131:talk
1111:talk
1102:Keep
1091:talk
1068:talk
1054:talk
1037:talk
1029:Keep
1014:talk
978:Keep
965:some
922:Cycl
898:talk
882:talk
872:but
870:Keep
860:talk
845:Note
834:talk
819:Note
808:talk
793:Note
775:talk
742:talk
718:Cycl
707:talk
682:Cycl
679:. --
662:talk
658:JRPG
642:talk
617:talk
572:Cycl
567:this
549:Cycl
538:talk
534:JRPG
516:Cycl
505:talk
501:JRPG
471:Cycl
455:talk
451:JRPG
429:Cycl
405:Cycl
394:talk
390:JRPG
368:Cycl
353:talk
349:JRPG
333:talk
317:Keep
306:talk
298:Keep
289:talk
273:talk
264:Keep
221:talk
211:and
185:FENS
159:news
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
53:keep
1142:as
1033:IJA
928:pia
854:--
828:--
802:--
724:pia
688:pia
578:pia
555:pia
522:pia
477:pia
435:pia
411:pia
374:pia
242:oςc
239:αun
236:Ker
199:TWL
134:•
130:– (
1460:)
1433:)
1413:)
1399:)
1385:)
1370:)
1354:)
1312:)
1291:)
1252:)
1231:)
1205:)
1179:)
1159:)
1133:)
1113:)
1093:)
1070:)
1056:)
1039:)
1020:)
1016:•
900:)
884:)
862:)
851:.
836:)
825:.
810:)
799:.
781:)
777:•
744:)
709:)
664:)
644:)
619:)
540:)
507:)
457:)
426:--
396:)
355:)
335:)
323:.
308:)
291:)
275:)
248:ia
245:op
223:)
215:.
179:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
67:|
1456:(
1429:(
1409:(
1395:(
1381:(
1366:(
1350:(
1308:(
1287:(
1248:(
1227:(
1201:(
1175:(
1155:(
1129:(
1109:(
1089:(
1066:(
1052:(
1035:(
1012:(
925:o
896:(
880:(
858:(
832:(
806:(
773:(
740:(
721:o
705:(
685:o
660:(
640:(
615:(
575:o
552:o
536:(
519:o
503:(
474:o
453:(
432:o
408:o
392:(
371:o
351:(
331:(
304:(
287:(
271:(
219:(
203:)
195:·
189:·
181:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
151:(
143:(
140:)
128:)
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.