1346:- already sits nicely there. That could even be trimmed because, a part from the ruling about making a film as soon as possible...which itself isn't a guarantee since they had 2 years to get this film made and the time is running out, the stuff about the two families retaining the comic book rights and the S-shield has nothing to do with this film unless explicitely stated. So that can be removed. In addition, the stuff about Superman (1978) inspiring Christopher Nolan isn't directly related to this film either. It's anecdotal, nothing more. As is the Ben Affleck stuff. It was "rumored" that he was considered for directing, not confirmed. Anyone can start a rumor. That shouldn't even be in the article. So, there really isn't anything here but some press releases on casting and potential start dates. We know nothing about the story, nothing of real substance. This does not need a "film project" tag at this time.
1860:. Nobody will search for a title like that and it will make a useless redirection title as well when it's not a film project anymore. I am not sure a common reader will look so highly on that kind of title. Second it looks just as nice as a section and no rules are being broken whatsoever so we don't need to keep debating guidelines whatsoever. I am ok with The Dark Knight Rises because at least we got the same name but to do this on some film that doesn't even have a official title name yet makes me say can't we be patient. Yes it has sources to qualify as a article but that doesn't mean it needs to be split just yet if it's just as nice looking as a section. But the article will be nice though with good editors watching it I have no doubt about that. We just need boundaries on this though. When splitting it is sometimes suggestive to do a consensus on it per
1048:
saying "redirect" is because "Superman (film project)" is not a viable search option for the average reader. BTW, people keep saying "it meets the GNG", but if you read the GNG carefully, it also says: "Knowledge is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage." - Right now, we're not actually getting substantial information. In addition, just because a topic may meet the GNG, does not mean that it automatically requires an article to itself. It's also about the amount of information being presented.
197:, which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks — there is no "sure thing" production." It continues "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." I cannot see, at this stage, given that all the information was copied verbatim from
870:. And let's face it they are a sign of desperation of one film to be a article when they are still just fine and comfortable to be a redirection to the film series article. If I was still a fan of these film projects I would have done a long time ago with what Rusted Auto Parts did. But knowing something like this (the AFD I am referring to) would happen made me snub the idea of doing so. I am sure filming is close by and I think we need to learn to be patient with that just a little bit because it's getting old. There's a reason why
1470:
announced as
Superman. The GNG says "significant coverage" and then clarifies "not simply news reports". Where is the significant coverage of this film? There isn't any. What we have are announcements for people involved and then random backstories about these people that are not a direct relation to the film itself. So, how does that meet the significant coverage aspect of the GNG? It doesn't. Having "multiple" sources does not equate to significant coverage. The GNG says that as well.
428:, if they can be superseded by the general notability guidelines? The guideline at WP:NFF deals specifically with articles like this, and the creation of these pages is in direct contravention of this. Unless there is an exceptional amount of well-sourced material that cannot be housed on subject articles, where common sense dictates that it needs a breakout article, then WP:NFF should be followed. This clearly doesn't apply here as the exact same material was used.
2029:, there will be a gazillion articles about it in gossip magazines and the trades. NFF is there for a reason: to make sure that until the movie actually starts shooting, Knowledge will not be cluttered with these rumor thingies. The FILMPROJECT folks seem to be trying to subvert this sound attitude on the grounds that possible movies which fanboys are drooling over should have articles even if they never happen. --
1323:
pages appears. Please do not be so discourteous as your reply above and suggest I "piece the puzzle from here". You have yet to produce a convincing argument for your view, which, you changed to and from "redirect" after requesting that this was not brought to AfD as you didn't want to risk deletion of the article. --
839:
For a cancelled film to be notable, I think it needs to have made a significant impact despite never being released, which I'd say is true for failed
Superman movies at large, but not for this incarnation in particular. It's just anecdotes and potential background info for a film that eventually gets made.
1073:
means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate
460:
had a very similar amount of coverage when it started so this too is also an exception. The topic alone has received enough coverage that no matter if the film is never produced that the development alone is notable. Also WP:NFF is not LAW that demands to be obeyed by its letter, it is more important
2176:
can make fanboy jokes, like redneck jokes, because I'm talking about me and mine. That said: film project articles about films that may or may not be made, are to me prime examples of the severe recentist bias which the entire
Knowledge project displays. That which is recent and American or British,
895:
I need to be clear though. An AFD is not really why I am not a big fan of it. It's more of what I said after that they are a sign of desperation.I mainly feel like a consensus needs to be done before creating these kind of articles. Because these editors that constantly AFD these kind of articles do
838:
The article is basically just a series of mentions of everybody who at some point has been involved in the project. If it gets cancelled I even doubt that all of it will be considered as one single project, but rather a number of failed attempts to make a
Superman movie within a certain time period.
2194:
Noted: You are qualified to colorfully joke about "fanboys". And while myself aware of a "recentism" tendency (usully addressed soundly by WP:NOTNEWS), I made the comment I did to address that notability is to be considered through significant coverage in reliable sources over a many-years period,
1517:
The basic notability guideline covers events (scroll down), and a film is considered an "event", just as much as a sports game is considered an "event". You have not shown significant coverage. Even doing a Google search does not show significant coverage. Again, you cannot misconstrue "significant
1469:
Threat, you cannot make assumptions like. I could easily state the alternative, that if the project was cancelled tomorrow no one would care after tomorrow and there would not be any "media onslaught". There's hardly been a "media onslaught" since the film was announced, even since Henry Cavill was
1322:
page. There are other editors who disagree with this. This is fine. This is the spirit of
Knowledge. I think we have brought this to AfD as a "test case" to see whether more clarity is needed in the guidelines and to reach a consensus as this issue comes up everytime one of these "film project"
1317:
These so-called "film project" pages are a new phenomenon. This is probably only the fifth or sixth of its kind, and so far they seem to have only been left to exist after close scrutiny in exceptional cases. My opinion (and I am not alone) is that this particular article does not pass this close
1724:
from the early rumors and guesses of 2000 until the growing coverage and confirmations of 2011.) The nominator wrote earlier that he suggests the "spirit" of WP:NFF was to avoid "opening the floodgates" on speculative articles on future films. This is a valid concern... but if an editor were to
1494:
which is not applicable here since we are not dealing with an event. As far as significant coverage is concerned they are easily available over the internet and in-print magazines and newspapers, they do exist. Again whatever faults the article currently has can fixed and the article expanded by
1167:
This seems like carefully trying to circumvent the guidelines in place in order to create an article. Let's face it this IS an article about a future film and it IS an article about a future event. And, in fact, if it is about "the development of a future film" rather than these two, then this
1337:
I'm sorry Threat, but to me titling an article "film project" instead of "film" is nothing more than a disguise of what it actually is...which is an article about a future film. Call it what you want, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck....it's a duck. The reality is, there is no
1109:
What do you mean by "since this isn't a fully blown film page, it's only wise to make exception"? It is an article about a film that has yet to enter production. Therefore a film page, and should be under the same scrutiny as anything else. I don't quite see your logic that we should be more
1047:
were granted. That, and the fact that there really is not that much information. There is a lot of initial castings, and some basic discussions of trying to get the film off the ground, that's it. Everything else is rumor. Not really screaming, "I need a page to myself". The only reason I'm not
479:
is to avoid opening the floodgates for speculative articles on future films that may or may not be made. Unfortunately the recent introduction of this "film project" concept has done just that. Editors seem to think that if they bung "(film project)" on the end of a future film, it is no longer
2077:
discussing how NFF was meant to properly prevent a flood of speculative articles on topics that did not yet have notability, and discussing a reasonable (and rare) exception to NFF for a demonstrably notable topic. While ANY article could be trimmed to three or four sentences and then stuffed
1144:
You are forgetting what film project articles really are. They are NOT articles about future films or even future events. They are article about the development of a planned film. They do not deal with future occurrences but deal with things that have already come to pass. These articles are
1805:. My opinion and conclusions, after reading the current article and reviewing its current sources, and after reviewing the many more available that have not (yet) been used to further expand this article in Knowledge's goal to increase a reader's understanding of the topic, are that
1034:
made, and that "project" was about 5 different films at any given moment. Films that had scripts, casts, directors, etc and still did not get made. Given the history of the character, there is no reason to say that this someone meets the "exception" rule that recent projects like
1092:
also goes on to give an example of tropical storms: ""Tropical Storm
Alberto (2012)" is not , even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." I think the same logic can be applied to future films.
1220:
Also according to the article, development of this particular project has been underway for over two years. There is an abundance of reliable sources on the subject. If the article fails to express this concern then there is no reason to think that it cannot be fixed by normal
2177:
no matter how ephemeral, gets an article, because you can find stories about it in gossip magazines and the like; meanwhile, entire national legislatures are neglected because you can't find something about them in a five-second Google search for
English-language sources. --
896:
make good points even though they normally are the minority. So we may need to hear there opinions first so we don't have these AFD's. Even though they aren't really bad they don't need be used on every single film project article that comes by. And I also suggest patience.
955:, so that's not really a reason to delete it. I haven't written a shorter summaary yet as I was promoting taking this article to AFD, and wanted to await the outcome of the AFD first. If this article is kept, then I or another user can write the short summary with a
996:). Like what editor TriiipleThreat stated, even if the project gets cancelled (highly unlikely now) it still has enough references to maintain a stand alone page. And since this isn't a fully blown film page, it's only wise to make exception for this as we did with
253:
So you elected to put "redirect" when you were worried there was a chance that the article would get deleted, then when you saw that someone else would argue the case for the page you changed it to "keep". Of course, you're entitled to change your mind, but...
1875:
Addressing the title "Superman (film project)" was a measure that at best merited discussion on the article's talk page, but not an AFD on what is on an article on a notable topic. But it's here now, and even in the last few hours more sources have come forward
2335:, if there is so much sourced information that a proposed target would be overburdened, a separate related article is allowed. And a note: WP:SPLIT does not mean that suitable articles be trimmed to a few sentences simply to make them mergable elsewhere.
2134:
That said, and as we look at these on a case-by-case basis, had this simply been an unexpanded stub, a proper merge and redirect would have served. Had it only been "fanboy" gossip, an outright deletion would have been in order. But neither case bears.
1393:
I'm not sure why you seem to be singling me out, but my point of view on this is clear and has remained consistent. You can hardly say that I "keep changing" my argument (which you have also called "dull"). I would however, bring your attention to
1927:. Which, actually, is what I tried to do in the first place before it was suggested to bring it to AfD. As we seem to be arguing a point of technicality, I don't think this AfD will reach a clear consensus. One thing I would like to say, is that
1943:
with guidelines for these situations, making reference to the fact that clear consensus should be sought first. I tried to do this by reverting this page to a redirect, and requesting discussion, but my actions were overruled. Any thoughts?
321:
states: "Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between
1722:
687:- the material hardly overwhelms that article. If consensus here is to keep, there needs to be a discussion on the status of NFF, because the section quoted by the nominator seems designed to discourage exactly this type of article.
162:
1029:
page, so there is no loss there. The "Superman (film project)" page just does not need to exist. The history of
Superman in film shows that these films have a hard time getting made. It took almost 2 decades for them to get
1518:
coverage" with "multiple sources", especially when I just did a quick check of two random sources and upon reading found that they were either from unreliable sources, or completely misrepresented from the original source.
2242:
Just thought I update you that the once was userspace draft is now a article incubator (even though the favor seems to be a keep anyways) The incubator is done in film style so I suppose it can be used when it's a film.
1729:
over the bar of the GNG, or suffer the fate of being axed just as might any article that failed to show notability. And I do agree that produced or not, this topic does indeed deserve being metioned in the rather large
805:. If the film for some reason gets cancelled the project will only be an anecdote and surely merged with the mother article. Which means it shouldn't have an article of its own now either, even though it's still alive.
1931:
it is deemed that there is a case for a breakout article, why are we treating these articles as anything other than a "film" page - I think these "film project" style articles are misleading. If consensus is that
823:
Not necessarily. If in the event the film is canceled there would still be enough RS coverage to warrant its own article. The article at that point would just be another article about a canceled film (which we do
2078:
somwhere else, such practice does not serve to increase a reader's understanding of the topic. Stated elsewhere but worth bringing here are several givens (that for clarity I would love to see incorporated into
2098:
allows that it "is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
506:
is the standard for all of
Knowledge. Articles that do not meet this criteria should not be kept, so I do not worry about these "floodgates". This one particular article does however have enough significant
1682:
is locatable and editable by many contributors, and a userspace does not have the same visibility to invite cooperative improvements.) Article title definitely needs to be changed to reflect that the
778:
and there is nothing about this "project" that screams it needs its own page as of right now. When they actually start filming and start releasing information about filming, then we can revisit this.
1694:. Further, the article should also be expanded and sourced to show that in order to "intentionally disguise the project during the process of filming", production used the fake "working title" of
2129:
information in an article whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur", to be reasonably placed anywhere else.
749:
as a "film project" title, in that it is generating plenty of independent RS press prior to the start of principal photography, at which point it can be changed to a film as
Avengers recently was.
1429:
on this project is extensive and I am positive that the article as is does not incorporate all of them. Whatever problems the article has can be fixed by normal editing and does not meet any of
2281:. GNG does not address the fact that the film has not commenced principal photography and should not have its own article until such time. The information currently belongs where it is in
439:
were exceptions due to the sheer volume of information that couldn't be housed on the subject page. There is nothing exceptional here that cannot be (and indeed is not already) housed on
1195:
156:
1088:
points out, "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production."
1338:
guarantee that this "project" will be anything other than that at this moment. Nothing in the history suggests that (actually, the history suggests quite the opposite). Based on
1606:
705:
is more restrictive than GNG. The question is whether or not it should be so restrictive that it disallows articles that would otherwise be kept per RS/WPN/WPV/GNG. The
123:
48:. Well argued and reasoned discussion resulting in a rough consensus that there is just enough third party coverage to justify one of those "occasional exceptions" to
1939:
this article should exist, then it is still an article on a film, albeit not as far advanced in the production process as others. It might be a good idea to update
1715:
2117:
the coverage of the future film is enduring and persistant in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with "Fanboys" and conflict with
2317:
488:
article along with all the other cancelled Superman film projects. Not sure if this is the "acid test", but it still seems the appropriate place right now. --
1958:
The use of "(film project)" in some article titles was created after some debate as a means to differentiate a title from a an article by the same name. Like
1746:
is that a topic must be considered "worthy of notice" through having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject",
2025:- per NFF. The ravenous appetites of the Hollywood bullshit machine makes sure that any time two people meet in an expensive restaurant to talk about making
1447:
Circular I know, but how about "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" as a
2316:
policy and, as a subsection of a notability guideline, is still not some ironclad and immutable rule... which is why ALL guidelines allow consideration of
2296:
1300:
It's a film project page. They have been appearing lately after the article were sourced enough to have a stand alone article. Piece the puzzle from here.
1272:
96:
91:
100:
1856:
There's the two reason's why I am not fully ok with this. One labeling it as film project is quite cheesy and never really qualifies as the best of a
1705:
1078:
was written, editors looked at this carefully, and discussed that films which had not entered production were not suitable for a stand-alone article.
1891:
project (without actually using that word). Still incubatable, but for a very short time as even more comes forward worth sharing with our readers.
1539:
83:
1172:(for which I can understand the necessity of a stand-alone page, due to the sheer depth of coverage) there has been no development to speak of. --
1084:
states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." As
629:. Claiming that they are exceptions is a dull way of making your argument. This provides enough coverage to maintain a stand alone article. as for
1644:
userfication. The user moved the redirection there after trying to create a article but instead User:-5- gets it back as a redirection because of
1701:
713:
were seen as too lenient. In the end, WPAIRCRASH was rewritten to expound GNG and WPEVENT. I think that needs to be the case with WPNFF also. -
396:
are both examples of former film projects that were successfully maintained in this way and have since transitioned to standard film articles.--
1433:. In fact the film not need be produced, if production was halted or canceled it would only create even bigger onslaught of media coverage. --
303:
Okay - so you do have a problem with that - not sure how other editors feel about not preserving the history of this discussion correctly. --
1915:
I can see that we could be getting to the stage where it could be argued that common sense dictates that this would be an exception to the
177:
1703:
1966:. If a name is unknown, it would be pretty much too soon for an actual article expect under extraordinary circumstances. In this case,
144:
1717:
1194:
at heart so that they would not intrude on either of them. To understand this you should go back read the AfD were they originated,
1199:
2293:
17:
138:
770:
film series has had a long history of not being able to get films off the ground, even when they had a cast (just look at
2309:
134:
87:
2347:
2303:
2267:
2249:
2236:
2211:
2189:
2147:
2041:
2017:
1998:
1953:
1903:
1870:
1849:
1654:
1630:
1615:
1598:
1559:
1533:
1508:
1485:
1464:
1442:
1407:
1361:
1332:
1287:
1256:
1230:
1215:
1181:
1162:
1137:
1119:
1102:
974:
937:
914:
888:
848:
833:
814:
793:
758:
741:
722:
696:
667:
614:
593:
576:
516:
497:
470:
452:
405:
354:
312:
298:
263:
210:
65:
2199:
sources available, I would quite agree that we'd have failure of the GNG and no need to consider an exception to NFF.
432:
389:
1713:
2287:
2069:
Harsh indeed (chuckle), but we must admire the least respect the intensity with which it is offered. While we are
2059:
2013:
1387:
1311:
1015:
644:
540:
279:
247:
230:
184:
2364:
2344:
2264:
2208:
2144:
1995:
1959:
1900:
1846:
36:
2363:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1626:
1594:
1504:
1438:
1226:
1211:
1158:
829:
663:
512:
466:
401:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
908:
does and there's a reason why it exists. Just being neutral about this just like what Knowledge should be. :)
1709:
1976:
1967:
1690:
1684:
1490:
Nole, you are misrepresenting WP:GNG, which makes no mention of news reports. I assume you are referring to
952:
484:. I would also suggest that if, at this stage, the film was cancelled, it would still be best placed on the
79:
71:
1738:
article without drastic elimination of content to our reader's deficit Several things need be considered:
1025:
Deletion of articles does not equate to deletion of information. All of this information is already on the
201:
and sits happily on that page, any reason why this article would justify an exception to this guideline. --
1817:
holds independent articles whose topic is an unmade film to a far higher standard than does the governing
875:
436:
393:
2092:
through it having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"
150:
2050:
2009:
1857:
1378:
1302:
1125:
1006:
993:
635:
605:
guideline fits into this. It clearly fails this, but some editors are not making reference to this. --
531:
418:
385:
270:
238:
221:
1762:
appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and
1711:
285:
Okay - Apologies if I seemed not to assume good faith. Trust you have no problem that I have restored
1699:
874:
was created and if we keep on doing so we might just as well change that rule. And also I am aware of
2337:
2257:
2201:
2184:
2137:
2036:
1988:
1893:
1839:
1719:
1648:. So after noticing I helped clean up a little. And I am sure it needs even more cleanup on the way.
844:
840:
810:
806:
589:
585:
1186:
It is exactly as I stated but you are partially correct. Film projects articles were conceived with
1949:
1725:
simply "bung" the words "film project" onto an article, that article will better darn sure have to
1679:
1622:
1590:
1555:
1500:
1460:
1434:
1403:
1328:
1283:
1252:
1222:
1207:
1177:
1154:
1133:
1115:
1098:
825:
659:
610:
508:
493:
462:
448:
397:
350:
308:
294:
259:
206:
170:
2255:
In the incubator, that fomat is fine... simply unsuitable in mainspace until the film IS a film.
2244:
1865:
1669:
1649:
1610:
909:
883:
754:
710:
59:
2232:
2118:
1528:
1480:
1356:
1244:
1187:
1146:
1089:
1081:
1058:
788:
654:. However the stage of development has no bearing here because the coverage already satisfies
556:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2324:
2282:
2095:
1924:
1755:
1735:
1734:
article... but there is simply two much decently sourced content to foist this one into the
1731:
1343:
1319:
1026:
970:
948:
933:
928:. Normally I'd say "merge" but what is in the larger article already covers what is here. -
802:
771:
737:
718:
692:
684:
485:
440:
198:
2008:- This article clearly has enough reliable sources to meet any WP:V, WPN, or GNG concerns.
1887:
The article is STILL not calling it a film... and stresses in the lede that the topic is a
2332:
2178:
2030:
1861:
1491:
1235:"In development" can mean anything though (or nothing). I'm more and more convinced that
1168:
particular article should definitely be deleted, as, unlike previous "film projects" like
882:
as well. Even though this film seems to qualify on being acceptable on the certain essay.
1707:
1538:
It also includes a link: "For notability guidelines for specific kinds of articles, see
1945:
1888:
1551:
1456:
1399:
1339:
1324:
1279:
1248:
1173:
1129:
1111:
1094:
879:
706:
651:
606:
569:
489:
444:
346:
304:
290:
255:
202:
2328:
2320:
2278:
2110:
2106:
2089:
2079:
1940:
1936:
1916:
1814:
1802:
1794:
1790:
1771:
1645:
1586:
1547:
1496:
1452:
1448:
1430:
1240:
1236:
1203:
1191:
1150:
1085:
1075:
1066:
989:
985:
959:
905:
901:
897:
871:
775:
750:
702:
683:
is really quite clear on this point, and I don't see the need to split this off from
680:
655:
630:
602:
503:
481:
476:
425:
381:
377:
318:
194:
54:
49:
2323:
if they improve the project and further a reader's understanding of a topic. It is
1318:
scrutiny against the guidelines, and should not exist outside of (in this case) the
376:
there is enough significant coverage by reliable resources of this topic to support
2228:
1818:
1582:
1543:
1519:
1471:
1426:
1347:
1049:
779:
552:
289:
and strikethrough, so as to restore the integrity of this discussion's history. --
1919:. But in circumstances like this consensus for the split should have been sought
117:
2195:
and not through last week's blurb on a fan page or gossip mag. If such were the
2224:
2167:
2126:
2088:
indicates any topic may be determined as being "worthy of notice" by it meeting
2085:
1981:
1877:
1822:
1743:
1423:
1419:
966:
929:
733:
714:
688:
1766:
or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.
1963:
1342:, there isn't this grand amount of content that cannot possibly be housed at
2223:- The project has plenty of reliable sources to indicate its notability per
2163:
562:
414:
A couple of comments to add here (some of which I have repeated elsewhere).
1678:
brief time and continue work. Yes, I read that it is userfied... but the
380:. The article can be maintained in away as not to intrude on the merit of
1971:
984:
This is absurd. Why delete all this information because "It doesn't meet
1198:. Furthermore this original film project could also have been housed at
1884:. I have just modified the lede accordingly based upon newer sources.
1376:
My argument isn't convincing to you because you keep changing yours.
1202:
but that article like this one fulfilled all the requirements set by
732:
The article has enough reliable sources to meet WPV, WPN, and GNG. -
601:
It would be interesting to see more people address how they feel the
1970:
was indeed clumsy, even though a good faith effort to disambig from
2158:
1542:". As this is a "specific kind of article", I really don't think
774:
to see for yourself). At this time, I would revert to pointing to
621:
The project is currently in production, as is other film projects
1750:
The persistance of coverage over many years meets that criteria.
709:
faced a similar issue in that its article nobility guidelines at
424:
2) What's the point of the specific notabilty guidelines such as
2357:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1620:
I had no idea that existed, which is why I feel Incubation : -->
1128:
is not a guideline, merely the view of a handful of editors. --
461:
to be intune with its spirit which we have shown can be done.--
2166:
for over 30 years now, and a person who has even committed
866:(preferrably) I am getting less of a fan of film projects
1789:
guidelines are headed with the caveat "best treated with
951:
article can easily be replaced with a shorter summary of
650:
Again to clarify the film is not in production, it is in
1196:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film)
1985:
1984:, and why I modified the article lede to indicate this.
1885:
1605:
I don't feel that's too necessary because it's already
1581:: For those proposing deletion, I propose they explore
1395:
457:
286:
113:
109:
105:
2156:
I will note for the record that I am the father of an
169:
1833:
this one has been amply qualified to be one of those
2331:
addresses how we determine a topic as notable. Per
2327:
that addresses discussion of future events, and the
1550:
as casually as some editors seem to want to do. --
1074:what Knowledge is not." I would suspect that when
633:, this is a notable film with monterous publicity.
584:Plenty of sources out there on this upcoming film.
1609:by a user who really wanted to be a part of this.
1829:this topic meets those far higher standards, and
1145:carefully worded to to reflect this. As a result
1110:lenient because it hasn't entered production. --
219:Sufficient sources to maintain stand alone page.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2367:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2073:discussing the wishes of "drooling fanboys", we
1124:Oh, and with respect to the editor(s) involved,
1065:To expand on your points, everyone keeps waving
2027:Little Bunny Foo-Foo: The Fieldmice Strike Back
421:is not a guideline, but a single point of view.
904:is not primarily referring about films. While
878:too because I started it but keep in mind of
236:P.S., you forgot to add this to the AFD log.
183:
8:
1271:Note: This debate has been included in the
2162:, the husband of a woman who has attended
1270:
2048:Quite harsh, but i respect your opinion.
1273:list of Film-related deletion discussions
1864:and AFD's would have been less likely.
1540:Category:Knowledge notability guidelines
1455:a "relevant notability guideline"? --
480:subject to the guidelines lay down in
988:. It meets several other qualities, (
475:I would suggest that the "spirit" of
7:
2227:, even if the film never gets made.
502:"Significant coverage" as stated by
1247:when the guideline was written. --
319:Knowledge:AfD#How to discuss an AfD
1813:what has been upheld here is that
24:
2082:in order to address this issue):
1980:would be proper now that we have
1643:I agree with the Incubation : -->
1974:, which is why a name change to
1962:was a response to disambig from
1809:No "floodgate" has been opened,
1431:Knowledge's reasons for deletion
1200:Avengers (comics) in other media
900:shouldn't be snuffed very much.
707:WP Aviation Accident Task Force
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1782:not" as if an ironclad rule.
1546:can be dismissed in favour of
1:
1069:about, but it also states: "
947:The duplicate content in the
1390:) 10:57 29 March 2011 (UTC)
647:) 10:47 28 March 2011 (UTC)
282:) 23:17 28 March 2011 (UTC)
250:) 10:28 28 March 2011 (UTC)
233:) 14:50 28 March 2011 (UTC)
199:Superman in film#2012 reboot
2329:general notability guideine
2062:) 11:43 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1778:not", as a caution... not "
1688:has its title confirmed as
1314:) 9:52 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1018:) 23:17 28 March 2011 (UTC)
924:in favor of the section at
543:) 10:49 28 March 2011 (UTC)
458:The Avengers (film project)
433:The Avengers (film project)
390:The Avengers (film project)
2384:
2250:15:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
2237:13:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
2212:02:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
2190:19:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2148:18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2042:14:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
2018:12:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1999:18:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1954:08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1904:01:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1871:00:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
1850:23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1655:15:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1631:15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1616:15:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1599:15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1560:14:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1534:14:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1509:14:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1486:14:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1465:14:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1443:14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1408:14:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1362:13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1333:13:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1288:08:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1257:13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1231:13:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1216:12:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1182:12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1163:12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1138:08:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1120:08:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
1103:08:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
975:23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
938:23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
915:20:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
889:19:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
849:19:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
834:19:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
815:19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
794:18:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
759:18:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
742:18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
723:18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
697:18:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
668:17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
615:15:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
594:14:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
577:13:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
517:14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
498:14:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
471:13:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
453:13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
406:13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
355:14:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
313:12:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
299:08:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
264:14:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
211:13:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
66:22:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
2348:20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
2304:00:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
2268:00:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
1960:The Hobbit (film project)
701:It's quite apparent that
268:Drop the attitude, Jack.
2360:Please do not modify it.
1801:The topic does not fail
384:. These are outlined at
32:Please do not modify it.
1968:Superman (film project)
1882:"Superman: Man Of Steel
1685:Superman (film project)
1149:and to a lesser extent
965:link in the section. -
953:Superman (film project)
868:because of these AFD's
80:Superman (film project)
72:Superman (film project)
2297:What'd I do this time?
1977:Superman: Man Of Steel
1691:Superman: Man Of Steel
1418:Fact is the amount of
437:The Hobbit (2012 film)
394:The Hobbit (2012 film)
2321:occasional exceptions
2310:WP:Notability (films)
2308:NFF, a subsection of
2125:if there is too much
1795:occasional exceptions
1153:are not applicable.--
1041:The Dark Knight Rises
1923:on the talk page at
1880:the film's title as
1721:and many, many more,
1495:normal editing, see
1770:The instruction at
1754:The instruction of
1742:The instruction of
1449:reason for deletion
2090:general notability
1239:took into account
44:The result was
2301:
2300:
1913:Further thoughts.
1837:rare exceptions.
1531:
1526:
1483:
1478:
1359:
1354:
1290:
1276:
1061:
1056:
791:
786:
575:
317:Please note that
2375:
2362:
2340:
2302:
2291:
2290:
2283:Superman in film
2260:
2247:
2204:
2187:
2181:
2140:
2055:
2053:Rusted AutoParts
2039:
2033:
2010:TheRealFennShysa
1991:
1925:Superman in film
1896:
1868:
1842:
1732:Superman in film
1652:
1613:
1529:
1524:
1520:
1481:
1476:
1472:
1427:reliable sources
1383:
1381:Rusted AutoParts
1357:
1352:
1348:
1344:Superman in film
1320:Superman in film
1307:
1305:Rusted AutoParts
1277:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1032:Superman Returns
1027:Superman in film
1011:
1009:Rusted AutoParts
964:
958:
949:Superman in film
926:Superman in film
912:
886:
803:Superman in film
789:
784:
780:
772:Superman in film
685:Superman in film
640:
638:Rusted AutoParts
574:
572:
566:
560:
555:to overcome the
536:
534:Rusted AutoParts
486:Superman in film
441:Superman in film
344:
339:
333:
329:
325:
275:
273:Rusted AutoParts
243:
241:Rusted AutoParts
226:
224:Rusted AutoParts
188:
187:
173:
121:
103:
64:
34:
2383:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2365:deletion review
2358:
2338:
2286:
2258:
2245:
2202:
2185:
2179:
2138:
2051:
2037:
2031:
1989:
1894:
1866:
1840:
1797:may apply, and
1650:
1621:userfication.--
1611:
1522:
1474:
1379:
1350:
1303:
1052:
1007:
962:
956:
910:
884:
876:WP:Film project
782:
636:
570:
564:
561:
532:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
271:
239:
222:
130:
94:
78:
75:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2381:
2379:
2370:
2369:
2353:
2352:
2351:
2350:
2294:Okay, tell me.
2271:
2270:
2240:
2239:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2131:
2130:
2113:are allowable
2099:
2093:
2064:
2063:
2045:
2044:
2020:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1889:pre-production
1853:
1852:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1623:TriiipleThreat
1602:
1601:
1591:TriiipleThreat
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1501:TriiipleThreat
1467:
1435:TriiipleThreat
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1223:TriiipleThreat
1218:
1208:TriiipleThreat
1155:TriiipleThreat
1142:
1141:
1140:
1126:WP:FILMPROJECT
1107:
1106:
1105:
1079:
1020:
1019:
994:WP:FILMPROJECT
978:
977:
941:
940:
918:
917:
892:
891:
864:Redirect/Merge
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
826:TriiipleThreat
818:
817:
796:
761:
744:
727:
726:
725:
673:
672:
671:
670:
660:TriiipleThreat
652:pre-production
618:
617:
596:
579:
545:
544:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
509:TriiipleThreat
463:TriiipleThreat
429:
422:
419:WP:FILMPROJECT
415:
409:
408:
398:TriiipleThreat
386:WP:FILMPROJECT
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
191:
190:
127:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2380:
2368:
2366:
2361:
2355:
2354:
2349:
2346:
2345:
2342:
2341:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2322:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2298:
2295:
2289:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2273:
2272:
2269:
2266:
2265:
2262:
2261:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2248:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2219:
2218:
2213:
2210:
2209:
2206:
2205:
2198:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2188:
2182:
2175:
2174:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2160:
2155:
2149:
2146:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2109:to guideline
2108:
2104:
2100:
2097:
2094:
2091:
2087:
2084:
2083:
2081:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2056:
2054:
2047:
2046:
2043:
2040:
2034:
2028:
2024:
2021:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2004:
2000:
1997:
1996:
1993:
1992:
1986:
1983:
1979:
1978:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1935:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1905:
1902:
1901:
1898:
1897:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1869:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1854:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1844:
1843:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1716:
1714:
1712:
1710:
1708:
1706:
1704:
1702:
1700:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1668:(and/or even
1667:
1664:
1663:
1656:
1653:
1647:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1585:as a healthy
1584:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1527:
1525:
1516:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1493:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1479:
1477:
1468:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1391:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1375:
1363:
1360:
1355:
1353:
1345:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1306:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1274:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1055:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
980:
979:
976:
972:
968:
961:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
920:
919:
916:
913:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
890:
887:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
857:
850:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
822:
821:
820:
819:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
795:
792:
787:
785:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
760:
756:
752:
748:
745:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
675:
674:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
646:
642:
641:
639:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
578:
573:
568:
567:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
542:
538:
537:
535:
528:
518:
514:
510:
505:
501:
500:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
478:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
459:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
423:
420:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
371:
356:
352:
348:
342:
320:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
281:
277:
276:
274:
267:
266:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
249:
245:
244:
242:
235:
234:
232:
228:
227:
225:
218:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2359:
2356:
2343:
2336:
2318:common sense
2313:
2274:
2263:
2256:
2241:
2220:
2207:
2200:
2196:
2172:
2171:
2157:
2143:
2136:
2122:
2114:
2102:
2074:
2070:
2052:
2049:
2026:
2022:
2005:
1994:
1987:
1982:verification
1975:
1933:
1928:
1920:
1912:
1899:
1892:
1881:
1845:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1810:
1806:
1798:
1791:common sense
1786:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1751:
1747:
1739:
1726:
1696:Autumn Frost
1695:
1689:
1683:
1675:
1670:
1665:
1579:Side comment
1578:
1530:(Contact me)
1521:
1482:(Contact me)
1473:
1380:
1377:
1358:(Contact me)
1349:
1304:
1301:
1269:
1169:
1070:
1060:(Contact me)
1051:
1044:
1040:
1037:The Avengers
1036:
1031:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:The Avengers
997:
981:
944:
925:
921:
867:
863:
859:
798:
790:(Contact me)
781:
767:
763:
746:
729:
676:
637:
634:
626:
623:The Avengers
622:
598:
581:
563:
548:
533:
530:
373:
343:Speedy keep"
340:
272:
269:
240:
237:
223:
220:
216:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
57:
45:
43:
31:
28:
2180:Orange Mike
2170:myself; so
2168:fan fiction
2032:Orange Mike
1934:in spite of
1858:common name
1758:is that it
1587:alternative
711:WP:AIRCRASH
507:coverage.--
328:</s: -->
157:free images
2246:Jhenderson
2127:verifiable
2119:WP:NOTNEWS
2107:exceptions
1964:The Hobbit
1946:Rob Sinden
1921:beforehand
1878:confirming
1867:Jhenderson
1651:Jhenderson
1612:Jhenderson
1583:Incubation
1552:Rob Sinden
1457:Rob Sinden
1424:verifiable
1400:Rob Sinden
1325:Rob Sinden
1280:Rob Sinden
1249:Rob Sinden
1245:WP:CRYSTAL
1221:editing.--
1188:WP:CRYSTAL
1174:Rob Sinden
1170:The Hobbit
1147:WP:CRYSTAL
1130:Rob Sinden
1112:Rob Sinden
1095:Rob Sinden
1090:WP:CRYSTAL
1082:WP:CRYSTAL
1045:The Hobbit
1002:The Hobbit
911:Jhenderson
885:Jhenderson
841:Smetanahue
807:Smetanahue
627:The Hobbit
607:Rob Sinden
586:HeartSWild
557:WP:CRYSTAL
490:Rob Sinden
445:Rob Sinden
347:Rob Sinden
330:after the
324:<s: -->
305:Rob Sinden
291:Rob Sinden
256:Rob Sinden
203:Rob Sinden
2164:MediaWest
2086:Guideline
1744:guideline
1680:incubator
1451:? Isn't
1396:this edit
559:concerns
529:I agree.
287:this edit
2339:Schmidt,
2333:WP:SPLIT
2259:Schmidt,
2203:Schmidt,
2139:Schmidt,
1990:Schmidt,
1972:Superman
1895:Schmidt,
1862:WP:Split
1841:Schmidt,
1774:states "
1764:projects
1671:Incubate
1607:userfied
1523:BIGNOLE
1492:WP:EVENT
1475:BIGNOLE
1351:BIGNOLE
1071:Presumed
1053:BIGNOLE
824:have).--
783:BIGNOLE
768:Superman
751:Jclemens
334:, as in
124:View log
55:Kubigula
2229:Rlendog
1420:notable
1340:WP:SIZE
982:Comment
945:Comment
880:WP:Worm
599:Comment
551:enough
163:WP refs
151:scholar
97:protect
92:history
2325:policy
2279:WP:NFF
2277:- per
2275:Delete
2111:WP:NFF
2101:Very,
2096:Policy
2080:WP:NFF
2023:Delete
1941:WP:NFF
1937:WP:NFF
1917:WP:NFF
1815:WP:NFF
1803:policy
1793:, and
1776:should
1772:WP:NFF
1756:policy
1674:for a
1646:WP:NFF
1548:WP:GNG
1497:WP:ATD
1453:WP:NFF
1241:WP:GNG
1237:WP:NFF
1204:WP:GNG
1192:WP:NFF
1151:WP:NFF
1086:WP:NFF
1076:WP:NFF
1067:WP:GNG
990:WP:GNG
986:WP:NFF
967:BilCat
930:J Greb
922:Delete
906:WP:NFF
902:WP:GNG
898:WP:NFF
872:WP:NFF
776:WP:NFF
766:- The
764:Delete
734:BilCat
715:BilCat
703:WP:NFF
689:BryanG
681:WP:NFF
677:Delete
656:WP:GNG
631:WP:NFF
603:WP:NFF
504:WP:GNG
482:WP:NFF
477:WP:NFF
426:WP:NFF
382:WP:NFF
378:WP:GNG
341:Delete
195:WP:NFF
193:Fails
135:Google
101:delete
50:WP:NFF
2312:, is
2285:. --
2159:otaku
2105:rare
1819:WP:NF
1544:WP:NF
1398:. --
1043:, or
801:with
799:Merge
565:Chzz
553:WP:RS
178:JSTOR
139:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
2288:JMax
2233:talk
2225:WP:N
2221:Keep
2197:only
2186:Talk
2103:VERY
2060:talk
2038:Talk
2014:talk
2006:Keep
1950:talk
1835:VERY
1823:WP:N
1821:and
1780:must
1676:VERY
1666:Keep
1627:talk
1595:talk
1556:talk
1505:talk
1461:talk
1439:talk
1422:and
1404:talk
1388:talk
1329:talk
1312:talk
1284:talk
1253:talk
1243:and
1227:talk
1212:talk
1190:and
1178:talk
1159:talk
1134:talk
1116:talk
1099:talk
1016:talk
1000:and
971:talk
960:main
934:talk
860:Keep
845:talk
830:talk
811:talk
755:talk
747:Keep
738:talk
730:Keep
719:talk
693:talk
664:talk
645:talk
611:talk
590:talk
582:Keep
549:Keep
541:talk
513:talk
494:talk
467:talk
449:talk
443:. --
435:and
402:talk
392:and
374:Keep
351:talk
345:" --
326:and
309:talk
295:talk
280:talk
260:talk
248:talk
231:talk
217:Keep
207:talk
171:FENS
145:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
60:talk
46:keep
2314:not
2183:|
2123:AND
2121:),
2075:are
2071:not
2035:|
1831:D.
1811:B.
1807:A.
1799:6.
1787:All
1784:5.
1768:4.
1752:3.
1748:2.
1740:1.
1736:SiF
1727:fly
1589:.--
1499:.--
1206:.--
862:or
679:.
658:.--
431:3)
417:1)
185:TWL
122:– (
52:.--
2235:)
2115:IF
2016:)
1952:)
1944:--
1929:if
1827:C.
1825:,
1760:is
1698:(
1629:)
1597:)
1558:)
1507:)
1463:)
1441:)
1406:)
1331:)
1286:)
1275:.
1255:)
1229:)
1214:)
1180:)
1161:)
1136:)
1118:)
1101:)
1093:--
1039:,
1004:.
992:,
973:)
963:}}
957:{{
936:)
847:)
832:)
813:)
757:)
740:)
721:)
695:)
666:)
625:,
613:)
592:)
571:►
515:)
496:)
469:)
451:)
404:)
388:.
353:)
311:)
297:)
262:)
254:--
209:)
165:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
2299:)
2292:(
2231:(
2173:I
2058:(
2012:(
1948:(
1625:(
1593:(
1554:(
1503:(
1459:(
1437:(
1402:(
1386:(
1327:(
1310:(
1282:(
1278:—
1251:(
1225:(
1210:(
1176:(
1157:(
1132:(
1114:(
1097:(
1014:(
969:(
932:(
843:(
828:(
809:(
753:(
736:(
717:(
691:(
662:(
643:(
609:(
588:(
539:(
511:(
492:(
465:(
447:(
400:(
349:(
338:▪
336:"
332:*
307:(
293:(
278:(
258:(
246:(
229:(
205:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
120:)
82:(
62:)
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.