Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Polandball

2763:

Britain actually). And a Polish publish magazine. Also, calling it "user-generated tat" is covered by the Orlinski article which states "Każdy może zrobić własnego "Polandballa" według następującego przepisu: trzeba mieć coś do powiedzenia na temat historii lub polityki międzynarodowej i przetłumaczyć to na prosty komiks, w którym kuleczki symbolizujące różne kraje (co objawia się pomalowaniem ich na kolor flagi narodowej) rozmawiają ze sobą internetowym slangiem." This basically translates to "anyone can do their own "Polandball" according to the following provisions: you must have something to say about history or international politics, and translate it into a simple comic, in which balls, symbolising the different countries (which maninfests itself in the balls being painted in the colours of their national flag), talk to each other in online slang." If anyone can do their own Polandball, this meets "user-generated", much like the lolcat meme. The difference between your ridiculous nappy disasters is that journalists in reliable sources have actually written in detail about this meme.

2894:. Non-notable. Also, the racist Poland-bashing undercurrent is worrying (e.g. "Russians put a halt to all discussion with Poles on which country is most superior ."). Furthermore, the title is barely justified: "Polandball can also include comics on other countries, but by convention these comics are still referred to as Polandball, although the comics can also be referred to as countryballs." Ref 1 is from 2010, ref 4 is from 2012 it seems. So, surely ref 1 is too old for the fast-changing world of transient memes? Can't the main editors find a reliable source regarding the name of the article from this year? Or do such sources not exist? Oh, and ref 4 is written by someone called "Tomberry". That gives me very little hope in it being a reliable source (though it is honest in mentioning that the meme is "a surefire means to troll" Polish net users). 3860:. Secondly, Polandball most certainly permeated Internet at large - it has fans across the globe, a large number of sites and blogs and groups in social networks are devoted to the meme, it entered a number of user-generated encyclopedias - and the phrase "a very niche audience" could be applied to 99% of memes and in fact to 99% of all Knowledge articles. Thirdly, the actual meme notability is surely determined by the number of people which know it and use it, so the mechanisms of user voting at Knowyourmeme are only adding to establishing the notability. And that's likely why Knowyourmeme has all these good credentials and awards. It really is considered one of the best sources for memes. 1063:. Opinion pieces or not, does not matter as long as content is approved and edited by notable media. Anyway, it is quite obvious that memes and many other aspects of popular culture would not be covered neither by scholarly sources, nor by recent news. So we remain only with such categories as analysis / educational articles / opinion pieces / entertainment. And the article by Orliński is serious and detailed enough to be considered an educational and informational article, not an opinion piece - it conveys a quality description of what Polandball is and how it originated. 3030:

often and I am unaware if he is a scholar in sociology or social media. What I did find is that he also publishes in Polish magazine "Nie" which is described as "Nie is on the extreme left, not so much in terms of the content of its interventions but in its form. Famous for its satire, hostility toward the church, and vulgar caricatures, the weekly is comparable to the National Lampoon"(The crosses of Auschwitz: nationalism and religion in post-communist Poland, Geneviève Zubrzycki). Indeed the text by Zapałowski contains very strong language and opinions about Poles

3694:

also be called countryballs." The first part is verified from the Gazeta Wyborcza article which states "Ten rodzaju humoru nazywany jest "Polandball", nawet gdy Polska w tych historyjkach nie występuje, bo zaczęło się od kpin z Polski i polskiej flagi.", and the countryballs come from KYM which states: "(also known as Countryballs)". The article itself is written by a native English speaker (me), and it is very clearly explained in the article what the article subject is about. Honestly, if one has any doubts as to what the article explains, then take it to

101:. The "keep" opinions argue that reliable sources about the topic exist, while the "delete" side argues that there is too little reliable or significant coverage, or that it is too transient. These are all valid arguments and it is not for me to judge who is right. On that basis, the numbers prevail and I find that there is consensus to delete the article. There is also another consideration, which is not decisive but supports this outcome: The contentious nature and difficult sourcing situation of this article, as seen in this discussion and the resulting 1367:, the sources are badly researched at best. I don't know where the drawball story is from, but it's most probably just made up. I lurk the board in question and used to lurk it when Polandball came up, and there was never any mention of drawball concerning the origins (and allow me to make the unreasonable assumption that I know more about the memes of my home board than some journalist). Also, the scope of countryballs is now much broader, the comics stopped being exclusively about poland after a few months or so. -- 900:, where he writes mainly on popular culture. Polandball is clearly popularly culture. His article has been passed off above as just some oped in a newspaper, but rather it is the complete opposite. It is an article on the meme, written by a notable journalist, who's field of expertise is pop culture, and published in one of the largest Polish newspapers. It's also not an opinion piece, it is a detailed article on the actual meme. Sorry, just need to detail the mischaracterisation of sources as was done above. 2983:- transient internet meme, lasting notability has not been demonstrated. To be fair, unlike many Internet memes, I recognise that this one actually has been the subject of significant coverage from reliable sources. But that coverage was only over a brief period of time in 2010, and there's been basically nothing since then (the 2012 article only mentions it very briefly). As such, in my view it hasn't demonstrated the lasting importance that would mean it should be considered notable by our standards. 3352: 2629:. I came here expecting to advocate keeping, but the above discussion has changed my mind. When you simultaneously advocate keeping and say that it's not been covered by reliable sources, you make a very good argument for deletion. We need to remember that encyclopedias are for serious business, not fly-by-night things like this. FYI, when you have something exalting Russians and demeaning Poles, your thing definitely isn't racist; the Poles and the Russians are both Slavs. 2668:

only. Without signifcant coverage where the topic is the subject the article and covered in some depth, it just doens't meet notability guidelines. The article seems to be here to promote the meme rather than reflect it. The claim that similar doodles using other flags be called "Polandball" regardless of which country they represent is ref'd by a single published opinion piece and seems very jingoistic here. Something that should be avoided in Knowledge.

3296:. The sources in the article check out. Some commentators here have voiced the opinion, that the meme is offensive. However, since the article has Polish sources, including main Polish newspapers such as Gazeta Wyborcza, it shows the topic is appropriate even for Poles, according to the Polish authors. Also, meme subjects do not require extensive coverage in academic sources - media attention is enough, and the subject has clearly received enough of it. 1591:

Polandball is written in more neutral way. It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced. And if you take the point made by the source seriously, you should understand that the countryball cartoons are now hosted and created on multiple sites other than krautchan, so the fate of the krautchan is not really relevant here anymore.

2647:. This is my assessment of the sources. I will also release some information, that I had some assistance in translating from native Polish speakers, who confirmed for me that these are reliable sources. I got this confirmation after doing my own research on the sources. Also note the dates of the articles, in 2010, 2011. This means sustained coverage. There are likely other sources out there, but I am satisfied that there is enough already to meet 751:(For the sake of clarification: I happen to think that some of the Polandball cartoons are actually pretty funny. At the same time, the few and in between funny versions of the joke are much outnumbered by the fact that it's a kind of medium which easily lends itself to 13 year old internet morons giving vent to their racist and xenophobic stupidity. Unfortunetly most of the cartoons out there reflect that. What's next, racist offensive 1193:- Source 1 looks good and there's a reasonable chance that this is being covered as a prototype of an internet meme in Polish language sources cited in the article below that. As for memes: Do we need to have articles for them all? No. Or most of them? No. Or many of them? No. This one? It is at least close enough to give me pause. The article is sufficiently well done that it should get the benefit of the doubt, in my opinion. 89:. I therefore disregard all opinions by IP accounts or those with very few contributions and by editors who have block log entries for problematic conduct with respect to Eastern Europe, on the basis that this is the easiest way to filter out (a) opinions and walls-of-text based on nationalist prejudice and (b) some of the canvassing that in my experience takes place in this sort of dispute. I'm also discounting the 3780:, and I was wondering whether to include it on that page. However, if there is only one reliable source mentioning it, then inclusion might be problematic. Furthermore, I feel that "Know your Meme" and "Oh Internet" SHOULD be considered reliable sources, given their apparent diligence in researching memes and telling about their history. Just because users contribute to a source, should that make it unreliable? — 134: 31: 1630:'First, the notability of the article (as well is it appropriateness even for Poles) is established by articles in the top Polish newspapers 'Top Polish newspapers? Where? Only one here is Gazeta Wyborcza, and that's an opinion column. The rest are non-RS and neither top(in fact there is only one, to a local newspaper covering events and life of emigrants) by a very extreme author. 748:

sufficient status to have been picked up by reliable sources, much less any reason why the Knowledge needs to suffer any kind of embarrassment by featuring bigotry on its front page (the article has been nominated for DYK). There's been enough embarrassing SNAFUs with respect to DYK lately. This article should be deleted, never mind being featured on the front page.

1541:. We discuss here the notability of the subject of the article as established by the available sources. We should not discuss the article's creator nor his relations with any other editors on wiki. Especially when it most certainly cannot be said that the poor state of those relations was caused by the actions the article's creator alone. 2474:. If this was sufficiently notable for an English language encyclopaedia there would be reliable, non-transient English language sources for it. As it stands the only sources provided are non-English and even those are highly dubious as described above. Sources aside the only other argument I've seen for keeping it is "I've heard of it". 477:

characterise the iBan® as being directed as those evil EEMLers, when it applies just as equally to R, whose emblazoning of a cartoon lampooning Polish editors across his userpage can only reasonably be interpreted as baiting of those he is under an interaction ban with, your brain-dead defence of that action notwithstanding. ~~

3841:

article. The fact is, Polandball is only notable to a very niche audience. It has not permeated the Internet 'at large'. As Wiki cannot rely on one source, not to mention an unreliable one, this article is still clearly questionable and on the basis of argument, should be deleted. That was my original vote and I keep to it.

4035:"balls" is still known as Polandball. Saying that this is an attack page, is in effect accusing myself of gross misconduct in the article. If anyone cares to check the sources, they will see that I have taken care to make sure it doesn't attack anyone, but accurately describes what sources say. Polish sources at that! 1059:

notable than all those hundreds of thousands articles on little-known sportspeople or scientists. At least such is the reality. Then, for the meme which appeared just few years ago, this article has enough sources establishing the notability, and these sources are of decent level considering the kind of topic - and

3876:

I have to agree with doktorb here, this meme isn't as well known as its fans here seem to think. It is has its niche, Knowledge has room for nichey things, but only when there is significant coverage in that niche. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Knowyourmeme is a fine website but it is not

3401:

Knowledge is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Knowledge is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial,

3203:

has its own article, so it is notable in the Knowledge sense. Why it should not be RS I don't know and you have not explained. NIE is not used in the article. And all what we care about is whether the author is neutral and knowledgeable in the description of the subject of the article - whether he is

3033:

including "w Londynie Polacy czują się jak w Lublinie, a zachowują się jak w stodole" "Poles in London feel like in Lublin and act like in a barn" "Ze ścieków prasy polonijnej " "From sewage drain of Polish press". The article is a selection of negative stories about Poles in UK. The above suggests a

3025:

I believe that we can't base Wiki articles on other Wiki articles or Wikis-this was always my understanding of how Knowledge works. The article meanwhile is based on Lurkmore.to described as "Russian-language MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes".

2869:

Did you know that editors have been indefinitely banned for using unsourced information in articles? Everything in the article is sourced, and to reliable sources. You would be advised to stop engaging in personal attacks on myself, because accusing other editors of the things you have just done is a

1502:, given the previous relations between creator(s) of the page and Polish editors. Indeed, the creation of the article evidently cased a lot of disruption on AE and various talk pages, including highly questionable comments with regards to at least three arbitrators. Is it worth it? I do not think so. 1079:

Thanks for the reply. The thing is, it actually does matter whether they are opinion pieces or not. Generally, opinion pieces - and it's easy to see that the Orlinski source is in the "Opinie" section of the paper - are not considered reliable sources, nor are they sufficient to establish notability.

3794:

it is clear that Knowyourmeme, while includes some user-generated content, is not similar to Knowledge because it doesn't allow to edit without account and because administrators has much more say there in determining which material is notable and stays and which is not. It is not like Dramatica and

3151:

So the article is not about Poland but about countries in general? Than why not a different name? In any case, the article now focuses much on showing the meme against Poland as justified and even when using biased sources, carefully avoids mentioning that even them admit to anti-polish and negative

3029:

Point two-the second main source is an article by Zapałowski Radosław from Cooltura magazine. This magazine is very niche, and distributed in UK, it's not a major newspaper, nor is it a scholarly journal. Zapałowski Radosław's credentials are unknown. I searched for this, but he doesn't show up that

2950:

memes. Coverage and promotion are often indistinguishable. It's basically the same problem we have with every garage band that has one or two minor press mentions and references in a few blogs. Such articles are not usually created for genuine encyclopedic reasons, but for promotion. We should cover

2145:

A lot of people here seem to be plainly anti-meme. While I myself stand for inclusion of only the more notable memes to Knowledge, the attempts to block one of the most widespread memes, which is all over the Internet, from entering Knowledge, look most worrying, like a kind of censorship of certain

1905:

doesn't mean that I have breached NPOV. In fact, looking at the article right now, you will see that everything is sourced, and there's not a single problem with NPOV. In fact, I took extra care with this article to make it NPOV as it is. It also doesn't help people's causes saying it's non-notable,

1581:

First, the notability of the article (as well is it appropriateness even for Poles) is established by articles in the top Polish newspapers which were added as sources originally - and nobody disproved the relevance or appropriateness of these sources so far. The source which you site apparently was

909:

The comments above are false and they misrepresent the sources. However, since myself and the author of the comments are subject to an interaction ban I am unable to provide a fully detailed adequate comment in response - bottomline though is that these are in fact just blogs and opinion pieces, not

747:

then yeah, sure, the inclusion of a racist internet memes would be justifiable. But last I checked this is an encyclopedia not a troll site - let the troll sites do what they do, and let the online encyclopedia be an encyclopedia. There's no indication that this particular internet meme has achieved

3274:

To sum up:out of the sources used, none, besides one are notable. Only one from Gazeta Wyborcza is notable, and it is a opinion piece written by an author with rather strong views. The use of wikis to source a wiki article can't be accepted, neither the use of authors from niche magazines that have

3156:

As for Cooltura-it's hardly notable or RS. As for NIE-its hardly RS and certainly can't be used without attribution and explanation. Since the author so clearly demonstrates his specific very non-neutral views, we can't use him as neutral source that is objectively describing a meme whose primarily

3088:

OK, you've criticized one Polish source (the language of which is not very neutral but not very strong either), but there are other sources. Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way. As for the deleted part, it was simply inappropriate and not correct for

2741:

is this some sort of joke? (Apparently.) Fleeting non-notable internet meme with a 5-year olds level of drawing and wit is supposed to be of interest and encyclopaedic. Also, agree about majority of the sources being of dubious reliability (i.e. user-generated tat). Oh come on, lets have an article

2268:

Some memes are notable some aren't. If this particular one has the staying power of lulzcats or Chuck Norris jokes then in several months or a year there will be actual reliable source to document its notability. But there aren't yet. And keeping the article on the basis of what might happen in the

1516:

You have not explained how really you are related to Russia, and that's what I was asking about. Of course you do not have to do this, and even better should not do - bringing in more personal information only tends to disrupt discussions on contentious subjects. However your point that "Culturally

1141:

is not a sanction for deletion. I see enough sources to assert notability. Inclusion criteria does not require academic sources and also Google scholar is an imperfect search engine and cannot be trusted as a perfect representation of all academic research. PhD thesis coverage for any topic may not

925:

At this point I find myself in an impossible position. If I address the comments made above (which are a clear violation of an interaction ban), then I risk violating the ban myself. If I don't address them then the person who violated an interaction ban "wins". My only recourse at this point would

96:

After doing that, the headcount is: delete 16, keep 6. This means I need to decide whether any of the "keep" arguments are so strong, or any of the "delete" arguments so weak, that they prevent me from finding a consensus for deletion. That is not the case. The discussion is mostly about the number

3693:

Umm, if you read the article, you will see why it is called Polandball, even though it can also be called "countryballs". From the article it states "Polandball can also include comics on other countries, but by convention these comics are usually still referred to as Polandball, although they can

3355:

results. More pages contain this phrase as a part of an image, and more hits will be added if we count such things as "Poland can into space" and other derivatives, as well as translations to other languages. The number of 113,000 is already more than the numbers of hits got for many titles in the

3269:

You are incorrect in stating that the meme's "primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland". Except, once again, sources used in the article stated otherwise. The fact that when a source used stated such thing and was used to inform readers about it, the information was removed, while

1162:

You can't seriously be saying that there are scholarly works on this subject which have somehow been missed by google scholar. There aren't. And like I already pointed out that work from "Rzeszów University" is just some paper some undergrad wrote which happened to get put up on the internet. It's

879:

article starts off with "Ostatnia internetowa moda wyśmiewająca Polskę i naszą flagę narodową, która szerzy się w cyberprzestrzeni to kolejny dowód na stale tlący się w kręgach zachodnich elit i wśród społeczeństw ideologiczny antypolonizm. Albo nie. W każdym razie obrażamy się jako pierwsi, zanim

793:

I agree with your assessment of the lack of notability. However, the content of the jokes should not be relevant. It's simply an issue of lack of notability for me. Knowledge should not document each and every internet injoke out there. There are other sites and Wikis devoted to that. If this joke

476:

If you had paid one whit of attention when you left your ridiculous "me-too!" comment at the current AE request, you will find that the administrative community is not wholly convinced that AfD participation is an iBan® violation. Furthermore, you seem to be making a blatantly dishonest attempt to

4175:

KYM is well researched and is notable for tracking memes and writing up on them. But in this case, it is the fact that other reliable sources have independently reported on the subject that makes it notable. KYM is only used to add a couple of facts which weren't stated in the other articles, but

3417:

That's all good policies, but no point in reminding of them here. Knowledge already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases. So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources. The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument to show

2762:

Umm the sources are of good reliability. The second largest newspaper in Poland; an article on the meme written by one of their staff writers whose expertise is "mass" (or pop) culture. Another newspaper in Poland which discusses the meme. A UK published magazine on Polish culture (the largest in

1058:

has no any relevance here. My point is obvious: memes, just as some other categories of subjects (recent events; many products of popular culture, especially modern ones) tend not to be covered by scholarly sources. And that's normal and not making memes less notable - often they remain much more

3840:

I disagree. You are fitting your hope in getting this article saved to the facts. KnowYourMeme, like many websites of its kind, deals with fads and fashions. The 'justification' for each entry comes from user generated votes, some of which are generated by Facebook statuses at the bottom of each

3207:

You are incorrect in stating that the meme's "primarily purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland". The meme is popular among Poles too and its purpose is to poke fun at national stereotypes, it is simply a comics style and by now most of the cartoons are about other countries, not Poland.

3185:

The article is named "Polandball" because the term is slightly more popular than "countryball" and can be used even when there is no any Poland around. Personally, however, I could support the move of the article to "Countryball" title as I consider it more descriptive, but the available sources

3109:

Neither your description of the author seems problematic - in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions. It is not important what is his attitude towards Poles in UK, the church etc - the subject of this article is Polandball/Countryball, not Poles or

3061:

Third-intentions. Even when the article uses biased sources, they have been very selectively used. All mentions about the fact that the meme primarily tries to show Poland in negative way have been removed-although even the articles used as sources themselves contain this information in several

2667:

articles about memes have really been getting out of control and this is a prime example. This is not knowyourmeme. While some newspapers have been provided as refs here, coverage still does not meet wikipedia standards. Coverage is not in any sort of depth and mentions the concept in passing

2245:

I have already discussed the sources. I see that the school paper written by some undegrad student which people were claiming was a reliable source from "University of Rzeszow" is no longer in the article. That's a start. However, the remaining sources are not reliable either. Is this a reliable

1590:

part, because the fact that currently the article seems to focus mostly on Polandball (while in reality most of the cartoons are about other countries) is irritating some users here and misleading them. This last source indeed does not use encyclopedic language and decorum, though the section on

3933:

This is one of the strangest AFDs I've read through in a long time. We all need to take a step back and ask ourselves, why are we for or against deleting this article? Is it because we are looking to protect the honor of Poland? Russia? Memes? The discussion needs to be squarely around the

2357:. And it devotes around half of the lengthy article to the actual meme. The other two articles, both from reliable sources (one another Polish newspaper, and one another magazine) talk of memes relating to Poland, and mention Polandball explicitly as one of the two famous memes (the other being 2305:

of which large chunks are reproduced in translation in this "article" - we don't make an en.WP article out of every topic in Wojciech Orliński's GW column, and it isn't as if it featured in the news section of GW or that Wojciech Orliński has returned to the subject. At the most a redirect to a

408:

All I see there is a passing mention of and link to the DYK in broader discussion. No mention of or link to this AfD, no "please come put your input in". Just running commentary. Perhaps a small number of users poked around for a few seconds and found this, but there's really nothing there that

4034:

page, as it accurately describes the meme as written about in independent, reliable sources. It gives history of the meme, explains what the meme is about, gives examples of its usage, and also explains it isn't limited only to "Poland", but other balls, although the meme when discussing other

2186:

This is a blatant misrepresentation of sources, sorry. Two of the articles discuss Polandball in rather extensive detail, and two more give it a prominent enough place relative to the article's size. Then, Poles are not a race, and consider that many Poles are fans of these cartoons, while the

1844:

Notable sources? So the 2nd largest newspaper in Poland isn't notable enough? Another large Polish newspaper isn't notable enough? A UK-published magazine on Polish culture isn't notable enough? And a Polish magazine isn't notable enough? This is just 4 sources I found, and it is independent,

2912:

Sources need to be reliable but they do not need to be current, this is not Wikinews. Memes are by their nature transient, some will come and go without leaving sufficient mark to meet the GNG, but if this has met the GNG then it doesn't matter whether the meme is still running or not - so a

812:

Sure, there's two problems here. One is just the basic non-notability of the article itself. The other is the DYK nomination. Aside from some other issues in the background, it should be mentioned that even the place where this supposed meme supposedly originated is itself not even notable,

457:

Furthermore, none of the EEML editors should be commenting here at all, as they are all under an interaction ban with the creator of the article, Russavia. It may be that if they did not participate here the outcome might be different, possible less desirable. This is a calculated risk the

3435:"Knowledge already has hundreds and thousands articles about memes and phrases" And thousands upon thousands remain outside Knowledge. Considering the fact that for this article, we can barely find one opinion piece in RS, this suggests the fate of this article should be the same. 3351:. While the number of google hits is not a very strong argument, it might have more relevance for such topics as memes (especially given that we have some RSs and may need additional considerations to establish the notability). The phrase "Poland cannot into space" gives me 458:

Arbitration Committee took when it imposed the IBAN. If you do not like it, complain to them. It should also be noted, that as this article was nominated for DYK it would have received all the needed scrutiny, even without the participation of the editors involved in the

3181:

As for the ways memes are generally discussed, I've just described how they are generally discussed on the Internet. I have not proposed to discuss them in "not serious and not neutral" way on Knowledge, nor I have stated that this article is "not serious and not

3891:

Knowyourmeme is one of the best sources of memes available on the web, and it includes Polandball in the collection of 1200 most popular and recognized memes on the web. The number of 1200 isn't really that large and is comparable to the number of items in the

2611:

As has been so brilliantly explained above. This is not knowyourmeme, as per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot guess that a meme will become popular. Wiki is not social media. Knowledge is not a guide to the Internet. Not notable, not encyclopedic, not worthy of retention.

2264:

are essentially blogs/portals with no editorial oversight. Not reliable. There are only two POTENTIALLY reliable sources in the article, Gazeta Wyborcza and Przeglad. Both however are just opinion pieces and the second one only mentions this particular meme in

3138:-sorry we are on Knowledge, not some satirical website of poor quality. Articles here are to be presented in neutral and encyclopaedic way. Since you say that this article is not serious and not neutral, it further supports the view that it should be deleted. 3264:

Wiki has many articles on many niche publications. Existence of their articles doesn't make them RS, especially when it is a newspaper about events in UK and life of emigrants.ANd especially when they are written by authors with clearly demonstrated bias.

3275:

very biased views as objective sources of information. Or the deletion of information that informs about negative role of the meme. But as stated, you have only one source to use in this article. That hardly makes the topic notable in the first place. --

1983:

sanctions). Even if the "countryball" cartoons have become popular within a particular internet community, the choice to write an article about "Polandball" exclusively suggests that there may be a specific agenda at work here. The user has already been

4102:

The article doesn't make fun of the Polish, but rather describes the meme as per the multiple, independent, reliable sources. Also, thank you Pultusk, I noticed you are Polish and can understand that the meme is in effect satirical, yet biting, humour.

84:

The topic is an Internet meme concerning nationalist stereotypes about Poland, an Eastern European country. As experienced editors will know, Knowledge has a long history of disruptive conduct related to nationalist disputes in Eastern Europe; compare

1090:

in terms of circulation and non-mainstreamness (though at a different point in the political spectrum), which is itself probably not a reliable source overall. There's a possibility of confusion here though - before 1999 there was a magazine called

3596:

Fellows, let's be reasonable, huh? This is not the time or the place to perform some kind of a half-assed autopsy on a fish... And I'm not going to stand here and see that thing cut open and see that little Kintner boy spill out all over the dock.

1607:

I can not judge about Polish sources and leave it to Volunteer Marek and other Polish-speaking contributors, but Russian source is worse than blog. I do not mind when someone creates articles on controversial nationalistic subjects, even such as

3855:

Nope, firstly there are 4 Polish sources, and they are all quite reliable in fact - the objections such as "opinion piece" etc. are important to question reliability in the context of more serious and disputable things, but not memes. Basically

3360:(where the sourcing is often no more extensive than in this article). That's all not mentioning the hits for such terms as "Polandball", "Countryball", "Russiaball" etc. etc. (including other spellings and translations to other languages). 3070:

All the above seems to indicate that this article has been written not with the intent to inform but to prove a point, and with disregard to neutrality towards the subject or to Reliable Sources. Therefore I am keeping my vote for delete.

755:

on Knowledge's front page, simply because they may or may not be an "internet meme" some users find them humorous, and because it's "April Fools" so things which are otherwise considered obnoxious and offensive are "ok"? Whole thing is a

3512:

The discussion above has convinced me that the above is non-notable with the sources bsing either from non-reliable publications or opinion pieces. If it were genuinely encyclopedic, then some reliable English sources should exist by

2010:

Memes is a perfectly encyclopedic topic and everyone has a right to write an article about a meme if the meme is notable enough. Remember that here we should judge the merits of the article and its topic, not who created the article.

3396:

Usage, slang, and/or idiom guides. Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang (such as Klingon language, Cockney, or Leet) are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not.

880:

etatowi polonijni moraliści zapłoną świętym ogniem oburzenia. A potem, jak zwykle, spłoną ze wstydu." Translate it for yourselves, and see what is written. It would be great if people didn't mispresent sources like they have above.

3823:

in 2010 for Best Guest Star in a Web Series, nomination for Best Hosted Web Series. I should agree that Knowyourmeme, as the most professional large collection of memes on the web should be considered reliable source in this area.

1694:

Hello WR/WF user. The sourcing is solid, as has been explained above. Feigning being unconvinced by sourcing is not going to result in deletion of the article, because if it is deleted, I will file a deletion review straight away.

3807:, which means that Knowyourmeme has some standards of notability comparable to Knowledge's standards in effect. From the technical point of view, the Knowyourmeme site is very professional and it has a very good credentials - see 874:

appears to be a weekly Polish magazine as well. This article is one the subject of internet memes, and delves a little into two memes which relate to Poland---Polandball being one of those. As to accusations of racism, etc, the

2567:

Does WP do memes? Or is WP just for serious bizniz? This one isn't (yet) well known, but it does seem to have achieved notability for that niche. If we delete this, we ought to go after a whole slew of other meme articles too.

559:

arbitration case itself, but to refer to the specific group of editors who have placed under an interaction ban with Russavia by the Arbitration Committee (in another decision). We could as well call them the RU-IBAN group. --

1565:Прежде доставляющая и эпичная скатилась в очередное тинэйджерское говно в 2011 году, что, в общем, было неизбежно после потери модераторами интереса к ней и роста популярности у ололокающего быдла (да, друг мой — это о тебе). 2682:

There are two articles where "the topic is the subject the article and covered in some depth". The other two devote to the subject a notable parts of the text - certainly it is not mentioning "the concept in passing only".

2524:

Yes but the point is they don't really meet the GNG, and if this supposedly notable worldwide phenomenon really was notable there would surely be reliable sources in English (and several other languages) as well as Polish.

776:

say the opposite? You're making up the rule that they don't establish notability. Coverage at critical reviews is frequently used as a factor for the notability of films, books and works of art, so why not internet memes?

2300:

non-notable (leaving aside juvenile and racist). VolunteerMarek is correct in saying that the Polish languages sourced cited look more notable than they are, there's really only a 14 month old comment in a column by

2746:, sure it happens, lot's of toddlers do it, hey I bet there are even some lolz sites for parents dedicated to worst nappy disasters or whatever, I'm sure paediatricians have even mentioned it in articles somewhere. 2191:

cartoons are actually about other countries, not Poland, and any country could be an object of fun there. This is just a comix style which happened to originate from Poland but then grew into something bigger.

2111:. If you do not strike your comments that go against the letter and spirit of that Arbcom case, I will file an enforcement request on you, because your accusations of me being an agenda-driven editors is rich. 1110:

Opinion pieces at reliable sources are valid for establishing notability, they have always been. The only caveat for their use is that they're identified as such when used to verify information in the article.

331: 1232:- Notability as an important cultural phenomenon more than established through news articles, it seems unreasonable to expect there to be many scholarly works covering recent and specific internet culture. -- 3377:

Remembert that Wiki is not a collection of slang words, dictionary, memes etc. Also:there are thousands of words, people, titles that give results in google in thousands but are not covered by Knowledge.

2276:

I also wish to note that a lot of the "Keep" notes above appear to be along the lines of "I think it's funny and I personally heard of it, so keep" - i.e. they do not actually address Knowledge policy on

1653:

You do realize that by confirming that there are no reliable sources to use besides an online user generated Russian Wikimedia platform, you demonstrated pretty strongly how non-notable the subject is?--

4120:

Many editors are saying that WP is not knowyourmeme, and seem to be basing this on KYM being used as a reference in the article, which no-one has challenged either on the article, nor on the talk page.

2452:

this was a toughie, because the way sources are used tries very hard to make the topic legitimate. But there is barely any content worth having beyond a sentence or two in one of the meme articles. --

1327:

are not valid arguments for deletion. A topic is deemed worthy of includion in the encyclopedia if third-party reliable sources think that it's important enough to write significant content about it.

3987:

The subject is well-defined: a comics style known as Polandball, or countryball, or countryballs. You apparently mix things: "Poland" cannot be "countries", but "Polandball" can be "countryballs".

866:(one of Poland's largest web portals), so again is a reliable source. Claims that this source only mentions the subject in passing is totally wrong -- the article is discussing the meme in depth. 2120:

Russavia, perhaps instead of threatening other editors and milking this for even more drama, you might want to ask yourself if you simply misread the community's appetite for this type of thing.

1745:

The sourcing isn't solid, it's just the kind of crap journalists come up with when presented with incomplete information. Can't blame them, but they're not an encyclopedic source in this case. --

3066:( avery strange claim to make about article itself titled Polandball), which left just a cherry picked sentences to claim the Polandball meme deals with "Polish megalomania", thus justifying it. 3952:) - Polandball or countryballs? If the subject isn't defined, it's not an article. How many people will remeber Polandball in five years? Is Borat still a source of knowledge about Kasakhstan? 3402:

political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. --

1298:

Splendid example of a non-utile article about a non-utile meme with rather unfortunate connotations at best. Knowledge is supposed to at least pretend that it is restricted to articles of

725:

is an essay by a first year undergraduate student at a Polish university or something (I'm not even sure why this stuff is up on the internet) - clearly not a reliable source. Second source

2547:

simply states detailed coverage which is independent of the subject, and which are reliable. 2 Polish newspapers, 1 Polish culture magazine and 1 Polish weekly magazine more than meet GNG.

2256:

is pretty much along the same lines, another user generated "encyclopedia". Might as well allow Knowledge articles to serve as reliable sources for each other. As far as Polish sources go

3064:

article is also about countryballs, and Polandball may in fact mean other countryballs, not necessarily Poland, so this is undue weight for the lead to fix on Polan and oversimplification

1972:- I would feel better about this article if it hadn't been created by an editor who has a history of conflict with Eastern European editors (in fact, this article has become cause for 3062:

places and even acknowledge that for some the they represent anti-polish sentiment.Attempts to add this information was removed under very dubious rationale, for example let me quote

2038:

that I have written...a wide range of articles on a wild range of subjects. Are you suggesting that all of my editing here is agenda driven? What agenda would you say my expansion of

646:

Fair enough. But did you check any of the sources which show that the meme is notable? It is more than notable, and I have even used the Polish sources to establish this notability.

1016:- one of the most notable memes on the Internet. I think it would not be reasonable to expect to have tons of scholarly sources on a meme subject, and otherwise it is well-sourced. 4147:, it is well regarded as tracking and documenting internet memes -- that is it's business after all -- and is often referred to in media when the subject of internet memes arises. 910:

reliable source, and this can be easily verified. The fact that the above comments are explicitly replying to my comments is a direct violation of his interaction ban with me, per

2411:

I've expanded the lead to make it more descriptive. Now it clearly shows what Polandball is. It is discussed in a meaningful way in secondary sources - they are in the article.

141: 896:

it states "Od 1997 pracuje w "Gazecie Wyborczej", gdzie pisze głównie na tematy związane z kulturą masową." -- this states that since 1997, Orlinski has been a columnist with

93:

by Doc9871, as well as the opinions by Night of the Big Wind and Pultusk, who do not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion (i.e. notability and sourcing).

1478:"Culturally Russian user" is typically a self-description by non-Russians from the former USSR. So please better clarify what your mean, otherwise your point is misleading. 3232:

It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.

2497:

Because this is the English Knowledge, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."

1651:

It could be replaced by knowyourmeme.com with a more neutral description of the same facts, or removed at all, at the risk of leaving viable countryball facts unreferenced.

3001:

Notability isn't temporary but even with the references included, I dont see significant coverage here so notability, temporary or otherwise, has not been demonstrated.--

2339:

notability!!]]. Read our article -- it began on Krautchan.net -- Orlinski, is a Polish journalist, with a speciality in pop culture, has written an article (of which the

2094:

Yes it is relevant. Because you stated I have an agenda. Again, what exactly is my agenda? I want an answer, otherwise your entire statement is simply a personal attack.

292: 86: 1996:

them, but they were restored and remain there despite the concerns expressed. I would vote to delete the article, but I do not wish to be accused of being canvassed.

1177:

Yes I can. Not all academic works are archived on Google scholar. Academic works on this topic would more likely be published offline in Polish academic journals. --

3026:

This can't be really considered a reliable source. Knowledge never was based on its own articles or on content on other online user generated portals or media-wikis.

325: 1417: 870:

is a weekly Polish magazine, and does meet the threshold of a reliable source. This article is on the subject of internet memes, and has information on Polandball.

3418:

that a subject reported by reliable sources is notable and that we need to have an article on it in order to uphold the informational purpose of the encyclopedia.

1717: 3390:

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

682:

Probably not, because there is enough details already for a stand alone article. But thanks for that list, I'll add Polandball to it with a link to the article.

2812:, but anyone could find sources to write an attack article as "Poland's racial inferiority". Regardless of intent, the article is an attack page, for immediate 40: 3130:

I see that you haven't commented on one Wikimedia online user generated project being used to source Knowledge? Which as far as I understand is against WP:RS.

2934:

I don't see a racist undercurrent here. As the article says, the meme is used to ridicule certain jingoist attitudes and internet personae, not really Poland.

3193:

is shown in the cartoons. Note that national stereotypes are just national stereotypes, and if Polandball is poked fun at, it does not necessarily mean that

616: 2310:'s bio article would cover it, for those that want a link to his column, to which this translation adds nothing. No evidence of notable German sources in 1976: 1973: 3034:

certain bias of the author, that doesn't seem to indicate him being neutral in this issue or suitable for describing memes about Poland in neutral way.

2376:

per In ictu oculi. I learned of this discussion from Russavia's post on Jimbo's talk page. So, I guess Russavia indirectly canvassed me to come here.

1179: 1155: 1080:

So we actually DON'T have "Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers" here - we have one opinion piece from such a newspaper

722:. The article itself has some sources but none of these are reliable or notable, though that may not be obvious to non-Polish speakers. First source 413:

for days now, so your silly little note just looks like you trying to play news reporter. Sorry, sweetheart, you've been scooped. Run along, now. ~~

3698:

instead of AfD, because voting to delete something at AfD because one can't understand what is written in plain English is a bit silly in my mind.

3234:-this actually confirms how non-notable the issue is if sources can't be found. And again- Wikis can't be seriously used as source for other Wikis. 3197:

is shown in a negative light (remember also that a part of cartoons is actually illustrating some particular Poles at imageboards, such as Wojak).

2169:. The handful of opinion pieces cited as sources do not give any in depth coverage beyond a single mention of the term "Polandball" in passing. -- 3143:

As for the deleted part, it was simply inappropriate and not correct for the lede, because this article is about Polandball/countryball, and the

1720:

on Jimbo's talk, in the Zhirinovsky's section, and I saw Polandball on that page again, with your name next to it. In view of your <irony: -->

1920:

should be thrown out of the project immediately - and good riddance to you, you and your contributions are no better than a disruptive troll. _

3695: 2855:

But the attacks are unsourced. Having a ref tag in the article does not grant the article some sort of protective shield against deletion. --

2052:

Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

4158: 3720:

it is difficult to find sources in corporate media, but we still need to cover those subjects. The sourcing exceeds the level required for

3252:

Sources used in the article, biased as there, state otherwise. Of course, such information is removed, while parts criticising Poland stay.

2343:

article is about Polandball) and which was published by his employer, the second largest newspaper in Poland!!!! This my friend, is called

1775: 862:

is a weekly Polish cultural magazine published in the UK, and the article in it was republished by numerous other Polish sources, such as

2834:

Negative yes, perhaps even in poor taste. But we are not censored, we delete unsourced attack pages on sight, but this is not unsourced.

4085: 4051:, Poles can take biting satire like everyone else. Better to err on the side of inclusion than join the side of political censorship. 3514: 4132:. The beginning of the Polandball meme is credited to Falco, a Brit on /INT/, who in September 2009 created the meme using MS Paint in 3439:

As mentioned, you get thousands of phrases, people, words easily googled in thousands but which aren't on Wiki(and for good reasons).

2217:

I call yet again to discuss the merits of the subject, notability and sources, not the Knowledge users involved. Continuous breaching

1765:

to participate in this discussion? That means did you come here as a result of being asked to, or it being posted on another website?

1746: 1398: 1368: 1716:, where you created the same nonsense. I saw a post about this on Wikipediocracy days ago and wasn't interested. Today, Fæ linked to 995:"Named sources" =/ "reliable sources". The "Polish newspaper article" is an opinion piece which merely mentions the thing in passing. 4221: 150: 3157:

purpose is spreading a negative image of Poland. In any case the meme is hardly notable nor encyclopaedic to be included in Wiki.--

1142:

necessarily be indexed in Google Scholar particularly if the publication is on paper-only with no internet presence. Also there is

435:

is here, with more people involved in related discussions), as well as Wikipediaforum or Wikipediareview editors here (at least 4

1567:

That was said about "/INT/ board". "Epic shit"? "ололокающего быдла"? No, this is something we do not want in English wikipedia.

180: 3896:. In addition we have 4 Polish sources. Really, for a meme that's enough, and sorry for the type of argument, but it seems that 431:

article has seen recently (with at least 3 from WF/WR), and note sheer numbers of known EEML editors here (at least 4, and even

4018: 2503:

is an invalid deletion argument. If the available sources for this article meet the GNG in any language then it meets the GNG.

1385:

The article already mentions the fact that it has generalized to 'countryball', though it is still referred to as 'Polandball'.

583: 546: 482: 418: 17: 3612: 3152:

aspects of portrayal of Poland in the meme. Again showing that this article from the start was not fulfilling Wiki criteria.

2963: 1861: 1734: 1683: 842:

In relation to the above comments about unreliable sources, ignoring irrelevant rants, the following needs to be made known.

696:. There is not a single reliable source in the article. Just click the " news · books · scholar · JSTOR " links above. News: 265: 260: 2393:

per 'you what?' - I've read the article several times, and still not figured out what the subject is supposed to be, beyond

734:

is an opinion piece in a newspaper. Opinion pieces are not reliable sources nor are they sufficient to establish notability.

3602: 2187:

authors of at least some of the sources used in the article do not necessarily find the meme offensive. Also, most of the

2125: 2085: 2001: 1621: 1572: 1507: 1469: 269: 346: 4157:

KYM isn't exactly known for being well researched, at least they seem to have fixed their entry on Spurdo Spärde now. --

2540: 717: 537:

urope. And if we are to discount editors who have been involved in this topic area in the past, we should probably kick

313: 2920: 2841: 2510: 1036:

You can "expect" to have tons of scholarly sources all you want, but until they actually exist, it's not notable. See

795: 252: 166: 2397:

Or possibly stuff that doesn't. Is this discussed in a meaningful way in secondary sources? Who knows? Who cares?...

1086:

isn't a "top level Polish newspaper" anyway, it's more comparable, though with different politics, to something like

2543:

relies only on Russian sources, with the exception of one English source which gives information on the special op.

4013: 665: 579: 542: 478: 414: 4180:, because it lacks details, independent coverage by reliable sources; Polandball however does have such coverage. 2720: 2717: 2261: 851: 732: 729: 139:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

4203: 4162: 3897: 3448: 3407: 3320: 3280: 3162: 3076: 1658: 1275: 388: 69: 46: 728:

is simply a Polish blog. Who the hell cares? Third source (Przeglad) is another blog/opinion piece. Next source

541:

ass (ha-ha) to the curb as well, given the fact that you have been R's wingman on more than a few occasions. ~~

3598: 3227: 3175: 3049:

through the biases in order to come up with a NPOV, and that requires triangulation from multiple sources. —

3041:, many of our articles on subjects, such as Popes of certain time periods, rely on biased sources, such as the 2121: 2081: 1997: 1617: 1568: 1503: 1465: 1324: 2252:? That's a "MediaWiki-powered online encyclopedia focused on Internet subcultures, folklore, and memes". This 926:

be to file an Arbitration Enforcement request against the user but I hope that it doesn't have to get to that.

3816: 3802: 3518: 3357: 2699:

Can you be more specific? Which 2 articles do you feel demonstrate the notability of this topic and how? --

2319: 697: 307: 1609: 3444: 3403: 3316: 3276: 3158: 3072: 2915: 2836: 2573: 2505: 2402: 2061: 1929: 1888: 1750: 1654: 1402: 1372: 1271: 1143: 744: 723: 212: 2938: 2311: 2076:, or that you are not a prolific editor. Sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not sure why you ask about 1713: 1389: 983: 4199: 3939: 3882: 3755: 3729: 3620: 3463:

Only the most notable of the notable. As of now, I think we have too many of these articles as it is. --

3339: 3301: 3270:

information justifying the meme stayed, does suggest that the article was not written with NPOV in view.

3006: 2860: 2743: 2704: 2673: 2270: 1902: 1495: 565: 467: 396: 65: 2035: 1213:- Polandball is a well known meme all over the internet. Even I have heard of it before the article. -- 1150: 303: 4184: 4166: 4151: 4107: 4097: 4079: 4060: 4039: 4025: 3998: 3982: 3961: 3943: 3915: 3886: 3871: 3850: 3835: 3785: 3759: 3733: 3702: 3688: 3670: 3654: 3624: 3606: 3585: 3566: 3541: 3522: 3498: 3472: 3452: 3429: 3411: 3371: 3343: 3324: 3305: 3284: 3219: 3166: 3121: 3104: 3080: 3054: 3010: 2992: 2969: 2941: 2929: 2903: 2878: 2864: 2850: 2825: 2767: 2757: 2733: 2708: 2694: 2677: 2655: 2638: 2621: 2601: 2577: 2551: 2534: 2519: 2483: 2458: 2440: 2422: 2406: 2385: 2365: 2323: 2286: 2250: 2236: 2203: 2178: 2157: 2129: 2115: 2098: 2089: 2066: 2046: 2022: 2005: 1958: 1934: 1910: 1893: 1839: 1814: 1782: 1769: 1754: 1740: 1699: 1689: 1662: 1625: 1612:

by the same editor. But that particular page does not qualify as encyclopedic content, not mentioning

1602: 1576: 1560: 1552: 1528: 1511: 1489: 1473: 1431: 1406: 1392: 1376: 1359: 1336: 1311: 1288: 1279: 1260: 1241: 1222: 1202: 1172: 1120: 1105: 1074: 1049: 1027: 1004: 986: 963: 949: 935: 904: 884: 830: 807: 786: 765: 686: 677: 650: 641: 623: 587: 569: 550: 486: 471: 450: 422: 400: 375: 117: 4093: 4075: 3747: 3494: 3468: 3038: 2748: 2597: 2585: 2307: 2302: 2278: 1849: 1835: 1332: 1218: 1164: 1116: 1097: 1041: 996: 955: 945: 927: 847: 822: 803: 782: 757: 673: 637: 615:. This nomination seems to be an attempt to keep the article from appearing at DYK on 1 April as per 432: 371: 196: 170: 3239:

but the available sources clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" too

3093:

doesn't deal with Poland alone and pokes fun at national stereotypes related to multiple countries.

1992:

on their userpage that could be interpreted as anti-Polish. Another ArbCom member went so far as to

3935: 3878: 3846: 3751: 3616: 3297: 3002: 2856: 2700: 2669: 2617: 2358: 1237: 940:

Well, you two have stated your views. We can allow for other people to judge the your positions. --

773: 339: 155: 90: 3552: 1251:. Well-written article on a notable cultural phenomenon with ample coverage in secondary sources. 353: 3996: 3913: 3869: 3833: 3717: 3668: 3583: 3571: 3539: 3478: 3427: 3369: 3217: 3119: 3102: 2988: 2958: 2899: 2871: 2731: 2692: 2420: 2315: 2234: 2201: 2155: 2108: 2104: 2020: 1956: 1857: 1729: 1678: 1600: 1550: 1526: 1487: 1256: 1072: 1025: 704: 448: 428: 202: 133: 2951:

memes when they have unquestionably become part of Internet culture – without Knowledge's help.

1087: 893: 4088:

is a valid argument if the only opposition for the article comes from it making fun of Polish.

3315:

There is only one editorial piece in major newspaper and that's it. Hardly "media attention".--

1801:

Um -- how many folks will you convince with this sort of argument? All you show so far is that

920:

make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Knowledge, whether directly or indirectly;

4124:

KYM is only used to reference part of this statement (part referenced to KYM marked in bold):

4056: 3559: 2821: 2634: 2569: 2530: 2479: 2398: 2053: 1945:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Knowledge. Comment on content, not on the contributor

1921: 1880: 1810: 1762: 1539:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Knowledge. Comment on content, not on the contributor

1427: 1320: 1307: 1198: 1055: 1037: 384: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4198:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

4134:

an apolitical way to troll Wojak, a Pole on the same board who contributes in broken English

4031: 3978: 3725: 3482: 3335: 2361:). And you want to redirect this article to Orlinski's article? Your arguments are invalid. 2039: 1916:

You are a constant NPOV violator - you and anyone who is enabling or supporting you such as

561: 463: 392: 4140:

The rest of that sentence is references to two reliable sources (both Polish newspapers).

4089: 4071: 3957: 3684: 3650: 3527: 3490: 3464: 2593: 2500: 2492: 2471: 2436: 2381: 1831: 1499: 1328: 1214: 1112: 941: 897: 843: 799: 778: 752: 669: 633: 367: 256: 3485:

are relevant as arguments against that view - the inclusion criteria for articles is the

3154:

in fact you show that he is an established journalist writing in several notable editions

2351:

article (Cooltura being Polish for CULTURE), is even titled something along the lines of

1397:

Yes, but it's a bit hard to keep up with current usage if you have to cite news items. --

1054:

Forgot to answer you before, VM. Apparently you have plainly misunderstood what I wrote.

3967: 319: 3901: 3893: 3842: 3110:

Poland. It is important only whether the author is correctly covering the meme itself.

2935: 2813: 2613: 2467: 1980: 1613: 1464:. Honestly, I do not think this has anything to do with creating encyclopedic content. 1386: 1355: 1233: 980: 911: 714: 459: 108: 1449: 4215: 4181: 4148: 4104: 4036: 3988: 3905: 3861: 3825: 3820: 3781: 3699: 3660: 3575: 3531: 3486: 3419: 3398: 3393: 3386: 3361: 3209: 3111: 3094: 3050: 2984: 2953: 2895: 2875: 2764: 2723: 2684: 2652: 2648: 2589: 2548: 2544: 2412: 2362: 2226: 2218: 2193: 2174: 2147: 2112: 2095: 2073: 2043: 2031: 2012: 1948: 1940: 1917: 1907: 1879:

for repeated violations of NPOV contributions - Non-notable internet injoke or meme.

1876: 1853: 1779: 1766: 1724: 1696: 1673: 1592: 1542: 1534: 1518: 1479: 1285: 1252: 1064: 1017: 901: 881: 814: 683: 647: 620: 612: 514: 440: 3460:"So these are perfectly encyclopedic topics, of course if we have reliable sources." 3136:

Also, memes is such a topic that is rarely discussed in 100% neutral and serious way

2257: 726: 4177: 4172: 4144: 4052: 3808: 3791: 3659:

This is about interchangeable names of a comic style, not about maths definitions.

3230:'So let me quote you regarding the use of another wiki project to source Knowledge: 2817: 2809: 2630: 2526: 2475: 2454: 2253: 2166: 1806: 1423: 1303: 1194: 1138: 1061:

what we have is Polish (sic!) newspaper articles in the top-level Polish newspapers

855: 608: 363: 230: 218: 186: 102: 1163:

not a scholarly paper at all. There's not a single reliable source in the article.

286: 3900:

with a similar level of sourcing or with less Google hits than Polandball in the

3790:

Well, after having done some research I must agree with you. From description at

2800:. The article is such an obvious insult to people from Poland, as in the phrase " 165:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

3974: 3777: 3743: 867: 740: 105:

request, is likely to produce continued disputes and disruption if it is kept.

98: 1778:

on the new Wikipediareview offshoot. His reason for the above is not credible.

3953: 3721: 3680: 3646: 2432: 2377: 2336: 2222: 863: 818: 248: 123: 2808:) or "focuses on Polish megalomania" (4th paragraph). Also, sources seem non- 979:- numerous sources have been provided, including Polish newspaper articles. 3241:

Google gives results for thousands of terms and things that aren't on Wiki.

1517:

Russian user" finds the picture on Russia offensive remains highly dubious.

1350: 3226:'I have commented on the usage of the Russian source above in my answer to 3186:

clearly prefer "Polandball" and google gives more hits to "Polandball" too.

2225:

and trying to bring personal issues on talk is only disrupting discussion.

922:. Note that none of my comments referenced anything but the article itself. 4136:, after which Polandball cartoons were enthusiastically drawn by Russians. 3174:

I have commented on the usage of the Russian source above in my answer to

2722:. The other two allocate at least one para to the discussion of the meme. 1270:.Badly written. No-notable fringe term. Sources not confirming to WP:RS.-- 3256: 3200: 2348: 2170: 859: 821:. This is scraping the bottom of some internet barrel for sake of "lulz". 3934:

subjet of the article and the sources that are available, nothing else.

3089:

the lede, because this article is about Polandball/countryball, and the

2247: 2077: 517:

that there is still behind-the-scenes collusion going on there. Former

2034:

and that this article is the only thing I have ever written. Hmmmmmm.

3031: 2165:, not notable. Racist and clearly offensive given the ruckus over at 4176:

which are somewhat needed. I would never have written an article on

3858:

the sources fail criteria for scholarly sources but are OK otherwise

1722:, I thought I'd have a look, and it's basically more of the same. -- 1457: 914:

which states that a user under an interaction ban is not allowed to

4128:

Krautchan.net is a German-language imageboard whose /INT/ board is

3966:

Clearly the answer to at least one your questions is - Yes. - see

1095:

which was significant, but these are essentially different papers)

3801:

which is not much more than the number of memes in the Knowledge

1901:

Every article I write on WP is done in an NPOV way. Just because

1718:

Knowledge:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#Zhirinovsky.27s_ass

4192:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3812: 3796: 2802:

cyberwar between Polish Internet users and the rest of the world

2495:

does not say that we require English language sources. It says "

2395:

stuff posted on the internet which uses the phrase 'Polandball'

1616:

at AE, ANI and other pages related to creation of this article.

1454:

which I, as a culturally Russian user, consider highly offensive

556: 439:), and that most of those are among the most commenting here... 1974:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Russavia arbitration

1845:

in-depth coverage. Please tell us, what is a "notable source"?

3399:

Knowledge:NOT#Knowledge is not a soapbox or means of promotion

409:

indicates clear canvassing. Furthermore, the article has been

128: 25: 3437:

The number of google hits can serve as an additional argument

3259:

has its own article, so it is notable in the Knowledge sense"

3045:

of 1913, which has a pre-Vatican-II Catholic POV. We need to

3022:-Contrary to what may seen the sources are not that reliable. 1448:. Plot thickens. First, it was only Polish ball, then it was 427:

Well, consider a similar sudden incoming of editors that the

1977:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba requests

159:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1461: 3776:

I came here because Polandball is an obvious example of a

1774:

It is my belief, Jayen446 as arrived here as a result of

3948:

I have asked sevaral times - what the article is about (

3877:

the slam dunk of notability being painted in this AFD.--

772:

If opinion pieces can not be reliable sources, why does

3063: 2805: 2788:

This section for edit by small or mobile-phone browsers

2644: 2331: 2080:- is it relevant to the article under discussion here? 1993: 1989: 1985: 1671:

per Volunteer Marek. Unconvinced by the sourcing here.

703:

results, which are forum comments or unrelated. Books:

410: 282: 278: 274: 794:

had reached the level of notability as, say the song "

731:

is also a blog which mentions the subject in passing.

362:

Non-notable internet injoke or meme. Knowledge is not

338: 97:

and quality of sources that could make the topic pass

1149:

that is most curious and is prepared by someone from

871: 529:

uropean topics. Last I checked, Poland was indeed in

3189:

The text of the article shows well enough how Poland

1494:

Just to clarify, I think this article qualify as an

858:

guideline. The article discusses the meme in depth.

3950:

Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs

3639:

Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs

2913:reference from 2010 is perfectly OK for wikipedia. 2429:

Polandball, also known collectively as countryballs

2345:

in-depth, independent coverage by a reliable source

2109:

Knowledge:DIGWUREN#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

3970:Borat anthem stuns Kazakh gold medallist in Kuwait 2072:Russavia, I did not mean to imply that you are an 1721:wonderful work on Zhirinovsky's ass</irony: --> 2431:so I still don't know what the article is about. 1284:Badly written vote. **Non-notable. **Conforming. 366:. We do not have to document each and every one. 87:Knowledge:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe 72:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4206:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3742:The level of sourcing required is determined by 3489:which is applied independently to each article. 850:is one of the newspapers regular columnists. So 4126: 3392:Additional guidelines connected to the issue: 1302:encyclopedic value - which this, alas, fails. 607:The article is clearly referenced to numerous 578:want to be throwing around ArbCom context? ~~ 2103:Also Delicious Carbuncle, please be aware of 1561:one of sources currently used in this article 1418:list of Internet-related deletion discussions 352: 179:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 149:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 8: 3795:other such sites - currently they have just 3020:Comment regarding my delete vote and sources 1416:Note: This debate has been included in the 1348:, good deal of secondary source coverage. — 617:Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Polandball 555:EEML here is used not as a reference to the 3441:that a subject reported by reliable sources 3394:Knowledge:NOT#Knowledge is not a dictionary 3204:non-neutral in other ways is not important. 798:" then I would have no problems with it. -- 3443:Except here we aren't dealing with one. -- 1830:internet meme not enough notable sources-- 1415: 153:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 1712:unconvinced, as are the guys over in the 509:EEML is dead and gone, unless you have a 3811:: "among the 50 Best Websites of 2009" ( 3334:. Hardly any coverage, and not notable. 632:I was unaware of any DYK nominations. -- 173:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 4130:frequented by English-speaking netizens 3973:. Perhaps the answer to both is yes.-- 3643:One, also known collectively as numbers 2030:You seem to be suggesting that I am an 45:For an explanation of the process, see 3696:Knowledge:Reference desk/Entertainment 2353:Now they make fun of us with...ballls 7: 3968:BBC Middle East News 23 March 2012, 668:with Polandball being a redirect. -- 2312:the parallel AfD discussion at de.w 846:is a leading Polish newspaper, and 664:- Alternatively, it could fit into 513:of lot of evidence to back up your 3716:– Notable Internet meme. Like all 3246:it does not necessarily mean that 391:on an external Internet forum. -- 41:deletion review on 2014 November 1 24: 2105:Knowledge:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned 521:ML members edit mainly on, well, 2779:Section break for small browsers 2249:? What is it, actually? Or this 916:reply to editor Y in discussions 383:– This discussion may have been 132: 29: 1906:when I have shown above it is. 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 4070:: Main issue is notability. -- 3613:Non sequitur (literary device) 1: 3815:), the best website of 2009 ( 3679:so why this name?. OR or POV? 2539:Not necessarily. For example 1563:. It tells in 1st paragraph: 169:on the part of others and to 4086:WP:Knowledge is not censored 3250:is shown in a negative light 2541:Dmitry Gennadyevich Medvedev 2804:" (2nd sentence, revision: 1582:added later to support the 1159:16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 4238: 4030:This is definitely not an 3760:18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 3734:04:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 3671:14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3655:08:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3625:17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3607:14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3586:14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3567:04:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3542:14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC) 3523:23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 3473:05:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 3453:23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3430:23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3412:23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3372:22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3344:22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3325:20:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3306:20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3285:23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3220:22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3167:21:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3122:20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3105:20:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3081:19:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 3011:17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2993:16:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2970:17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2942:16:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2930:16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2904:14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2879:05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 2865:19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2851:16:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2826:13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2798:SNOW Delete as attack page 2758:11:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC) 2734:20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2709:15:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2695:12:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2678:11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2656:11:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2639:11:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2622:11:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2602:11:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2578:09:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2520:11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2484:09:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2459:08:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2423:12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2407:04:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2386:04:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2366:05:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 2324:03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2287:06:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 2237:20:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2204:20:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2179:20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2158:19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2130:12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 2116:05:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 2099:05:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 2090:20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2067:19:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2047:19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2023:19:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 2006:19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1959:19:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1935:19:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1911:19:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1894:19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1840:18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1815:19:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1783:18:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1770:16:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1755:00:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 1741:17:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1700:16:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1690:16:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1663:22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 1626:14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 1603:22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1577:21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1553:20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1529:20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1512:20:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1490:19:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1474:15:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1432:14:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1407:15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1393:13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1377:13:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1360:05:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1337:11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1312:22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1289:14:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1280:20:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1261:20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1242:18:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1223:18:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1203:17:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1173:16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1106:09:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC) 1075:20:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 1050:13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1028:12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 1005:13:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 987:10:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 964:08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 950:08:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 936:07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 905:07:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 885:06:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 831:06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 808:06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 766:05:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 687:05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 678:05:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 666:List of Internet phenomena 651:05:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 642:05:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 624:04:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 376:04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 4185:11:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4167:10:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4152:23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 4108:11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4098:06:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4080:19:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 4061:19:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 4040:11:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 4026:16:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3999:16:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3983:16:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3962:14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3944:14:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3916:16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3887:14:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3872:11:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3851:10:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3836:10:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3805:(including subcategories) 3786:19:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 3703:11:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 3689:06:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3499:12:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 3313:media attention is enough 3055:19:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC) 3037:At the risk of breaching 2946:Knowledge can be used to 2768:12:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 2643:Nyttend, please refer to 2552:11:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 2535:11:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 2441:12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 1875:- and indefinitely block 1183:18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 1121:13:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 787:12:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 588:18:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 570:17:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 551:17:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 487:18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 472:17:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 451:14:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 423:06:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 401:22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC) 118:21:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC) 47:Knowledge:Deletion review 4222:Pages at deletion review 4195:Please do not modify it. 3809:Knowyourmeme#Recognition 3228:User:My very best wishes 3176:User:My very best wishes 2427:Not true, the lead says 1899:Your argument is invalid 1761:Also Jayen466, were you 1462:something very different 1456:), and finally, we have 709:relevant links. Scholar 61:Please do not modify it. 3817:The Winnipeg Free Press 3803:Category:Internet memes 3358:Category:Internet memes 2870:bannable offense under 1714:AfD on German Knowledge 211:; accounts blocked for 181:single-purpose accounts 151:policies and guidelines 4138: 745:Encyclopedia Dramatica 739:Now, if Knowledge was 611:, so it easily passes 4015:Night of the Big Wind 3043:Catholic Encyclopedia 2036:Here's a few articles 1708:being unconvinced, I 1610:Georgia for Georgians 580:Lothar von Richthofen 574:Do you—of all people— 543:Lothar von Richthofen 479:Lothar von Richthofen 415:Lothar von Richthofen 3792:Knowyourmeme#Website 2584:Arguments to avoid: 1460:, but "Britball" is 894:pl:Wojciech Orliński 854:more than means our 817:simply redirects to 515:seeming insinuations 433:User:Hodja Nasreddin 4171:According to other 3599:Anthony J Pintglass 2122:Delicious carbuncle 2082:Delicious carbuncle 1998:Delicious carbuncle 1618:My very best wishes 1569:My very best wishes 1504:My very best wishes 1466:My very best wishes 1180:A Certain White Cat 1156:A Certain White Cat 163:by counting votes. 142:not a majority vote 4178:Argentina is white 4012:as an attackpage. 3898:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST 3718:Internet phenomena 3387:Knowledge:NOT#INFO 2744:Pooing in the bath 1979:relating to prior 1559:Fine, let's quote 1458:a Britball cartoon 1151:Rzeszów University 77:The result was 3641:in another words 2308:Wojciech Orliński 2303:Wojciech Orliński 2269:future is simply 1994:=483716597 remove 1903:you don't like it 1866: 1852:comment added by 1434: 1421: 1325:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC 1182: 1158: 1096: 892:If one refers to 848:Wojciech Orliński 429:Zhirinovsky's ass 244: 243: 240: 167:assume good faith 116: 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 4229: 4197: 4173:reliable sources 4016: 3994: 3991: 3911: 3908: 3867: 3864: 3831: 3828: 3666: 3663: 3581: 3578: 3564: 3557: 3537: 3534: 3425: 3422: 3367: 3364: 3215: 3212: 3117: 3114: 3100: 3097: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2927: 2923: 2918: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2754: 2751: 2729: 2726: 2690: 2687: 2517: 2513: 2508: 2418: 2415: 2335:you have proven 2284: 2281: 2232: 2229: 2199: 2196: 2153: 2150: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2040:Fucking, Austria 2018: 2015: 1954: 1951: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1865: 1846: 1805:read that site. 1737: 1732: 1727: 1686: 1681: 1676: 1598: 1595: 1548: 1545: 1524: 1521: 1485: 1482: 1422: 1178: 1170: 1167: 1154: 1147: 1103: 1100: 1081: 1070: 1067: 1047: 1044: 1023: 1020: 1002: 999: 961: 958: 933: 930: 828: 825: 763: 760: 609:reliable sources 446: 443: 357: 356: 342: 290: 272: 238: 226: 210: 194: 175: 145:, but instead a 136: 129: 115: 113: 106: 63: 33: 32: 26: 4237: 4236: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4204:deletion review 4193: 4159:157.157.160.183 4023: 4014: 3992: 3989: 3909: 3906: 3865: 3862: 3849: 3829: 3826: 3770: 3768:Section break 2 3724:characters. -- 3677:interchangeable 3664: 3661: 3579: 3576: 3560: 3553: 3535: 3532: 3445:MyMoloboaccount 3423: 3420: 3404:MyMoloboaccount 3365: 3362: 3317:MyMoloboaccount 3277:MyMoloboaccount 3213: 3210: 3159:MyMoloboaccount 3134:As to the rest 3115: 3112: 3098: 3095: 3073:MyMoloboaccount 2964: 2959: 2954: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2846: 2842: 2837: 2781: 2752: 2749: 2727: 2724: 2688: 2685: 2620: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2416: 2413: 2282: 2279: 2230: 2227: 2197: 2194: 2151: 2148: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2016: 2013: 1952: 1949: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1847: 1735: 1730: 1725: 1684: 1679: 1674: 1655:MyMoloboaccount 1596: 1593: 1546: 1543: 1533:Then, there is 1522: 1519: 1483: 1480: 1272:MyMoloboaccount 1168: 1165: 1145: 1101: 1098: 1088:Najwyższy Czas! 1068: 1065: 1045: 1042: 1021: 1018: 1000: 997: 959: 956: 931: 928: 898:Gazeta Wyborcza 844:Gazeta Wyborcza 826: 823: 761: 758: 444: 441: 299: 263: 247: 228: 216: 200: 184: 171:sign your posts 127: 109: 107: 70:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4235: 4233: 4225: 4224: 4214: 4213: 4209: 4208: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4064: 4063: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4019: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4002: 4001: 3985: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3902:Category:Memes 3894:Category:Memes 3874: 3845: 3769: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3737: 3736: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3461: 3433: 3432: 3384: 3383: 3375: 3374: 3346: 3328: 3327: 3309: 3308: 3289: 3272: 3271: 3262: 3261: 3253: 3236: 3235: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3205: 3198: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3149: 3148: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3107: 3068: 3067: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3027: 3023: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 2996: 2995: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2944: 2907: 2906: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2829: 2828: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2780: 2777: 2775: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2736: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2624: 2616: 2605: 2604: 2590:WP:ATA#CRYSTAL 2581: 2580: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2499:So delete per 2487: 2486: 2461: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2388: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2274: 2271:WP:CRYSTALBALL 2266: 2240: 2239: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2160: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2101: 2070: 2025: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1743: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1531: 1436: 1435: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1380: 1379: 1362: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1315: 1314: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1264: 1263: 1245: 1244: 1226: 1225: 1206: 1205: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1031: 1030: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 990: 989: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 923: 887: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 791: 790: 789: 749: 736: 735: 691: 690: 689: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 627: 626: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 360: 359: 296: 242: 241: 137: 126: 121: 75: 74: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4234: 4223: 4220: 4219: 4217: 4207: 4205: 4201: 4196: 4190: 4186: 4183: 4179: 4174: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4150: 4146: 4141: 4137: 4135: 4131: 4125: 4122: 4119: 4109: 4106: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4069: 4066: 4065: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4047: 4046: 4041: 4038: 4033: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4024: 4022: 4017: 4011: 4008: 4007: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3986: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3971: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3932: 3929: 3928: 3917: 3914: 3912: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3884: 3880: 3875: 3873: 3870: 3868: 3859: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3832: 3822: 3821:Streamy Award 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3804: 3798: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3772: 3771: 3767: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3749: 3748:WP:OTHERSTUFF 3745: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3712: 3704: 3701: 3697: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3667: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3637: 3634: 3633: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3604: 3600: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3587: 3584: 3582: 3573: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3565: 3563: 3558: 3556: 3550: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3515:85.210.25.136 3511: 3508: 3507: 3500: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3431: 3428: 3426: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3400: 3395: 3391: 3388: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3373: 3370: 3368: 3359: 3354: 3350: 3347: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3330: 3329: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3314: 3311: 3310: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3287: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3260: 3258: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3240: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3218: 3216: 3206: 3202: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3155: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3137: 3129: 3128: 3123: 3120: 3118: 3108: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3092: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3065: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3039:WP:OTHERSTUFF 3036: 3035: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3021: 3018: 3017: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2979: 2978: 2971: 2968: 2967: 2962: 2957: 2949: 2945: 2943: 2940: 2937: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2928: 2924: 2919: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2849: 2845: 2840: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2796: 2795: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2776: 2769: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2756: 2755: 2745: 2740: 2737: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2721: 2718: 2716: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2693: 2691: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2657: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2625: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586:WP:OTHERSTUFF 2583: 2582: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2566: 2563: 2562: 2553: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2509: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2462: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2451: 2448: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2364: 2360: 2359:Advice Polack 2355: 2354: 2350: 2344: 2340: 2338: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2316:In ictu oculi 2313: 2309: 2304: 2299: 2296: 2295: 2288: 2285: 2275: 2272: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2233: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2190: 2185: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2159: 2156: 2154: 2144: 2141: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2069: 2068: 2065: 2057: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2045: 2042:was pushing? 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2021: 2019: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1978: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1960: 1957: 1955: 1946: 1942: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1933: 1925: 1919: 1918:User:Greyhood 1914: 1913: 1912: 1909: 1904: 1900: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1892: 1884: 1878: 1877:User:Russavia 1874: 1870: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1826: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1784: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1688: 1687: 1682: 1677: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1601: 1599: 1589: 1585: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1551: 1549: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1530: 1527: 1525: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498:and possibly 1497: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1486: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1419: 1414: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1391: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1347: 1344: 1343: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1294: 1290: 1287: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1265: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1161: 1160: 1157: 1152: 1148: 1140: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1094: 1089: 1085: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1073: 1071: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1039: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1026: 1024: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1006: 1003: 994: 993: 992: 991: 988: 985: 982: 978: 975: 974: 965: 962: 953: 952: 951: 947: 943: 939: 938: 937: 934: 924: 921: 917: 913: 908: 907: 906: 903: 899: 895: 891: 888: 886: 883: 878: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 838: 832: 829: 820: 816: 815:Krautchan.net 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 797: 792: 788: 784: 780: 775: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 764: 754: 753:"Negro jokes" 750: 746: 742: 738: 737: 733: 730: 727: 724: 721: 718: 715: 712: 708: 705: 702: 698: 695: 694:Speedy Delete 692: 688: 685: 681: 680: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 660: 659: 652: 649: 645: 644: 643: 639: 635: 631: 630: 629: 628: 625: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 603: 602: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572: 571: 567: 563: 558: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 488: 484: 480: 475: 474: 473: 469: 465: 461: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 449: 447: 438: 434: 430: 426: 425: 424: 420: 416: 412: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 398: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 377: 373: 369: 365: 355: 351: 348: 345: 341: 337: 333: 330: 327: 324: 321: 318: 315: 312: 309: 305: 302: 301:Find sources: 297: 294: 288: 284: 280: 276: 271: 267: 262: 258: 254: 250: 246: 245: 236: 232: 224: 220: 214: 208: 204: 198: 192: 188: 182: 178: 174: 172: 168: 162: 158: 157: 152: 148: 144: 143: 138: 135: 131: 130: 125: 122: 120: 119: 114: 112: 104: 100: 94: 92: 88: 82: 80: 73: 71: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4194: 4191: 4145:knowyourmeme 4142: 4139: 4133: 4129: 4127: 4123: 4117: 4116: 4067: 4048: 4020: 4009: 3969: 3949: 3930: 3857: 3800: 3773: 3713: 3676: 3642: 3638: 3635: 3561: 3554: 3548: 3509: 3440: 3436: 3434: 3389: 3385: 3376: 3348: 3331: 3312: 3293: 3288: 3273: 3263: 3255: 3249: 3245: 3238: 3237: 3231: 3194: 3190: 3153: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3135: 3133: 3090: 3069: 3046: 3042: 3019: 2980: 2952: 2947: 2914: 2891: 2835: 2801: 2797: 2787: 2774: 2747: 2738: 2664: 2626: 2608: 2570:Andy Dingley 2564: 2504: 2496: 2463: 2453: 2449: 2428: 2399:AndyTheGrump 2394: 2390: 2373: 2356: 2352: 2346: 2342: 2334: 2328: 2306:sentence on 2297: 2254:Knowyourmeme 2221:, arguments 2214: 2188: 2183: 2162: 2142: 2051: 2027: 1988:for placing 1969: 1944: 1915: 1898: 1872: 1848:— Preceding 1827: 1802: 1747:84.153.92.55 1723: 1709: 1705: 1672: 1668: 1650: 1649: 1614:the struggle 1587: 1586:rather than 1583: 1564: 1538: 1453: 1450:Russian ball 1445: 1440: 1439: 1399:84.153.90.97 1369:84.153.90.97 1364: 1349: 1345: 1299: 1295: 1267: 1248: 1229: 1210: 1190: 1139:knowyourmeme 1135: 1092: 1083: 1060: 1013: 976: 919: 915: 889: 876: 839: 813:apparantly. 774:WP:RSOPINION 719: 710: 706: 700: 693: 661: 604: 575: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 510: 436: 380: 379: 364:knowyourmeme 361: 349: 343: 335: 328: 322: 316: 310: 300: 234: 222: 213:sockpuppetry 206: 195:; suspected 190: 176: 164: 160: 154: 146: 140: 110: 95: 91:WP:JUSTAVOTE 83: 78: 76: 60: 57: 36: 3778:Polish joke 3726:Petri Krohn 3572:WP:NOTAVOTE 3479:WP:NOTPAPER 3336:Machinarium 3145:countryball 3091:countryball 2872:WP:DIGWUREN 2816:deletion. - 2277:notability. 2189:countryball 1584:countryball 1496:attack page 1230:Speedy Keep 1146:(in Polish) 1014:Speedy keep 977:Speedy keep 890:Furthermore 852:his article 741:oh internet 605:Speedy keep 562:Petri Krohn 464:Petri Krohn 393:Petri Krohn 326:free images 4072:Harizotoh9 3797:1202 memes 3722:Tamagotchi 3465:Harizotoh9 2939:(dialogue) 2594:Harizotoh9 2337:Polandball 2223:ad hominem 1832:Karl.brown 1763:WP:CANVASS 1588:Polandball 1390:(dialogue) 1321:WP:USELESS 1215:Lihapulla1 1056:WP:CRYSTAL 1038:WP:CRYSTAL 984:(dialogue) 942:Harizotoh9 864:Interia.pl 819:Imageboard 800:Harizotoh9 670:Harizotoh9 634:Harizotoh9 389:canvassing 385:influenced 368:Harizotoh9 249:Polandball 147:discussion 124:Polandball 111:Sandstein 4200:talk page 3483:WP:BELONG 3182:neutral". 2948:propagate 2936:Estlandia 2332:With this 2280:Volunteer 1986:chastened 1776:this post 1424:• Gene93k 1387:Estlandia 1234:GoldenMew 1166:Volunteer 1144:one work 1099:Volunteer 1043:Volunteer 998:Volunteer 981:Estlandia 957:Volunteer 929:Volunteer 824:Volunteer 759:Volunteer 756:disgrace. 716:. JSTOR: 462:case. -- 203:canvassed 197:canvassed 156:consensus 66:talk page 4216:Category 4202:or in a 4182:Russavia 4149:Russavia 4105:Russavia 4037:Russavia 3936:RadioFan 3879:RadioFan 3782:Rickyrab 3752:RadioFan 3700:Russavia 3617:RadioFan 3528:WP:NOENG 3477:I think 3298:Nanobear 3257:Cooltura 3201:Cooltura 3051:Rickyrab 3003:RadioFan 2985:Robofish 2926:Chequers 2896:Malick78 2876:Russavia 2857:RadioFan 2847:Chequers 2765:Russavia 2701:RadioFan 2670:RadioFan 2653:Russavia 2549:Russavia 2516:Chequers 2501:WP:NOENG 2493:WP:NOENG 2472:WP:NOENG 2363:Russavia 2349:Cooltura 2314:either. 2265:passing. 2146:topics. 2113:Russavia 2096:Russavia 2044:Russavia 1990:cartoons 1908:Russavia 1862:contribs 1854:Russavia 1850:unsigned 1780:Russavia 1767:Russavia 1706:feigning 1704:I'm not 1697:Russavia 1500:WP:POINT 1286:Russavia 1253:Shrigley 1093:Przeglad 1084:Przeglad 902:Russavia 882:Russavia 877:Cooltura 868:Przegląd 860:Cooltura 684:Russavia 648:Russavia 621:Russavia 293:View log 235:username 229:{{subst: 223:username 217:{{subst: 207:username 201:{{subst: 191:username 185:{{subst: 68:or in a 4118:Comment 4068:Comment 4053:Pultusk 3931:Comment 3843:doktorb 3774:Comment 3353:113,000 3349:Comment 2818:Wikid77 2814:WP:SNOW 2806:rev5358 2753:Screebo 2750:Captain 2631:Nyttend 2614:doktorb 2527:waggers 2476:waggers 2468:WP:FAME 2329:Comment 2246:source 2215:Comment 2184:Comment 2143:Comment 2078:Fucking 2028:Comment 1981:WP:EEML 1970:Comment 1807:Collect 1441:Comment 1304:Collect 1195:Carrite 912:WP:IBAN 840:Comment 699:barely 662:Comment 533:astern 525:astern 460:WP:EEML 332:WP refs 320:scholar 266:protect 261:history 199:users: 4143:As to 4032:attack 4010:Delete 3975:Toddy1 3636:Delete 3549:Delete 3513:now.-- 3510:Delete 3487:WP:GNG 3332:Delete 3248:Poland 3195:Poland 2981:Delete 2892:Delete 2742:about 2739:Delete 2665:Delete 2649:WP:GNG 2627:Delete 2609:Delete 2545:WP:GNG 2464:Delete 2455:Errant 2450:Delete 2391:Delete 2374:Delete 2347:. The 2341:entire 2298:Delete 2219:WP:NPA 2163:Delete 2059:really 2032:WP:SPA 1941:WP:NPA 1927:really 1886:really 1873:Delete 1828:delete 1669:Delete 1535:WP:NPA 1446:Delete 1365:Delete 1296:Delete 1268:Delete 796:Friday 613:WP:GNG 576:really 411:tagged 304:Google 270:delete 79:delete 4090:Diego 4084:OTOH 3954:Xx236 3847:words 3681:Xx236 3647:Xx236 3611:Nice 3491:Diego 2922:Spiel 2843:Spiel 2810:WP:RS 2618:words 2512:Spiel 2433:Xx236 2378:Cla68 2283:Marek 2167:WP:AE 1329:Diego 1169:Marek 1113:Diego 1102:Marek 1046:Marek 1001:Marek 960:Marek 932:Marek 856:WP:RS 827:Marek 779:Diego 762:Marek 437:known 347:JSTOR 308:books 287:views 279:watch 275:links 177:Note: 103:WP:AE 16:< 4163:talk 4094:talk 4076:talk 4057:talk 4049:KEEP 4021:talk 3993:Hood 3990:Grey 3979:talk 3958:talk 3940:talk 3910:Hood 3907:Grey 3883:talk 3866:Hood 3863:Grey 3830:Hood 3827:Grey 3813:TIME 3756:talk 3746:not 3744:WP:N 3730:talk 3714:Keep 3685:talk 3665:Hood 3662:Grey 3651:talk 3621:talk 3603:talk 3580:Hood 3577:Grey 3562:talk 3536:Hood 3533:Grey 3519:talk 3495:talk 3481:and 3469:talk 3449:talk 3424:Hood 3421:Grey 3408:talk 3382:See: 3366:Hood 3363:Grey 3340:talk 3321:talk 3302:talk 3294:Keep 3281:talk 3214:Hood 3211:Grey 3191:ball 3163:talk 3116:Hood 3113:Grey 3099:Hood 3096:Grey 3077:talk 3007:talk 2989:talk 2917:Ϣere 2900:talk 2861:talk 2838:Ϣere 2822:talk 2728:Hood 2725:Grey 2719:and 2705:talk 2689:Hood 2686:Grey 2674:talk 2645:this 2635:talk 2598:talk 2574:talk 2565:keep 2531:talk 2507:Ϣere 2480:talk 2470:and 2466:per 2437:talk 2417:Hood 2414:Grey 2403:talk 2382:talk 2320:talk 2262:this 2260:and 2258:this 2231:Hood 2228:Grey 2198:Hood 2195:Grey 2175:talk 2152:Hood 2149:Grey 2126:talk 2107:and 2086:talk 2017:Hood 2014:Grey 2002:talk 1953:Hood 1950:Grey 1858:talk 1836:talk 1811:talk 1751:talk 1659:talk 1622:talk 1597:Hood 1594:Grey 1573:talk 1547:Hood 1544:Grey 1523:Hood 1520:Grey 1508:talk 1484:Hood 1481:Grey 1470:talk 1428:talk 1403:talk 1373:talk 1356:talk 1351:Cirt 1346:Keep 1333:talk 1323:and 1308:talk 1300:some 1276:talk 1257:talk 1249:Keep 1238:talk 1219:talk 1211:Keep 1199:talk 1191:Keep 1153:. -- 1136:Keep 1117:talk 1069:Hood 1066:Grey 1022:Hood 1019:Grey 954:Yup. 946:talk 872:Hiro 804:talk 783:talk 720:zero 711:zero 707:zero 674:talk 638:talk 584:talk 566:talk 557:EEML 547:talk 539:your 511:hell 483:talk 468:talk 445:Hood 442:Grey 419:talk 397:talk 381:NOTE 372:talk 340:FENS 314:news 283:logs 257:talk 253:edit 99:WP:N 3819:), 3784:. 3750:.-- 3675:If 3555:Doc 3053:. 3047:see 2965:466 2171:Nug 2074:SPA 2063:can 2055:You 1931:can 1923:You 1890:can 1882:You 1803:you 1736:466 1685:466 918:or 743:or 387:by 354:TWL 291:– ( 231:csp 227:or 219:csm 187:spa 161:not 81:. 4218:: 4165:) 4096:) 4078:) 4059:) 3981:) 3960:) 3942:) 3904:. 3885:) 3799:, 3758:) 3732:) 3687:) 3653:) 3623:) 3615:-- 3605:) 3574:. 3551:. 3530:. 3521:) 3497:) 3471:) 3451:) 3410:) 3342:) 3323:) 3304:) 3283:) 3165:) 3079:) 3071:-- 3009:) 2991:) 2902:) 2874:. 2863:) 2824:) 2790:.) 2707:) 2676:) 2651:. 2637:) 2600:) 2592:-- 2588:, 2576:) 2533:) 2482:) 2439:) 2405:) 2384:) 2322:) 2177:) 2128:) 2088:) 2004:) 1947:. 1943:: 1864:) 1860:• 1838:) 1813:) 1753:) 1710:am 1661:) 1624:) 1575:) 1537:: 1510:) 1472:) 1430:) 1420:. 1405:) 1375:) 1358:) 1335:) 1310:) 1278:) 1259:) 1240:) 1221:) 1209:* 1201:) 1119:) 948:) 806:) 785:) 713:: 676:) 640:) 619:. 586:) 568:) 549:) 519:EE 485:) 470:) 421:) 399:) 374:) 334:) 285:| 281:| 277:| 273:| 268:| 264:| 259:| 255:| 237:}} 225:}} 215:: 209:}} 193:}} 183:: 43:. 4161:( 4092:( 4074:( 4055:( 3977:( 3956:( 3938:( 3881:( 3754:( 3728:( 3683:( 3649:( 3645:. 3619:( 3601:( 3517:( 3493:( 3467:( 3447:( 3406:( 3338:( 3319:( 3300:( 3279:( 3178:. 3161:( 3075:( 3005:( 2987:( 2960:N 2955:J 2898:( 2859:( 2820:( 2786:( 2703:( 2672:( 2633:( 2596:( 2572:( 2529:( 2478:( 2435:( 2401:( 2380:( 2318:( 2273:. 2173:( 2124:( 2084:( 2000:( 1871:- 1856:( 1834:( 1809:( 1749:( 1731:N 1726:J 1680:N 1675:J 1657:( 1620:( 1571:( 1506:( 1468:( 1452:( 1444:. 1426:( 1401:( 1371:( 1354:( 1331:( 1306:( 1274:( 1255:( 1236:( 1217:( 1197:( 1115:( 1082:( 1040:. 944:( 802:( 781:( 701:3 672:( 636:( 582:( 564:( 545:( 535:E 531:E 527:E 523:E 481:( 466:( 417:( 395:( 370:( 358:) 350:· 344:· 336:· 329:· 323:· 317:· 311:· 306:( 298:( 295:) 289:) 251:( 239:. 233:| 221:| 205:| 189:| 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Polandball - Knowledge

Index