943:), and further, a fixed article is a win for everyone. That said, if my BEFORE doesn't find anything substantial, and the article lacks even a rudimentary reception/significance and is all plot, I think a prod is uncontroversial. If someone wants to deprod it, they are welcome to that, but again, my experience and logs shows that a portion of comic prods, maybe half or a third at least, are uncontroversial (nobody disputes them), and I consider that a major saving of everyone's time. (And since I also estimate that out of the other half or so that end up here, delete/redirect (which is the same IMHO) is the outcome for 3/4 or so, I think there is a clear support for cleaning fancruft in this area). And the fact that some articles are saved and I am proven wrong is all good, nobody's perfects, and that's why Knowledge work. Some people write, some people clean, some people rescue, it's all good, no need to get too frustrated. Just AGF and try to follow best practices - like when deproding, provide some sources or arguments, please (that can save us some of the unnecessary AfDs). --
1506:
case someone providing a couple decent sources, it's generally better to include those in a main article (whether the first appearance of the character or a character list) rather than some pointless permastub, but the general trend of these AfDs that lean more towards keep/no consensus always seems to leave a half-baked mess of an article. It's especially weird when they then sit for another five years only to be nominated again and then deleted. I've seen this so many times that it's just bizarre to me. I guess there's not much point in further discussing the sources other than I simply cannot evaluate them as significant coverage in any way.
1621:- Some significant additions have been made to the article in the past 2-3 days, and I hope some reviewers may take another look. To me, there is enough referenced support to keep. While I do not agree with how the de-PRODer put the comment made, I do agree that a whole set of related articles is undergoing AfD, and I would much prefer to keep the entirety of the set of articles, which, as a whole, provide what I consider to be encyclopedic knowledge worth reading.
1061:- Majority of the links above range from a couple sentences of basic plot summary to a couple paragraphs of plot summary. They're not saying anything relevant. They're mostly just confirming the character exists and giving a little bit of background on her. It's basically just trying to assert inherited notability due to the popularity of the show/DC TV franchises. There is nothing from which to build even a meager article, so this fails
1175:. Please consider the quality of arguments per NOTAVOTE. We started with the claim there are no good sources. Sources have been presented as a rebuttal, fair enough. The sources have been then criticized for being insufficient (passing mentions/unreliable/etc.). This has been ignored, and followed by boilerplate votes which do not present any new critique and just assert notability. Ignoring valid critique with claims
972:, which was prodded and quickly deprodded, is a good example. Just the size of the article would tell you deletion would not be uncontroversial, regardless of whether it is ultimately notable. In cases like that (which I'm sure would be a minority), AFD would be a better option. As we all know many Knowledge users are comic fans, and it just makes sense they would want to try to save articles if they can.
1483:, and we have the whole publication history/appearances in different media sections, which can be sourced both by books and news articles. In addition to the "listicle" (which does at least a bit more than give "a brief description of why stuff is on the list"), two other news articles come to similar conclusions about the topic. Putting them together, I don't think I have blown that out of proportion.
1404:
them. These little three paragraph news articles are not providing anything significant. You don't need an entire chapter of a book on the character, but you at least need something a few steps above that. Merging is only useful if the article to be merged has something worth merging, like in the case of a relatively minor character only having a single suitable source. This is not at all such a case.
1219:' analysis, at least some evaluation rather than pure plot-summary information in the listed and other sources. It should not be surprising that this comes late in the deletion discussion: This is one of many recent deletion nominations within this genre, delivered with high frequency, which hardly allow for an appropriately thorough search for/through the sources.
921:
sources may exist to pass
Knowledge's guidelines, or that users would want the opportunity to look for sources, which often happens in these AFDs. I don't believe PROD is warranted for the majority of these articles. Certainly it sometimes is, but I agree it is in the best interest of Knowledge to err on the side of AFD, or tag it for lacking sources.
1252:
trash CBR listicle that should never even be used on
Knowledge. #4 seems to not be working. The current information is simply fluff meant to look good, which is the problem with much of the defense in fiction AfDs. Instead of simply trying to draft the article or work on the parent article, we get these half-hearted attempts at "saving" them.
1358:
context from those is extremely weak. There are certainly comic and pop culture-based articles that do provide actual commentary, but these are not that. This is fluff that looks nice on a surface level when prettied up for the article, but then reveals itself to be hollow when looking at the sources.
1251:
As of the current version of the article, source #1 is a news article saying that the character has been cast with no particular commentary. The cited quote is not significant commentary in any way whatsoever. #2 is an episode review that doesn't focus on any actual analysis of the character. #3 is a
408:
is a problem. You can quote a few sentences from a source. I have done so on many an occasion. If you are really terrified of the sanctions, I give you permission to email the relevant quotes to me, and I'll repost them here myself taking the responsibility and "bravely risking sanctions". And if you
1403:
They add nothing to the article, so they shouldn't be used. Sources that fail to meet the qualification of significant coverage are irrelevant to the topic. "She has flirted with good on occasion" and "a classic DC villainess" are not commentary. They're minor little quips with zero thought put into
1361:
CBR and
Screenrant release some twenty to forty listicles every single day. They have no quality control or vetting. Their level of quality is WatchMojo level trash pumped out for clicks. I think their news articles are generally fine for verification, but their lists are something that should never
1007:
In-universe information can give a good sense of how long a character has existed in the comics and how prominent. If the character only appeared in one story and then disappeared, likely not notable. If the character has existed in the comics for decades, there is likely a reason for that which may
993:
Fair enough. Given that more people seem to complain about too many PRODs compared to too many AfDs, I guess it makes some sense to send things here more often directly, and your criteria make some sense. That said, sometimes long fancruft is just that, so I think the length of the in other media is
967:
I would suggest that when deciding whether to PROD, take into account the amount of in-universe information and the size of the "in other media" section. I'm not saying that would mean anything for notability, but it Would indicate the character has some prominence in-universe, and therefore is more
1365:
If the quality of sources is so low that one needs to scrape the ground underneath the bottom of the barrel to find anything even slightly relevant, someone has lost the plot. It's no longer about improving the article. It's just about one-upping the "other side" regardless of the outcome. Then the
920:
I agree with above. These AFDs usually generate a good amount of discussion, sometimes a lot of discussion, and so even if the article is deleted it is hardly uncontested. Many of these characters nominated have been around for decades and are notable in-universe, so it is not unreasonable to think
905:
is a valid project, a keep result is always a possibility. So wouldn't it be best for
Knowledge, if interested editors had enough time to check if appropriate secondary sources can be found? Would you perhaps consider slowing down with the deletion nominations (at least within each genre), to allow
796:
based on the sources above, which in my opinion are enough to pass GNG because they contain real world information about the character. Also, and I recognize this is not based in policy, but I think that when comic characters are adapted for other media- in this case multiple television shows- that
1505:
The more divided the article structure, the more attention is split between them. If you have a character of dubious notability or simply no notability, it's a waste of time and effort trying to pretty up one rotting branch of the tree when the base of the tree is completely neglected. Even in the
1357:
You're basically taking extremely minute sentences and giving them vastly more weight than they deserve. These are not articles about the character. They are articles about the shows in which they discuss every trivial addition to each show and give basic context for the non-comic reader, and the
1196:
I would not say that the criticisms of the sources have been ignored; they have simply not been agreed with. Certain users think there is enough to pass GNG and so have said keep. They are not required to agree with you. Regardless, I'm sure the closer will be able to consider the quality of the
1339:
should a "listicle" not be used? And in general, by no means do I say this article is in perfect shape. But how is deleting the current article (rather than further improving) a gain for
Knowledge? Its existence also does not prevent anyone from improving any parent article.
654:
strategy, and weed out such crappy sources that certainly DO NOT contribute anything to GNG requirement. I don't have time nor will to see if any other links are better, but I am quite disappointed you'd waste mine and others time with this strategy. I expected better.
430:
Quoting a few sentences isn't going to do anything. You, TTN, and a couple of others have a habit of claiming that every source is "all plot" or a "passing mention", even when that's explicitly not the case and nearly everyone else in the discussion is voting Keep.
835:
I did indeed read them, and they are enough to pass my admittedly lower standards for sources. But I see no reason not to take users seriously who have lower standards than you. That is how we become uncivil and argue with each other. Simply disagree, and move on.
1321:? There should be more than "half a paragraph" or "a few sentences", and that's the case if we do some more sourcing on the other sections. And taking the publication history/TV appearances with who portrayed the character together with the reception, it's not
767:
All of the sources above except the CW source are secondary and absolutely none of them are ALLPLOT. News articles and critical analysis are not "fancruft" or "promotional" either. Thank you for showing that you didn't check any of them before voting.
1430:
due to being not extensive enough, despite the wealth of news articles covering the addition. I'm sure you could take the same strategy of cherry picking very specific descriptions from those various articles, but it would be trivial coverage.
52:. Although several of the sources provided are just passing mentions or lack the independent editorial oversight needed to meet GNG, some of the recently added ones do provide the kind of in-depth coverage that supports the consensus to Keep.
1384:
Are the sources wrong? Is the content incorrectly cited? If not, I don't see why they should not be used. Is the article now worse than before? If it's about improving the parent article, why not either vote merge or put in effort there?
1233:
The reception section is a badly needed step in the right direction, but the sources are still passing mentions (aside of plot summaries), as can be seen in how short it is. And let's face it - there is little to do to make it longer.
409:
decide not to do this, than I stand by my claim that the sources contain no in-depth discussion of the subject, and particularly, no analysis, and further, I have to question whether you even read them, or are you just giving us
1470:
That's very interesting. To a few details: "She has flirted with good on occasion" is, as I said, just the necessary context for the next sentence. If a character is considered by a secondary source to be a minor character (like
1334:
Former #1 is needed to give context to the next sentence; I have also added another rating part in there. #2: How is "the character's portrayal in x is more nuanced than in y", etc. plot-summary and not about the character? #3
386:, some contend that quoting sources would be a copyright violation. And that even listing links to sources is excessive. Darkknight2149 has bravely risked sanction by doing so and I am content with their findings. See also
516:", ETC. For example, if you think it's difficult to build an article with the coverage provided, then just say that. If you are simply unfamiliar with the sources cited, there's no shame in not voting or opening an inquiry at
250:
with the following rationale "Stop prodding AND AFDing so many related content simultaneously. Nobody can improve content with this kind of persistence to delete everything.". Sigh. Let's try to stay civil, shall we?
630:- seriously? That's your idea of critical commentary? That's plot summary in three sentences (and that's stretching it, as not the entirety of those three sentences are about her). Well, we are off to a good start...
203:
468:
bizarrely claimed the coverage provided is all "terriary and primary fancruft sources", which is a factually nonsensical claim. You both say that it's all trivial mentions with no critical analysis, even though
731:
showed nothing that would establish notability. Sources listed about are either fancruft, promotional, or mentions, neither meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is a plot summary,
294:
1266:
As for "how short it is": I said I have started the section. I have a bit more to add. I don't really expect it will satisfy you, but how about giving it more time and discuss the details afterwards?
1099:: The character has received sufficient significant coverage, in my view, which warrants a standalone article, although there is certainly room for improvement with the citation of reliable sources.
413:? Ągain, please prove me wrong and put a sock in my mouth by providing quotes from the sources you found which show existence of an in-depth, non-plot summary analysis. The ball is in your court. --
317:
271:
1366:
article just gets nominated again in a few years when it actually has seen no improvement. All that wasted effort could be spent fixing a character list entry or the main article.
901:
AfDs about fictional subjects so far have had results spanning the whole range from keep to delete. So while checking articles about all kinds of fictional subjects with regard to
1317:
Allright, that's all I wanted to do as
Reception section at this point. I don't say it's epic in either size or insight, but it's a paragraph and it's not "all plot-summary". And
365:
The coverage of those half-in=universe 'encyclopedias' is mostly a plot summary anyway. Did you see any analysis in them? If so, indulge us and quote it, if you'd be so kind. --
440:
164:
1446:
197:
1476:
1427:
383:
1491:
Aside from that, not wanting to continue this endlessly, I guess we can agree to disagree. I am waiting on which opinion the closer will form with some anticipation.
1362:
infect a single article. Top X lists are generally seen as low quality regardless, but those two sites in particular take it to a whole other level of terrible.
633:
560:
474:
432:
111:
1082:: When a comics character appears in live-action movies and TV, it usually gets some coverage, including casting and reviews. Keep per above examples. —
640:
That's identical to the first source, the article is not about her, and it just summarizes plot involving her with mentions of her name in 3 sentences...
96:
1029:
What do you think about slowing down part (within one genre or at least franchise) to give the "rescuers" enough time to thoroughly look for sources?
942:
I fully support civil discussions, and I don't mind being proven wrong - it's not like I am counting my 'kills' (or 'saves', I do vote keep too :: -->
436:
234:
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
886:
I think past experiences with comic characters have shown that deletions in this field are practically never uncontroversial. So in my opinion, if
635:
That's better as it is about her (not that it is overly long), but it is just a plot summary with a mention she appeared in a single TV episode.
235:
137:
132:
638:
585:
494:
141:
1449:. Granntted, the discussion was short, but it was hardly hidden, and it was unanimous. No prejudice if anyone wants to restart it at RSN. --
780:
684:
611:
532:
124:
1636:
504:
If you think the sources are insufficient, you guys (as a generalised group) should start using more honest arguments than the usual "
565:
1488:
I would still be interested in how deleting this article is supposed to improve any "parent article", and which one that might be.
218:
91:
84:
17:
645:
That's even worse, her name appears in a single sentence, that's the very definition of trivial, in passing coverage per GNG.
239:
185:
876:
I think staying civil would befit us all. Working in
Knowledge can be so much fun, and a harsh tone can greatly dimish that.
797:
also speaks to notability. Plenty of characters have simply appeared in a few comic issues and were never heard from again.
561:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/48229-who-is-plastique-bette-sans-souci-the-flash-is-giving-the-dc-villain-a-heroic-makeover
575:
482:
570:
478:
898:
does not seem appropriate. I expect going directly to AfD, if applicable, would save both sides one step of irritation.
105:
101:
1197:
arguments without you telling them to. If the arguments are weak it will be apparent to the closer and that's fine.
1008:
lead to sources. But I don't disagree that even for notable characters, the plot information can often be trimmed.
179:
1655:
643:
395:
356:
40:
1611:
1588:
1515:
1500:
1461:
1440:
1413:
1394:
1375:
1349:
1303:
1261:
1246:
1228:
1206:
1191:
1165:
1148:
1129:
1108:
1091:
1074:
1038:
1017:
995:
981:
955:
930:
915:
845:
830:
806:
786:
755:
690:
667:
617:
538:
425:
399:
377:
360:
332:
309:
286:
263:
66:
1139:
as there are secondary sources about the character, which have also have at least some real-world information.
775:
679:
606:
527:
818:
Did you read them? Please see my analysis of the first four above, which are bad, weak, bad, abysmally bad. --
175:
580:
486:
128:
586:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/cws-flash-adds-rakes-kelly-frye-supervillainess-plastique-222500451.html
1632:
1651:
749:
225:
36:
1479:, opinions on this article differ. Also in contrast to that one, we have the coverage in the different
514:
reputable third party reliable news sources are actually primary sources or
Fancruft™ because I said so
1475:) or "a classic character" to me is indeed an evaluation, in this case a positive one. In contrast to
968:
likely to be recognized by one or more users who would contest the article's deletion. Something like
1624:
1542:
1176:
651:
410:
391:
352:
1550:
1445:
I'll just add that CBR-and-like listicles have been declared unreliable for pretty much everything
1087:
770:
674:
601:
522:
211:
1496:
1390:
1345:
1299:
1224:
1202:
1144:
1034:
1013:
977:
926:
911:
841:
802:
628:
247:
120:
72:
566:
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a586088/the-flash-to-introduce-dc-comics-character-plastique/
343:
The nomination's assertions seem false as the topic already cites satisfactory sources such as
1628:
1455:
1423:
1322:
1240:
1185:
1159:
1123:
1114:
949:
824:
713:
701:
661:
485:
discusses the differences in iterations and the character's previous live action appearances,
419:
371:
326:
303:
280:
257:
191:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1650:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1584:
1104:
891:
762:
744:
728:
724:
465:
387:
243:
1153:
Could you link to those good sources, and quote the real-world information, you mention? --
246:
did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or
Gscholar." It was deprodded by
969:
737:
595:
556:
Upon a quick search, I was able to find coverage and critical commentary on the character.
470:
405:
1294:
I made a mistake in link #4. Thanks for the tip, I have changed it. I hope it works now.
576:
https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/heres-wholl-be-playing-dc-character-plastique-s1-cws-flash
1566:
1472:
1318:
1083:
895:
705:
590:
571:
https://www.eonline.com/news/564179/the-flash-casting-scoop-it-s-time-to-meet-plastique
498:
1601:
1597:
1558:
1536:
1511:
1492:
1436:
1409:
1386:
1371:
1341:
1295:
1257:
1220:
1198:
1140:
1070:
1062:
1030:
1009:
988:
973:
937:
922:
907:
902:
837:
813:
798:
709:
517:
1451:
1236:
1216:
1181:
1155:
1119:
1024:
1002:
962:
945:
881:
820:
733:
720:
717:
657:
415:
367:
322:
299:
276:
253:
57:
158:
1580:
1574:
1100:
477:(discussing the character's history and how they were adapted for the TV show),
672:
Shit, some of these were sources for Wade Eiling that got mixed in. Removed.
1419:
1212:
1507:
1432:
1405:
1367:
1329:
1289:
1253:
1066:
581:
https://cwtampa.cbslocal.com/2014/08/05/the-flash-plastique-casting-news/
650:
Sorry, I stop here. If you want me to treat you seriously, please stop
404:
Aha. Nobody, there or here, is claiming that a reasonable amount of
994:
a better indicator than the length of the in-universe sectioon. --
860:
Off topic discussion. This has nothing to do with the current AfD
295:
list of
Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions
1646:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
871:
Not sure if this is the best place, but since it was mentioned:
1539:
character. I also support the suggestions that were made by
1418:
To give an example, it's like if we had made an article on
493:
primary source in the lot) also provides some commentary,
1596:- sourcing is not in-depth enough to show that it passes
318:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
481:
also goes over the character's history and development,
351:
which demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the topic.
596:
https://www.cbr.com/smallville-arrowverse-characters/4/
272:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
154:
150:
146:
210:
1481:
comics encyclopedias in addition to the news articles
1113:
Plot summary alone is not significant coverage, per
591:
https://tv.avclub.com/the-flash-plastique-1798181883
441:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Godspeed (character)
890:secondary sources can be found in an article or a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1658:). No further edits should be made to this page.
501:has 2-3 whole paragraphs of critical commentary.
495:this discusses the difference between iterations
316:Note: This discussion has been included in the
293:Note: This discussion has been included in the
270:Note: This discussion has been included in the
716:, they are terriary and primary, not secondary
1600:, unless there is a suitable redirect target.
1215:section to show that there is, in contrast to
625:Critical commentary, huh. Let me take a look.
473:on two different iterations of the character,
1535:- Let this page stay. She has been a notable
224:
8:
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
433:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Danger Room
1422:Steve due to the character's inclusion in
855:
315:
292:
269:
437:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Intergang
740:, nothing properly sourced for a merge.
858:
700:: "Summary-only descriptions of works"
471:this is nothing but critical commentary
443:are three of the many examples of this.
236:Knowledge:General notability guideline
1452:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1237:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1182:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1156:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
1120:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
946:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
821:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
658:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
416:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
368:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
323:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
300:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
277:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
254:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
24:
345:The Encyclopedia of Supervillains
97:Introduction to deletion process
510:everything is a trivial mention
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1319:what do we need for an article
708:. Article sources do not meet
240:Knowledge:Notability (fiction)
1:
1612:23:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1589:16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1516:16:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1501:12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1462:02:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1441:23:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1414:21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1395:21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1376:19:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1350:19:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1304:08:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1262:02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1247:01:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
1229:20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1207:13:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1192:08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1166:08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1149:16:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
1130:08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1109:01:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
1092:16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
1075:23:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
1039:11:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
1018:04:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
996:04:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
982:04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
956:03:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
931:19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
916:18:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
846:04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
831:03:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
807:15:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
787:16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
756:15:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
691:16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
668:03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
618:14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
539:16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
426:03:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
400:15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
378:12:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
361:09:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
333:08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
310:08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
287:08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
264:08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
475:this is significant coverage
67:00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
1179:is hardly best practice. --
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1675:
1648:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
349:DC Comics Encyclopedia
238:and the more detailed
85:Articles for deletion
506:all plot = any plot
1428:flatly turned down
752:
748:
384:current discussion
248:User:Jhenderson777
121:Plastique (comics)
73:Plastique (comics)
1627:comment added by
1477:Steve (Minecraft)
1424:Super Smash Bros.
1211:I have started a
1173:Comment to closer
1065:without a doubt.
1054:
1053:
750:
742:
335:
312:
289:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
63:
1666:
1640:
1608:
1605:
1578:
1570:
1562:
1554:
1546:
1458:
1333:
1293:
1243:
1188:
1162:
1126:
1028:
1006:
992:
966:
952:
941:
885:
856:
827:
817:
783:
778:
773:
766:
754:
687:
682:
677:
664:
614:
609:
604:
535:
530:
525:
422:
374:
329:
306:
283:
260:
229:
228:
214:
162:
144:
82:
62:
60:
55:
34:
1674:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1656:deletion review
1622:
1606:
1603:
1572:
1564:
1556:
1548:
1543:Andrew Davidson
1540:
1460:
1456:
1327:
1287:
1245:
1241:
1190:
1186:
1164:
1160:
1128:
1124:
1055:
1022:
1000:
986:
970:Trigon (comics)
960:
954:
950:
935:
879:
861:
829:
825:
811:
781:
776:
771:
760:
741:
685:
680:
675:
666:
662:
612:
607:
602:
533:
528:
523:
424:
420:
376:
372:
331:
327:
308:
304:
285:
281:
262:
258:
171:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
58:
56:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1672:
1670:
1661:
1660:
1642:
1641:
1615:
1614:
1591:
1551:Darkknight2149
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1473:Doctor Spectro
1465:
1464:
1450:
1443:
1416:
1398:
1397:
1379:
1378:
1363:
1359:
1326:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1249:
1235:
1180:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1154:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1118:
1094:
1077:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1020:
944:
933:
899:
877:
873:
872:
863:
862:
859:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
819:
791:
790:
789:
695:
694:
693:
670:
656:
648:
647:
646:
641:
636:
631:
558:
557:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
502:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
414:
366:
337:
336:
321:
313:
298:
290:
275:
252:
232:
231:
168:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1671:
1659:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1609:
1599:
1595:
1592:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1576:
1568:
1560:
1552:
1544:
1538:
1537:Suicide Squad
1534:
1531:
1530:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1338:
1331:
1324:
1320:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1291:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1238:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1183:
1178:
1177:WP:ITSNOTABLE
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1026:
1021:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
990:
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
971:
964:
959:
958:
957:
953:
947:
939:
934:
932:
928:
924:
919:
918:
917:
913:
909:
904:
900:
897:
893:
889:
883:
878:
875:
874:
870:
867:
866:
865:
864:
857:
847:
843:
839:
834:
833:
832:
828:
822:
815:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
795:
792:
788:
785:
784:
779:
774:
764:
759:
758:
757:
753:
746:
739:
735:
730:
726:
723:sources with
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
696:
692:
689:
688:
683:
678:
671:
669:
665:
659:
653:
652:WP:GOOGLEHITS
649:
644:
642:
639:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
626:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
616:
615:
610:
605:
598:
597:
593:
592:
588:
587:
583:
582:
578:
577:
573:
572:
568:
567:
563:
562:
555:
552:
551:
540:
537:
536:
531:
526:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
442:
438:
434:
429:
428:
427:
423:
417:
412:
411:WP:GOOGLEHITS
407:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
369:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
338:
334:
330:
324:
319:
314:
311:
307:
301:
296:
291:
288:
284:
278:
273:
268:
267:
266:
265:
261:
255:
249:
245:
242:requirement.
241:
237:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
64:
61:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1647:
1645:
1629:Concertmusic
1623:— Preceding
1618:
1602:
1593:
1532:
1480:
1336:
1316:
1172:
1136:
1096:
1079:
1058:
887:
868:
793:
769:
697:
673:
600:
599:
594:
589:
584:
579:
574:
569:
564:
559:
553:
521:
513:
509:
505:
490:
464:Even below,
348:
344:
340:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
78:
54:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
763:TimothyBlue
499:this source
483:this source
479:this source
466:TimothyBlue
198:free images
1457:reply here
1323:WP:ALLPLOT
1242:reply here
1187:reply here
1161:reply here
1125:reply here
1115:WP:NOTPLOT
951:reply here
906:for that?
894:search, a
826:reply here
714:WP:FICTION
702:WP:NOTPLOT
663:reply here
421:reply here
373:reply here
328:reply here
305:reply here
282:reply here
259:reply here
1652:talk page
1567:Toughpigs
1426:That was
1420:Minecraft
1213:Reception
1084:Toughpigs
892:WP:BEFORE
729:WP:BEFORE
725:WP:SIGCOV
388:WP:BEFORE
244:WP:BEFORE
59:JGHowes
37:talk page
1654:or in a
1637:contribs
1625:unsigned
1559:Rhino131
1493:Daranios
1387:Daranios
1342:Daranios
1296:Daranios
1221:Daranios
1199:Rhino131
1141:Daranios
1031:Daranios
1010:Rhino131
989:Rhino131
974:Rhino131
938:Daranios
923:Rhino131
908:Daranios
838:Rhino131
814:Rhino131
799:Rhino131
738:WP:SNYTH
520:either.
406:WP:QUOTE
382:In this
165:View log
106:glossary
39:or in a
1217:Piotrus
1025:Piotrus
1003:Piotrus
963:Piotrus
896:WP:PROD
882:Piotrus
869:Comment
745:Timothy
706:WP:WWIN
204:WP refs
192:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
1598:WP:GNG
1594:Delete
1581:Rtkat3
1575:Haleth
1571:, and
1101:Haleth
1063:WP:GNG
1059:Delete
903:WP:GNG
777:knight
710:WP:GNG
698:Delete
681:knight
608:knight
529:knight
518:WP:RSN
497:, and
439:, and
392:Andrew
353:Andrew
176:Google
142:delete
734:WP:OR
721:WP:RS
718:WP:IS
554:Keep:
489:(the
219:JSTOR
180:books
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
1633:talk
1619:Keep
1607:5969
1604:Onel
1585:talk
1579:. --
1533:Keep
1512:talk
1497:talk
1447:here
1437:talk
1410:talk
1391:talk
1372:talk
1346:talk
1300:talk
1258:talk
1225:talk
1203:talk
1145:talk
1137:Keep
1117:. --
1105:talk
1097:Keep
1088:talk
1080:Keep
1071:talk
1035:talk
1014:talk
978:talk
927:talk
912:talk
842:talk
803:talk
794:Keep
782:2149
772:Dark
751:talk
686:2149
676:Dark
613:2149
603:Dark
534:2149
524:Dark
512:", "
508:", "
491:only
487:this
396:talk
357:talk
347:and
341:Keep
212:FENS
186:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
50:keep
1508:TTN
1433:TTN
1406:TTN
1368:TTN
1337:Why
1330:TTN
1290:TTN
1254:TTN
1067:TTN
888:any
747:::
743://
712:or
704:is
394:🐉(
390:.
355:🐉(
226:TWL
163:– (
1639:)
1635:•
1587:)
1563:,
1555:,
1547:,
1514:)
1499:)
1439:)
1412:)
1393:)
1374:)
1348:)
1302:)
1260:)
1234:--
1227:)
1205:)
1147:)
1107:)
1090:)
1073:)
1037:)
1016:)
980:)
929:)
914:)
844:)
805:)
736:/
727:.
655:--
435:,
398:)
359:)
320:.
297:.
274:.
206:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
1631:(
1583:(
1577::
1573:@
1569::
1565:@
1561::
1557:@
1553::
1549:@
1545::
1541:@
1510:(
1495:(
1454:|
1435:(
1408:(
1389:(
1370:(
1344:(
1332::
1328:@
1325:.
1298:(
1292::
1288:@
1256:(
1239:|
1223:(
1201:(
1184:|
1158:|
1143:(
1122:|
1103:(
1086:(
1069:(
1033:(
1027::
1023:@
1012:(
1005::
1001:@
991::
987:@
976:(
965::
961:@
948:|
940::
936:@
925:(
910:(
884::
880:@
840:(
823:|
816::
812:@
801:(
765::
761:@
660:|
418:|
370:|
325:|
302:|
279:|
256:|
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.