908:, which the majority of the Keep camp seems to like to use as the sole criterion to preserve this article is, again, listed *under* WP:BASIC, in the Additional Criteria. Which means, if WP:BASIC is not met, WP:NACTOR is more or less rendered moot. I keep asking for significant coverage, but I don't think any one of you has linked any interviews/articles that features more than just a trivial mention for this subject.
977:. Nobody is saying that we should document how many times an actor has gone on rehab and been arrested. Think about it - a notable actor should have been interviewed a good number of times by now so that we at least have *something* to write, such as their birthplace, education and background. I'm seeing none of that here, so I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. Plain and simple.
1316:- I can't find any coverage about him specifically other than that one piece in the Press Enterprise. All I can find is him being mentioned in association with Byrds and Kingdom Hearts in every other source and even then there is nothing directly about him out there (edit: In reliable sources, there is a ton in IMDB like places). Even in trade publications.
1286:
about those roles, there isn't. Looking at all the references used in the article, trying to beef up his bio with trivial mentions/listed as a cast member in the NYT, LA Times, EW, etc. doesn't cut it, nor does using references that merely list his acting credits, that's not significant coverage. The
1236:
Having 3 lead roles does not matter if there is a lack of significant coverage to write anything substantial. If we all do is document an actor's roles with barely any content, such as biographical information, then how is it any different than a resume? At that point, it's just a resume pretending
297:
We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but
1070:
Also, for the last time, the previous two discussions were cut short due to procedural reasons. How is this third AFD, which is, for all intents and purposes, fully fleshed out and more like a proper discussion, a waste of time? If you don't want to participate in this discussion, then just say so.
1066:
First of all, I *did* try to look for sources before I nommed the article for deletion. I came up with nothing noteworthy. So yes, I already did my part for WP:BEFORE. You say that the subject meets WP:GNG, but where's your evidence for that? WP:GNG = WP:SIGCOV, by the way. Where is the significant
764:
Secondly, there is a huge difference between films being nominated for an Oscar and winning them, versus the subject *actually* winning the award in question. As far as I am concerned, the subject not only does *not* have an extentive filmography like you claim, but has also won a total number of
419:
for one season as a child actor. I agree with the consensus from the the second AFD nomination which went through the normal process. Only the first nomination was a procedural close. I added the content for his onscreen maincast work which was missing and added a ref reviewing his performance in
1554:- I concur with 4meter4. This individual fits the actor notability criteria due to his appearances in multiple major movies and television series. He's had some major roles too, in Recess, Batman Beyond, etc… And the sourcing in the article has been beefed up a lot, so it hits that note as well.
1177:
means that there is an unlikely chance of securing the article. Where's the significant coverage for the subject? Trivial mentions aren't "significant coverage". I don't get why people are so intent on keeping an article that they know that they can't effectively expand, as if
700:. Furthermore, I renommed the AFD because my previous two noms were cut short for procedural reasons; hence, I am not convinced that we've truly had a proper discussion for the subject. I can assure you that the intent is to have a proper AFD discussion, and nothing more. --
972:
I am not attacking anyone. I am simply debating and refuting the misconception that WP:NACTOR alone is enough justification to keep the article. If an actor has three lead roles in three productions, yet there is no coverage and nothing more to write about, then they fail
1224:
There is zero confusion here. How many guidelines have I linked that clearly print that significant coverage is required for articles, especially for biographies? And how many times have I stated that additional criteria such as WP:NACTOR are meant to be supplements to
811:? In what way does that policy even apply here? I am very confused. Can you elaborate what you actually mean instead of just linking the "common sense" section (which happens to be an explanatory supplement of IAR)? That'll help me understand your perspective more. --
997:
PS2: I am also not convinced that alternative methods to deletion can be considered in this case, when there is nothing more to write about for this subject. How does one even go about expanding and improving an article when there is barely any coverage to speak of?
958:. I understand your points and I disagree. It is not necessary to attack every ivoters opinion. Actors are known for their work, not their ability to generate press i.e. get arrested, go to rehab etc. This is why we have subject specific guidelines.
765:
zero awards, especially *not* an Oscar (let alone multiple of them). While having no awards does not necessarily mean an actor lacks notability, I am sure you could see that your Oscar argument is beginning to fall apart here.
235:
93:
88:
923:
The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
286:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
321:
1358:
That link has a disclaimer at the top that reads: "This page is not one of
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." An actual guideline is
795:. In other words, if WP:BASIC is not met, then WP:NACTOR is pretty much moot. You know I am not making this up; you can check the page and see for yourself. Or, for your own convenience,
188:
1196:
It can meet either criteria. The subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist if you had to meet the general notability guidelines. Not sure why people sometimes get confused by that.
755:(the director), and *not* the subject, since the subject only voiced as an extra in the film. What are the other productions that were "Oscar nominated"? Clarification is needed here.
455:
WP:NACTOR cannot be the sole reason to keep an article, especially when the subject fails several other criteria. I'm still not convinced that the subject meets WP:NACTOR, either way.
950:
You have made quite a few points and used WP essays/policies to back up your points. You should let the ivoters decide based on their understanding of policy. We also have a duty to
453:
Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
460:
I saw the source you cited but there's no link/screencap for it. Hence, it is unverifiable. Where can I read it? Also - what are the subject's notable roles in animated works?
341:
229:
83:
1071:
I'm still not convinced that we could further expand the article due to a severe lack of reliable sources and significant coverage; for these reasons, the subject fails
688:
cannot be the sole reason to keep an article, per above. It doesn't matter how many notable roles an actor has (or in this case, the lack thereof), if the subject fails
368:
593:
equal notability camp. Anyone with a SAG card can appear in a movie or do voice roles. Where are the reliable sources that validate achievements? Sorry to this man.
195:
721:
Lack of sources is an issue but an extensive filmography that includes several oscar nominated and one oscar winning film pushes him through in my opinion. Passes
302:
Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria.
120:
392:
I think we should not apply actor notability indiscriminately to voice actors. He really only has one notable role, and that is not enough to show notability.
135:
1344:
through all citations being periodicals from the mid 1990s. If he was notable enough to be encyclopedic I'd expect to see coverage that wasn't from 1994.
1173:, not WP:NACTOR, since that is listed *under* the Additional Criteria. Failing WP:BASIC means that we don't have to consider the additional criteria. No
508:
that should be any public library in the USA) in their collection/archives. Not every source has a url, and wikipedia is just fine with that. Please see
273:
series, but that's about it. Nothing else regarding his career stands out. In the previous AFD, some participants noted that the subject meets
649:
579:
313:
1287:
WP articles listed in his filmography look impressive too, but there is no significant coverage about his roles in those articles either.
161:
156:
572:
165:
115:
108:
17:
1580:
1563:
1546:
1511:
1493:
1432:
1404:
1385:
1353:
1330:
1306:
1246:
1219:
1191:
1156:
1112:
1084:
1061:
1044:
1007:
967:
938:
883:
820:
738:
709:
676:
619:
602:
539:
521:
482:
435:
401:
380:
353:
333:
66:
148:
734:
1230:
1170:
994:
PS: For your information, every single point I've linked in this debate is
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Not a single one is an essay.
901:
250:
217:
1067:
coverage? I've already debated against WP:NACTOR plenty of times above, so I will not repeat my argument for that one again.
129:
125:
628:
554:
304:
What can we even write about the subject in question? If you ask me, not even a full paragraph due to lack of coverage.
1597:
778:. It is important to be able to write a full article, as opposed to just a few sentences like in this current instance.
499:
40:
730:
471:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
1486:
1105:
1054:
774:
One of the issues that I have is that there is practically nothing more you could write about the subject, failing
281:, which I am not convinced that this subject meets, besides not meeting WP:NACTOR for just that one notable role.
211:
397:
1576:
576:
1041:
726:
663:. The subject has had a significant role in three animated works and had a main on-screen role in the sitcom
413:. The subject has had a significant role in three animated works and had a main on-screen role in the sitcom
207:
1471:
was overlooked, even if it was due to inadvertence. ::::The articles sourcing is not what it was when the
1130:
1559:
568:
498:, policy toward offline references is that they do support verifiabilty. Please familiarize yourself with
1593:
1480:
1242:
1187:
1133:
clearly states it only has to meet either the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both.
1099:
1080:
1048:
1003:
934:
816:
705:
664:
535:
478:
415:
329:
309:
257:
36:
1276:
significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions
951:
266:
Let's have a proper discussion this time, since my previous noms were cut short by procedural reasons.
152:
1507:
1297:
963:
879:
598:
393:
376:
1572:
1400:
1349:
615:
473:
The subject was only briefly mentioned in the Press
Enterprise article, so he fails that criteria.
349:
243:
52:. Although far from unanimous, it appears that notability has been at least marginally postulated.
1468:
1393:
1279:
1271:
1263:
1174:
1126:
1032:
1024:
926:
905:
841:
837:
833:
788:
722:
689:
685:
660:
527:
466:
444:
410:
274:
945:
894:
this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.
504:
422:
1359:
1226:
1166:
897:
792:
693:
448:
278:
526:
Even if that source were valid, that's just one reliable source, which means the subject fails
1555:
1457:
1094:
672:
564:
517:
431:
223:
104:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1592:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1472:
1341:
1179:
1072:
974:
775:
697:
502:
policy. You can read it wherever there is a library with access to that newspaper (being the
292:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1410:
1363:
1238:
1197:
1183:
1134:
1076:
999:
930:
812:
701:
531:
509:
495:
474:
325:
305:
288:
Where is the coverage for this subject? I can't even find any relevant interviews for him.
269:
I am still not convinced that this subject is notable at all. He is known as Demyx from the
1532:
1476:
1267:
1028:
955:
918:
808:
1503:
1288:
959:
875:
594:
372:
144:
72:
1283:
867:
the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
791:
cannot be the sole reason to keep an article. It is an additional criterion listed under
1455:
21 references document a lot of his work. That they are now there speaks for itself.
1396:
1345:
640:
611:
345:
270:
1392:
I don't think there's any relevance to maintaining a page on a voice actor from 1994.
852:
747:
First of all, the only production that the subject has voiced in that won an Oscar is
1536:
1090:
752:
1324:
668:
513:
440:
427:
57:
182:
748:
298:
should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
1531:- a lot of listings and trivial mentions. A working actor, but does not meet
751:; specifically, the Special Achievement Oscar. The recipient of that Oscar is
1409:
He started his career then, but has been activate up to this year even.
1318:
1237:
to be an article; Knowledge (XXG) is not a host for an actor's resume.
1040:
Serial
Deletion discussions are a huge waste of valuable editor time.
1463:
367:
Note: This debate has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
277:, but let remind you that WP:NACTOR is the *additional* criteria for
512:'s comments at the 2nd nomination linked above for animation work.
1461:. That they were overlooked before this nomination is telling.
896:
I am mistaken about nothing. And I hate to break it to you, but
873:
It is not excluded under the What
Knowledge (XXG) is not policy.
1588:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1035:. See prior discussions for reasons why this was ill=advised.
836:. The nominator is mistaken about the actor meeting more than
667:. It can be disruptive to repeatedly to nominate an article.
631:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
557:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
322:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
796:
863:
It meets either the general notability guideline below,
178:
174:
170:
242:
563:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
94:
Articles for deletion/Ryan O'Donohue (3rd nomination)
89:
Articles for deletion/Ryan O'Donohue (2nd nomination)
844:
below. In addition I am starting some cleanup today.
1182:is completely irrelevant and does not even matter.
637:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
256:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1600:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1233:one more time (preferably thoroughly this time).
340:Note: This discussion has been included in the
320:Note: This discussion has been included in the
342:list of California-related deletion discussions
855:: A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
8:
892:Nice try, but WP:N also clearly states that
136:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
366:
339:
319:
369:list of content for rescue consideration
929:as far as this subject is concerned. --
840:. I have outlined the subject specific
81:
1169:is the subject specific guideline for
922:
893:
872:
862:
850:
470:
452:
301:
296:
285:
900:is the subject specific guideline in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
84:Articles for deletion/Ryan O'Donohue
1231:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
1171:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
902:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people)
79:
24:
1571:Keep per AlessandroTiandelli333.
1095:We will have to agree to disagree
925:I am still seeing no evidence of
447:is the *additional* criteria for
291:This subject also does not meet
121:Introduction to deletion process
1362:, notability is not temporary.
500:Knowledge (XXG):Offline sources
402:22:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
354:14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
334:14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
314:14:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
1:
1278:, then I would expect to see
465:BTW - the subject also fails
1581:21:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
1564:14:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
1547:00:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
1512:22:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1494:22:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1433:18:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1405:18:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1386:17:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1354:14:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1331:12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1307:08:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1247:03:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1220:02:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1192:02:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1157:01:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
1113:17:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
1085:17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
1062:16:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
1008:15:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
968:14:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
939:14:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
884:14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
821:03:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
381:14:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
67:02:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
1089:There is no convincing the
739:23:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
710:21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
677:20:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
650:18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
620:17:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
603:16:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
589:I’m in the appearance does
580:11:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
540:21:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
522:21:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
483:21:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
436:17:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
111:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1617:
1475:was proposdd. Arguably,
469:; quoting the guideline:
300:From the same guideline:
295:. Quoting the guideline:
1590:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1229:? You may want to read
610:per 4meter4 comments. —
731:AlessandroTiandelli333
443:, as mentioned above,
78:AfDs for this article:
1031:. No compliance with
665:The Byrds of Paradise
416:The Byrds of Paradise
109:Articles for deletion
71:
1280:significant coverage
505:Wallstreet Journal
423:Wallstreet Journal
284:Quoting WP:BASIC:
1458:Res ipsa loquitor
1329:
1129:is clearly met.
949:
652:
648:
582:
394:John Pack Lambert
384:
383:
363:
360:
356:
336:
126:Guide to deletion
116:How to contribute
63:
1608:
1543:
1540:
1492:
1482:7&6=thirteen
1429:
1426:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1327:
1321:
1317:
1304:
1295:
1284:reliable sources
1216:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1153:
1150:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1111:
1101:7&6=thirteen
1060:
1050:7&6=thirteen
943:
787:And once again,
647:
645:
638:
636:
634:
632:
562:
560:
558:
510:User:FloridaArmy
496:User:Sk8erPrince
365:
362:
359:
261:
260:
246:
198:
186:
168:
106:
62:
60:
55:
34:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1598:deletion review
1541:
1538:
1479:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1412:
1380:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1325:
1319:
1298:
1289:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1098:
1047:
653:
641:
639:
627:
625:
583:
553:
551:
203:
194:
159:
143:
140:
103:
100:
98:
76:
58:
56:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1614:
1612:
1603:
1602:
1584:
1583:
1573:Naomi.piquette
1566:
1549:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1502:Looking good!
1497:
1496:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1389:
1388:
1334:
1333:
1310:
1309:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1234:
1160:
1159:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1068:
1037:
1036:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
995:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
912:
911:
910:
909:
887:
886:
869:
859:
858:
846:
845:
826:
825:
824:
823:
807:Also, really?
802:
801:
800:
799:
782:
781:
780:
779:
769:
768:
767:
766:
759:
758:
757:
756:
742:
741:
727:WP:COMMONSENSE
715:
714:
713:
712:
680:
679:
635:
624:
623:
622:
605:
561:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
488:
487:
486:
485:
463:
461:
458:
456:
404:
386:
385:
361:
357:
337:
271:Kingdom Hearts
264:
263:
200:
145:Ryan O'Donohue
139:
138:
133:
123:
118:
101:
99:
97:
96:
91:
86:
80:
77:
75:
73:Ryan O'Donohue
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1613:
1601:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1586:
1585:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1550:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1483:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1434:
1431:
1430:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1383:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1322:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1302:
1296:
1294:
1293:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1154:
1132:
1131:WP:NOTABILITY
1128:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1114:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1096:
1092:
1091:true believer
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
976:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
947:
946:edit conflict
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
913:
907:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
881:
877:
874:
870:
868:
866:
861:
860:
857:
856:
854:
848:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
827:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
803:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
763:
762:
761:
760:
754:
753:John Lasseter
750:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
717:
716:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
654:
651:
646:
644:
633:
630:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
585:
584:
581:
578:
574:
570:
566:
559:
556:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
501:
497:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
462:
459:
457:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
424:
418:
417:
412:
408:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
388:
387:
382:
378:
374:
370:
364:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
338:
335:
331:
327:
323:
318:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
289:
287:
282:
280:
276:
272:
267:
259:
255:
252:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
209:
206:
205:Find sources:
201:
197:
193:
190:
184:
180:
176:
172:
167:
163:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
141:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
113:
112:
110:
105:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
74:
69:
68:
65:
64:
61:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1589:
1587:
1568:
1556:Patiodweller
1551:
1537:
1528:
1487:
1481:
1462:
1456:
1452:
1411:
1364:
1340:for failing
1337:
1313:
1300:
1299:
1291:
1290:
1275:
1274:- if he had
1259:
1198:
1135:
1123:
1106:
1100:
1097:. Cheers.
1055:
1049:
1020:
954:and explore
864:
849:
829:
797:here you go.
718:
656:
642:
626:
607:
590:
586:
565:filelakeshoe
552:
503:
421:
414:
406:
389:
290:
283:
268:
265:
253:
247:
239:
232:
226:
220:
214:
204:
191:
102:
54:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1239:Sk8erPrince
1184:Sk8erPrince
1077:Sk8erPrince
1000:Sk8erPrince
952:WP:PRESERVE
931:Sk8erPrince
813:Sk8erPrince
749:Toy Story 1
702:Sk8erPrince
612:AdamF in MO
532:Sk8erPrince
475:Sk8erPrince
326:Sk8erPrince
306:Sk8erPrince
230:free images
1504:Lightburst
1292:Isaidnoway
960:Lightburst
917:Also, per
876:Lightburst
643:Sandstein
595:Trillfendi
373:Lightburst
1594:talk page
1469:WP:Before
1397:Simonm223
1394:WP:NOTDIR
1346:Simonm223
1272:WP:SIGCOV
1264:WP:NACTOR
1175:WP:SIGCOV
1127:WP:NACTOR
1033:WP:Before
1025:WP:NACTOR
927:WP:SIGCOV
906:WP:NACTOR
842:WP:POLICY
838:WP:NACTOR
834:WP:NACTOR
789:WP:NACTOR
723:WP:NACTOR
719:Weak Keep
690:WP:SIGCOV
686:WP:NACTOR
661:WP:NACTOR
528:WP:SIGCOV
467:WP:SIGCOV
451:. Also -
445:WP:NACTOR
411:WP:NACTOR
346:Shellwood
275:WP:NACTOR
59:JGHowes
37:talk page
1596:or in a
1360:WP:NTEMP
1227:WP:BASIC
1167:WP:BASIC
898:WP:BASIC
793:WP:BASIC
694:WP:BASIC
629:Relisted
555:Relisted
449:WP:BASIC
279:WP:BASIC
189:View log
130:glossary
39:or in a
1473:WP:PROD
1342:WP:10YT
1180:WP:WHYN
1165:Wrong.
1073:WP:WHYN
975:WP:WHYN
776:WP:WHYN
698:WP:WHYN
669:Wm335td
514:4meter4
441:4meter4
428:4meter4
293:WP:WHYN
236:WP refs
224:scholar
162:protect
157:history
107:New to
1533:WP:GNG
1529:Delete
1477:WP:HEY
1464:Q.E.D.
1338:Delete
1320:spryde
1314:Delete
1301:(talk)
1268:WP:GNG
1262:- per
1260:Delete
1029:WP:GNG
1023:Meets
956:WP:ATD
919:WP:NRV
832:Meets
809:WP:IAR
587:Delete
390:Delete
208:Google
166:delete
1428:Focus
1381:Focus
1215:Focus
1152:Focus
251:JSTOR
212:books
196:Stats
183:views
175:watch
171:links
16:<
1577:talk
1569:Keep
1560:talk
1552:Keep
1542:5969
1539:Onel
1508:talk
1451:The
1401:talk
1350:talk
1326:talk
1243:talk
1188:talk
1124:Keep
1081:talk
1075:. --
1027:and
1021:Keep
1004:talk
964:talk
935:talk
880:talk
853:WP:N
851:Per
830:Keep
817:talk
735:talk
725:and
706:talk
696:and
673:talk
659:per
657:Keep
616:talk
608:Keep
599:talk
536:talk
530:. --
518:talk
479:talk
432:talk
409:per
407:Keep
398:talk
377:talk
350:talk
330:talk
310:talk
244:FENS
218:news
179:logs
153:talk
149:edit
50:Keep
1282:in
1045:2nd
1042:1st
591:not
258:TWL
187:– (
1579:)
1562:)
1535:.
1510:)
1467:,
1453:20
1403:)
1352:)
1323:|
1270:,
1266:,
1245:)
1190:)
1093:.
1083:)
1006:)
998:--
966:)
937:)
921::
904:.
882:)
871:.
865:OR
819:)
737:)
729:.
708:)
692:,
675:)
618:)
601:)
577:🐱
575:)
571:/
538:)
520:)
481:)
434:)
426:.
400:)
379:)
371:.
352:)
344:.
332:)
324:.
312:)
238:)
181:|
177:|
173:|
169:|
164:|
160:|
155:|
151:|
1575:(
1558:(
1506:(
1491:)
1488:☎
1485:(
1425:m
1422:a
1419:e
1416:r
1413:D
1399:(
1378:m
1375:a
1372:e
1369:r
1366:D
1348:(
1241:(
1212:m
1209:a
1206:e
1203:r
1200:D
1186:(
1149:m
1146:a
1143:e
1140:r
1137:D
1110:)
1107:☎
1104:(
1079:(
1059:)
1056:☎
1053:(
1002:(
962:(
948:)
944:(
933:(
878:(
815:(
733:(
704:(
671:(
614:(
597:(
573:c
569:t
567:(
534:(
516:(
477:(
430:(
396:(
375:(
348:(
328:(
308:(
262:)
254:·
248:·
240:·
233:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
210:(
202:(
199:)
192:·
185:)
147:(
132:)
128:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.