740:, you're an amazing admin, and I aspire to be as helpful as you one day. Many thanks for assuming a potential err in my thought, let me clarify in as simple of terms as I can. I understand the closing admin had to make an extremely tough call but there was no indication in the AfD, or from the article itself, that deleting the article was the best course of action. From what I can see, in the history, at one point there was around 50 references "HOLY COW!" From useless database entries, no less. They were removed over time, in favor of the more broadly accepted sources. Recommended improvements were constantly made, and multiple lengthy secondary sources were found post-deletion. A clear indication that deletion wasn't the correct choice, "no consensus" would have been the most prudent course of action.
712:. Usually, we want to have two or more sources talking about the topic as the central theme, and from high quality sources, not marginal sources. I don't think the new, reworked article does this yet and the old article surely didn't. That is what the admin has to look at. If there were clearly two high quality RS's with significant coverage, I would have just moved the new article over the old myself, with a note to the previous admin, whom I'm confident wouldn't have complained. In good faith, you are confusing "sources that back a claim" with "sources that establish notability" and they are not at all the same.
1128:), that original stike-through clearly indicates that most of the calls for deletion were hasty. Consistently so, the experienced users were being just as misbehaving, but they did so with an understanding of how to side-step the rules, a great example is the retort by Kolbasz to DunDunDunt, both were long lists, and both were incredibly disrespectful to the other's arguments. I'm being as objective as possible, which is the reason why I'm saying overturn, and this should go up for AfD down the road.
1075:. Notability has nothing to do with the content of the article, but for some reason the references in the article was constantly used as being the problem. Notability is about external research, I found this publisher is on the Library of Congress, there were plenty of external references that were found during, and after, that predate the debate. Both sides of the debate were "longwinded arguments", and they came from both the delete and keep sides, both sides are over 3000 characters.
571:. And both sides cited policies. It should have been a "no consensus" in my book. Whether or not Golden Yen and/or Web Fiction Guide are reliable is irrelevant, they are independent secondary sources accompanied by obviously reliable secondary coverage. The article about Al Hurricane is irrelevant too but, even so, was not created by the creator of this article. I have no "stick", and I have no interest in editing the article, just a peruser of the AfD and DRV.
1072:
686:, we can see that this subject's article would not be at odds with; being a useless collection of information or against being hearsay. Throughout that AfD discussion multiple new sources kept being revealed. Even I, someone who prefers AfD and DRV to article creation, found ANOTHER point of reference. But due to the puppetry and the moot arguments on both sides I still would call it a "no consensus". I applaud
652:. Even giving credit where it isn't due, ignoring the meatpupptry and such, it doesn't change the fact that the article as was presented at AFD didn't provide multiple sources that had significant coverage. Consensus isn't about numbers, it is about substantiated claims of notability and the keep side of the argument failed miserably on this point, so it doesn't matter how many of them failed.
87:
not locked, there is no prohibition on moving an improved draft into mainspace. Editors are cautioned, however, that the appearance of advocacy for this organization (in AfDs, DRVs, or article construction) does not serve the interests of an eventual article. Independent advice on drafts from established editors is strongly advised before the draft is moved to mainspace. –
1308:. In my opinion the draft overcomes the problem (no sources) identified in the prior AfD and would not be subject to speedy deletion under G4 or any of the other criteria. Given the improvement, I see no impediment to moving it to the main article space. That said, the sourcing remains thin and I am not sure whether it would survive a new AfD or not. But if
616:. I never claimed both sides were "equally wrong", I don't think either side was wrong, just indicated that neither side made a convincing argument. I am new, and stated it multiple times, as you can also see from my contribution history, I've voted delete and keep on several AfD and DRV discussions. This is the aspect of Knowledge (XXG) that interests me most.
1119:
is it possible that most of the misbehavior on the keep side came from multiple changes in rationale during the debate? The keep side of the debate argued multiple rationale, this would be especially frustrating for new users being bombarded by experienced users. Let me show the earliest most example
1025:
The above discussion by ferret and BeachParadise is the exact type of conversation that occurred throughout that AfD. There's no consensus here, and this confirms that relisting the AfD will only result in the same back-and-forth. Overturn to no consensus, and move the current article to main article
311:
as closing admin. The discussion was difficult because of a large number of sock/meatpuppets all of whom posted keep votes. That doesn't automatically mean the article shouldn't be restored or even that the subject or those that have worked on the article condoned the puppetry, of course. However,
958:
Agreed that the DRV is going the same direction, which is why I'm going with Xiu's comments, his views on the AfD, are overall correct. Overturning to keep would be silly, and so would siding with the original delete decision. This strengthens Xiu's "no consensus" argument. Apparently, the articles
526:
based on unreliable sources and trivial mentions. New users became emotionally attached to the article and a bit overenthusiastic in their support for it. I remain unconvinced that this situation has changed. The new sources, such as the book, look no better than the old sources. Though I can't
241:
I haven't reviewed completely, so can't offer an opinion on all the sources yet. It has been a concerted effort and such, and if others think it will stand up to AFD, I will take their word for it. Right now I'm spending quality time with one wife and two dogs, so don't have time to fully exam it
86:
side reiterated content arguments from the AfD. The subsequent G4 deletion was not substantively touched upon in the course of the DRV, so I will not comment on it. A smaller element of the discussion is focused on the quality of the (second) revised draft now in userspace. As the article title is
828:
I understand the arguments for delete, it got swamped in a nasty AfD, and as with any publishing subject with several topics this could become a large amount of articles. In the opposite direction, in favor of keep, I've never seen a non-notable subject having an independently produced book about
316:
of the group in the articles but nothing that seems to be substantially about them in a source I'd consider reliable. They certainly do seem to have a dedicated fan following, they seem to be nice folk, and this shouldn't be taken as a statement on the quality of their work, but I don't think it
681:
there was obvious meat puppetry and sock puppetry. It's irrelevant in this case though, AfD discussions are not votes and the multiple puppets didn't control the debate. What is relevant however, in notability based arguments, is to deal with whether or not new sources can be brought in. Also,
981:
From the description page on Amazon, "a team of editors responsible for fact-checking and reliability, they each come from multiple backgrounds in book publishing" "静山社 (Say-Zan-Sha), リクルート (Recruit), 小学館 (Shogakukan), and ゼンリン (Zenrin)" "Scholastic, Penguin Random House, Macmillan, and
865:, we should keep a look out for things like "Many: The Blog Of A Space Probe" and "BladeChick", since they do NOT have references that can pass as claiming notability yet. I believe the Heaven Sent Gaming article to be fine, and the current revision should be moved to the mainspace, but
939:
secondary sources. That does not appear to have changed in the short time since the AFD concluded. I voted for delete during the AFD. This DRV appears to be going along the same lines as the AFD though... The "Keeps" and "Deletes" disagreeing on what a "reliable" source is. --
427:
version. It was never referenced in the mainspace version of the article, but it could have definitely been a driving force in the creation of the article. I didn't stumble upon the article until around the middle of the AfD, but that's a great resource on this subject.
593:. Only in the most shallow way could you say that both sides cited policy, and this is another false equivalence. I could call my dog a reliable secondary source, but that doesn't make it so. And I would note that this user has made very few contributions.
270:, any concerns from the original AfD have been corrected. The sources are reliable and most are non-trivial, there's enough here to create an article from those secondary sources alone, and the subject meets the criteria for notability and inclusion.
495:, my suspicions were confirmed the article's creation date coincides to after the publishment of the book by Yen, the book was more than likely the cause of the creation of the article, and is the plausible cause of users interest in the subject.
389:
If a book like this, lead to the article's creation, then that would be cause for interest in this subject. Meaning the subject gained one piece of "significant coverage" prior to the article's creation, which was never discussed in the AfD.
645:
version up to par eventually. All of that is meaningless here at DRV, all that matters is "Was the close a reasonable read of consensus?" of the AFD, using the article in the state it was then, and to me the answer is clearly
1173:– Move to mainspace. Although there was clear consensus to move this to the main article space, there is also concern about the quality of the references. Anybody is free to bring this to AfD if they feel the need – --
611:
I'm not making a false equivalence, that's an incorrect assessment. You could call your dog a reliable source, but comparing "your dog" to a translated published book and a website dedicated in a specific field IS a
1000:
I am pretty confident that that book is not a reliable source and is self-published, but I don't really want to comment further on it. Since I'm not interested in rehashing the AFD, this is my last reply here. --
472:
so that the content can be reviewed using the article's history. Please do not edit the page during this discussion, and understand that an admin will delete it again if the deletion is not overturned here.
1290:. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues.
278:) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to state my opinion that the original AfD discussion should have been closed as, no consensus. However with the current revisions I would personally vote, keep.
963:. Decided to purchase the book on Kindle and I will read it tonight, after work. There's another book that contains a chapter about the subject, I've been looking for it, but I can't find it anywhere.
1253:
1356:
535:, written by the same user, is also littered with unreliable sources (last.fm, findagrave.com, spotify.com, etc). No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I suggest they
400:
Bolded and italicized for emphasis on main points, it's not to be rude, I completely respect
Lankiveil he is a great admin. Just have a tiny disagreement with him at the moment.
169:
829:
it... or being mentioned in newspapers and talk radio... or being listed in this many databases... even
Crunchyroll and Crunchbase has this subject covered in articles.
82:
side identified more key process issues related to the evaluation of argument quality and identification of misbehavior (e.g., meat-puppetry) in the AfD, whereas the
198:. Lankiveil's got a life, and is not at fault for being busy. The changes made to the article, mend the concerns of the "delete" votes from the AfD, especially; the
1241:
641:
deletion. I know that some editors are working on a new version, and I've offered a tip or two although uninvolved with it. I wish them all the luck getting
48:
34:
383:
This book was published last month, which is not included in the references of the current article, which may correlate with when the article was created.
1329:, basically, I completely agree with Eluchil404, including that the sources are a bit thin, but nothing that should prevent it from going into mainspace.
1262:
43:
1340:
723:
663:
253:
157:
202:
and much more reliable secondary sources now being used. Both changes give a much better picture on the subject's notability. The talk page on
39:
910:, agree with comments made by XiuBouLin, should have been "No Consensus". I would like to state that I voted "Keep" in the original AfD.
708:
The problem here is that there were some sources that were marginal to acceptable for sourcing the content itself, but none of it passed
178:
1092:
a lot of misbehaviour in that AFD on the Keep side. Closer made the right call, and it's hard to disagree with the closing comment.
338:, I agree with your assessment on the puppets, regardless, AfD is not a vote and the results show. The only reason why I support a
894:
1071:, the original nomination was disputed by me, about there being a low amount "Google hits". For whatever reason, it was ignored,
1059:
21:
1211:
531:
is. Web
Fiction Guide, for example, is not a reliable source, and it's still being used as such in the "improved" article.
203:
1353:, notability seem to be a possible issue, since its a stub, more information will turn up. Here's some potential sources
218:. Both of whom have been very polite in getting this thing back together again. The original creator of the article was
1378:
1191:
1148:
469:
424:
267:
195:
107:
17:
527:
be certain, Golden Yen
Publishing looks like a self-publishing outfit. I don't think these editors understand what a
1287:
777:
None of their votes are any lesser for it, nevertheless could contain predetermined bias. That is irrelevant though,
1278:, who restored the article for me upon my request. I moved the article to my user space last year and added a good
960:
598:
544:
568:
1312:
thinks it's ready, I see no reason to debate notability here rather than let someone take it to AfD is desired.
1207:
1169:
982:
HarperCollins". This is extremely relevant to the notability of the subject, and the reliability of the source.
292:
Did a small search on Google Books, and on
Internet Archive. Subject meets the general notability guidelines.
959:
original creation date was after a book about the subject was released, Xiu mentioned it and I just found it
852:
the only notable published materials seems to be "Reverie" and "Thad's World
Destruction: Before Destruction"
765:
I will be bolding and italicizing key parts, it's not to be rude, just to save time, for voters of this DRV.
127:
987:
968:
915:
386:
Would it be possible for the article to be restored? So that way users, like I, can view it and its history.
564:
523:
1336:
1029:
I'm convinced that this subject meets the notability guidelines, but the arguments in the AfD seem split.
840:
people and topics in the article like Jason
Waggoner and Life Never Lost the DO NOT qualify for an article
719:
659:
433:
249:
231:
92:
862:
1274:
at the time, and was deleted with two concurring delete responses. The article was deleted after AFD by
594:
560:
540:
123:
70:
1367:
1345:
1321:
1299:
1180:
1137:
1111:
1084:
1063:
1038:
1010:
991:
972:
949:
919:
815:
768:
All three of the ^above^ "endorse" suggestions are from editors that got their desired "delete" result
749:
728:
699:
668:
625:
602:
580:
548:
504:
482:
455:
437:
410:
364:
321:
301:
287:
258:
235:
96:
1317:
1080:
1055:
890:
882:
932:
199:
1363:
1133:
1034:
931:
sources that would support notability claims. AFD isn't cleanup, the article wasn't deleted due to
811:
745:
695:
621:
576:
500:
451:
406:
395:
360:
297:
283:
275:
1283:
709:
1177:
983:
964:
911:
886:
207:
1125:
536:
878:
353:
Neither side budged, and I still don't think either side would budge after the end of that AfD.
1330:
737:
713:
690:, though, must have been a difficult AfD to sort through, but I still disagree with his call.
678:
653:
613:
590:
429:
243:
227:
211:
88:
1354:
683:
242:
to the extent I normally would, but you can ping me tomorrow if you would choose that I do.
226:
This is my first "deletion review" request, please feel free to correct me and my judgement.
1275:
1006:
945:
266:, I don't know what the article originally looked like, judging from the edits I can see at
1313:
1076:
1047:
1026:
space. This can go up for AfD sometime down the road, but as of now, this will go nowhere.
219:
1279:
858:
We should place a watch on potential non-notable independent articles from this topic-set
528:
1359:
1129:
1093:
1030:
807:
774:
An ^above^ user, voting "overturn" in favor of a "keep", didn't get his desired result.
741:
691:
687:
617:
572:
496:
465:
447:
420:
402:
391:
356:
333:
318:
293:
279:
271:
215:
206:
has a good chunk of details on those involved in rebuilding the article. Mostly me and
191:
1295:
1174:
478:
532:
312:
while the new version reads acceptably, that's still not clear; there are a lot of
194:, the admin responsible for deletion, has been too busy to review changes over at:
376:
186:
Extremely passionate long-winded arguments on both sides. I believe it should be
1046:. The closing statement is apt and pithy, and correctly summarises the debate.—
1002:
941:
846:
Mario, Isabel, and Drew seem to have enough references to get their own articles
804:
I would like to know what my fellow non-biased users have to say about this DRV.
935:
or the lack of the sources being in the article, but due to an actual lack of
798:
both sides are, unconvincingly, arguing the semantics of "reliable" sources
927:
Per Dennis Brown and NinjaRobotPirate. The issue at the AFD was a lack of
861:
So that way we can avoid a flood of articles claiming, that notability is
1309:
1291:
872:
492:
474:
563:
was the the original creator of the AfD. I agree that most keeps were
468:'s request, I have restored the article using the instructions under
347:
both sides, "delete" and "keep", bringing up policy-based arguments
344:, in contradiction to your original thoughts on the AfD, is due to
1124:
website. Almost no hits on a Google search" (a.k.a. bad reasoning
423:, that's a gigantic secondary resource, I've now added it to the
378:
Internet
Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming: 伝説のインターネット - ヘヴン セント ゲーミング
831:
Though, from the sources mentioned in and outside the article,
855:. Since they seem to be the only SIGCOV potential articles.
834:
Heaven Sent Gaming itself probably qualifies for an article
350:
that were largely ignored by huge debates from both sides.
317:
adds up to an article that'll survive a second AFD yet..
1120:
of bombardment, the original rationale was "Non-notable
1271:
1248:
1234:
1226:
1218:
164:
150:
142:
134:
843:
going purely off the independently published sources,
792:
I do not believe relisting the AfD would be beneficial
78:
is endorsed. The course of the DRV discussion on the
470:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review#Temporary undeletion
780:
their arguments remain, in my opinion, unconvincing
188:"Overturn", in favor of a "Keep" or "No Consensus"
589:Saying that both sides were equally wrong is a
8:
1327:Endorse previous close but move to mainspace
895:Thad's World Destruction: Before Destruction
1190:The following is an archived debate of the
789:, and I've stated my rationale many times.
224:Thank you for taking the time to read this.
106:The following is an archived debate of the
1162:
63:
1270:The article was sent to AFD in 2012 and
446:Glad you found the reference relevant.
204:User talk:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming
7:
1381:of the page listed in the heading.
1151:of the page listed in the heading.
522:. Arguments basically amounted to
375:Shigimori Shizuka (16 June 2014).
28:
425:User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming
268:User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming
196:User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming
1358:, there's probably more though.
1351:Endorse close, move to mainspace
1377:The above is an archive of the
1288:Draft:Paul Hume (game designer)
1147:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
908:Overturn and move to mainspace
373:Found this about the subject:
264:Overturn and move to mainspace
1:
419:Thank you for that reference
877:should handle the potential
398:) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
210:, under the watchful eye of
900:. 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
1404:
786:overturn to "no consensus"
1368:21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
1346:13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
1322:03:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
1300:00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
1208:Paul Hume (game designer)
1181:00:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1170:Paul Hume (game designer)
1138:19:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1112:17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1085:20:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1064:11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
1039:21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
1011:21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
992:21:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
973:20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
950:20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
920:19:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
816:23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
750:23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
729:21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
700:20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
669:19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
626:23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
603:21:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
581:20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
549:16:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
505:20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
483:13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
456:20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
438:06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
411:02:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
365:01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
322:12:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
302:06:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
288:06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
259:01:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
236:01:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
97:23:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
1384:Please do not modify it.
1197:Please do not modify it.
1154:Please do not modify it.
567:, but most deletes were
381:. Golden Yen Publishing.
113:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1282:and moved to the new
771:in the original AfD.
561:User:NinjaRobotPirate
74:– The AfD closure of
837:, there are several
783:. I've voted for an
1194:of the page above.
110:of the page above.
868:experienced people
208:User:BeachParadise
124:Heaven Sent Gaming
71:Heaven Sent Gaming
1391:
1390:
1343:
1306:Move to mainspace
1161:
1160:
1062:
726:
666:
614:false equivalence
591:false equivalence
256:
212:User:Dennis Brown
1395:
1386:
1341:
1265:
1260:
1251:
1237:
1229:
1221:
1199:
1163:
1156:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1100:
1054:
1052:
724:
664:
595:NinjaRobotPirate
569:WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE
541:NinjaRobotPirate
382:
337:
254:
181:
176:
167:
153:
145:
137:
115:
64:
53:
33:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1382:
1379:deletion review
1280:reliable source
1261:
1259:
1256:
1247:
1246:
1240:
1233:
1232:
1225:
1224:
1217:
1216:
1195:
1192:deletion review
1152:
1149:deletion review
1107:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1048:
891:Reverie (comic)
883:Mario J. Lucero
529:reliable source
374:
331:
220:User:DunDunDunt
177:
175:
172:
163:
162:
156:
149:
148:
141:
140:
133:
132:
111:
108:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1401:
1399:
1389:
1388:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1348:
1324:
1272:had no sources
1268:
1267:
1257:
1244:
1238:
1230:
1222:
1214:
1202:
1201:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1159:
1158:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1114:
1094:Andrew Lenahan
1087:
1066:
1041:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
995:
994:
976:
975:
953:
952:
922:
904:
903:
902:
901:
819:
818:
795:either. Since
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
732:
731:
703:
702:
688:User:Lankiveil
672:
671:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
606:
605:
584:
583:
552:
551:
537:drop the stick
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
486:
485:
461:
460:
459:
458:
441:
440:
414:
413:
368:
367:
341:"no consensus"
326:
325:
306:
305:
304:
261:
216:User:Smile Lee
192:User:Lankiveil
184:
183:
173:
160:
154:
146:
138:
130:
118:
117:
102:
101:
100:
99:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1400:
1387:
1385:
1380:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1344:
1338:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1264:
1255:
1250:
1243:
1236:
1228:
1220:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1187:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1157:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1110:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1073:Google Search
1070:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1051:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
996:
993:
989:
985:
984:BeachParadise
980:
979:
978:
977:
974:
970:
966:
965:BeachParadise
962:
957:
956:
955:
954:
951:
947:
943:
938:
934:
930:
926:
923:
921:
917:
913:
912:BeachParadise
909:
906:
905:
899:
898:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
874:
870:
869:
864:
860:
859:
854:
853:
848:
847:
842:
841:
836:
835:
830:
826:
825:Minor Comment
823:
822:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
806:
805:
800:
799:
794:
793:
788:
787:
782:
781:
776:
775:
770:
769:
764:
761:
760:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
735:
734:
733:
730:
727:
721:
717:
716:
711:
707:
706:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
680:
677:I agree with
676:
675:
674:
673:
670:
667:
661:
657:
656:
651:
650:
644:
640:
637:
636:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
587:
586:
585:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:WP:ITSNOTABLE
562:
559:
556:
555:
554:
553:
550:
546:
542:
539:and move on.
538:
534:
530:
525:
524:WP:ITSNOTABLE
521:
518:
517:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
484:
480:
476:
471:
467:
463:
462:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
435:
431:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
380:
379:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
355:
354:
349:
348:
343:
342:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
323:
320:
315:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
262:
260:
257:
251:
247:
246:
240:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
180:
171:
166:
159:
152:
144:
136:
129:
125:
122:
121:
120:
119:
116:
114:
109:
104:
103:
98:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1383:
1376:
1350:
1332:Dennis Brown
1331:
1326:
1305:
1269:
1196:
1189:
1168:
1153:
1146:
1121:
1116:
1097:
1089:
1068:
1049:
1043:
1024:
1023:
936:
928:
924:
907:
876:
875:
867:
866:
863:WP:INHERITED
857:
856:
851:
850:
845:
844:
839:
838:
833:
832:
827:
824:
803:
802:
797:
796:
791:
790:
785:
784:
779:
778:
773:
772:
767:
766:
762:
738:Dennis Brown
715:Dennis Brown
714:
655:Dennis Brown
654:
648:
647:
642:
638:
557:
533:Al Hurricane
519:
430:LuigiToeness
399:
385:
384:
377:
352:
351:
346:
345:
340:
339:
313:
308:
263:
245:Dennis Brown
244:
228:LuigiToeness
223:
187:
185:
112:
105:
89:IronGargoyle
83:
79:
75:
69:
59:15 July 2014
58:
49:2014 July 16
35:2014 July 14
1284:Draft space
1276:Mark Arsten
887:Isabel Ruiz
491:Thank you
1314:Eluchil404
1077:DunDunDunt
1050:S Marshall
933:WP:OVERREF
200:WP:OVERREF
1360:XiuBouLin
1130:XiuBouLin
1031:XiuBouLin
961:on Amazon
879:Drew Cass
808:XiuBouLin
742:XiuBouLin
710:WP:SIGCOV
692:XiuBouLin
618:XiuBouLin
573:XiuBouLin
497:XiuBouLin
466:XiuBouLin
448:XiuBouLin
421:XiuBouLin
403:XiuBouLin
392:XiuBouLin
357:XiuBouLin
334:Lankiveil
319:Lankiveil
294:XiuBouLin
280:XiuBouLin
272:XiuBouLin
44:2014 July
1175:RoySmith
1126:WP:GHITS
1122:business
1069:Overturn
937:reliable
929:reliable
897:articles
873:User:BOZ
682:through
314:mentions
84:overturn
20: |
1263:restore
1227:history
1117:Comment
1090:Endorse
1044:Endorse
925:Endorse
763:Comment
684:WP:WHYN
639:Endorse
520:Endorse
309:Endorse
179:restore
143:history
80:endorse
1178:(talk)
1003:ferret
942:ferret
893:, and
679:Dennis
76:delete
1249:watch
1242:links
871:like
165:watch
158:links
52:: -->
16:<
1364:talk
1318:talk
1296:talk
1235:logs
1219:edit
1212:talk
1134:talk
1081:talk
1035:talk
1007:talk
988:talk
969:talk
946:talk
916:talk
849:and
812:talk
746:talk
696:talk
643:that
622:talk
599:talk
577:talk
558:Note
545:talk
501:talk
479:talk
464:Per
452:talk
434:talk
407:talk
396:talk
361:talk
298:talk
284:talk
276:talk
232:talk
214:and
151:logs
135:edit
128:talk
93:talk
32:<
1342:WER
1310:BOZ
1292:BOZ
1286:at
1254:XfD
1252:) (
1105:bli
725:WER
665:WER
649:yes
493:BOZ
475:BOZ
255:WER
170:XfD
168:) (
22:Log
1366:)
1339:|
1337:2¢
1335:|
1320:)
1298:)
1136:)
1108:nd
1102:ar
1099:St
1096:-
1083:)
1037:)
1009:)
990:)
971:)
948:)
918:)
889:,
885:,
881:,
814:)
801:.
748:)
722:|
720:2¢
718:|
698:)
662:|
660:2¢
658:|
624:)
601:)
579:)
547:)
503:)
481:)
454:)
436:)
409:)
363:)
300:)
286:)
252:|
250:2¢
248:|
234:)
222:.
190:.
95:)
42::
1362:(
1316:(
1294:(
1266:)
1258:|
1245:|
1239:|
1231:|
1223:|
1215:|
1210:(
1132:(
1079:(
1060:C
1058:/
1056:T
1033:(
1005:(
986:(
967:(
944:(
914:(
810:(
744:(
694:(
620:(
597:(
575:(
543:(
499:(
477:(
450:(
432:(
405:(
394:(
359:(
336::
332:@
324:.
296:(
282:(
274:(
230:(
182:)
174:|
161:|
155:|
147:|
139:|
131:|
126:(
91:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.