1103:- The GQ source is good, but otherwise the sources people are linking to to support keeping are really dodgy. "Grit Daily" calls itself the "top news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands". Other sources are from Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources rather than sources known for their coverage of film. For a recent movie on Netflix about a topic in pop culture, there's a surprising lack of good coverage here. —
1168:"I don't like it" is a weak argument. We have identified seven professionally-written reviews of the film published by sources that cover crypto-currency, finance in general, technology and modern culture. There are not short publicity blurbs. They are detailed descriptions and thoughtful, informed critiques from different perspectives. The depth and breadth of coverage is impressive. The film is notable.
1200:(Lozano Consultores Ltda) is the most significant source. They specialize in prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. It is their business to understand in detail the crypto-currency technology, legal issues and ways in which bitcoin etc. can be used for illegal purposes. They are subject matter experts.
541:
with the summary "rm crypto sites - crypto sites are not WP:RSes, need mainstream sources". That seems a bit like saying
Christian sources cannot be used in articles about Christianity. I restored the content and added some more from sources that seem to be far from "crypto sites". I then get a large
1291:
article. I could give more like that. None of them add up to a good enough second source for me to show notability. But my collective reading of them gives me great pause about deleting it. So I can't quite say we should keep up but I also can't say in good faith we should delete it. So take this as
675:
Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of
1050:
Other areas "rife with promotionalism" include politics, the performing arts, software and so on. Let's not get paranoid. The main sources are reviews of the film published in broad-audience journals. They are reliable and independent: that is what they saw, and that is what they thought about it.
611:
Wouldn't this make half of the claims unsupported? Besides, I am not familiar with other sources. Is imdb considered reliable? What about thatshelf.com, gritdaily.com and infolaft.com? Simply speaking, yes, I wouldn't object if
Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com are excluded together
1249:
since it only has one significant reliable source, the GQ article. The article is fluffed up with links to IMDB (which is not a reliable source) and a Barnes & Noble advertisement, neither of which do anything to prove notability, in an attempt to seem notable. One significant source is not
1153:
Bitcoin
Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources are in fact linked above as evidence that the article should be kept (the source published on nasdaq.com says "publisher: Bitcoin Magazine"). I see no indication that Grit Daily is a reliable source for a film review here. Ditto the law firm.
839:
Lozano Vila & Asociados is a large legal consultancy based in
Colombia that specializes in prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Its lengthy overview of the film may be taken to indicate that the film presents a legitimate mainstream view of the subject, if that is
381:. These are sources that are not related to the film producer and may be presumed to give accurate information and reviews, not all of which are positive. The film, now a bit dated, gained considerable attention in the bitcoin community and some attention outside that community.
557:
What is going on? I have no views on bitcoin beyond vague skepticism. I am not trying to push any opinion, just trying to salvage a bland article about a
Netflix film that has received some attention, rightly or wrongly. Why do we urgently need to purge the article on the film?
679:
Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the
505:
I have added some more information supported by reliable sources. This information, and the citations, should not be removed during a deletion discussion. It is valid to comment here on whether the sources are reliable and whether they contribute to notability.
52:. Consensus is that there is substantial coverage in one acceptable source, GQ. But almost everybody who has taken a closer look at the other sources is of the view that they are the sort of crypto subculture materials that we don't consider reliable.
435:
republishes the
Bitcoin Magazine review, that means they think the film is notable and Bitcoin Magazine is a credible source for a review. Whether Bitcoin Magazine or Nasdaq would be good sources for investment advice is a different question.
1154:
Independent is not the same as reliable for a particular purpose, of course. Would need to look into That Shelf more, since I've never heard of it and it's unclear by looking at it, but jsut GQ + That Shelf doesn't speak highly for a film. —
835:
are large sites (GQ also has a print version) with many readers. The articles are written by paid journalists. They may be assumed to be factually accurate, although the opinions expressed will be those of the authors. They clearly establish
532:, kept, and then nominated for AfD by the same user. A typical pattern. It seems like a harmless documentary, perhaps a bit biased, as documentaries tend to be. A Google search gives plenty of hits, so it seems notable enough.
357:
requires multiple coverage. The NASDAQ source is a reprint of
Bitcoin Magazine, which is a crypto blog. You also added a pile more links to said crypto blog. These are not RSes and cannot be used to demonstrate notability -
1121:
Bitcoin
Magazine is not cited, or any other bitcoin-related sources, because of the ruling that all sources that cover bitcoin-related topics are unreliable. That limits the available sources for a film about bitcoin.
209:
626:
Thanks. I have put back the material other than the stuff from
Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com. This all seems very paranoid to me, but I suppose that is what the world of cryptocurrencies is like.
1134:
are independent and surely reliable for what they say about the film. Lozano Vila & Asociados, a law firm, is surely also reliable and independent. All these sources cover the film in depth, which is all that
491:
I have restored valid sources and the content they support. The crypto-currency news sites are reliable for information about the movie. You may argue here why you consider Nasdaq etc. unreliable.
1182:
No we haven't, they're bad sources that can't be used for notability - even if you keep just repeating your claim at everyone who points this out. We have two review sources at absolute best -
697:
Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit
Knowledge. The following link has triggered a protection filter:
1268:
The GQ is a certainly good coverage. If there was an equivalent review in another equivalent periodical that would demonstrate notability for me. I do notice some routine coverage in
1016:
203:
1276:
768:
still not met. The recently added sources are all crypto-currency news sites; not necessarily unreliable, but probably no better than trade magazines for notability (the
309:
162:
995:. Cryptocurrency, being an area rife with promotionalism, is a subject where niche sources have a deep well to climb out of in order to prove themselves reliable.
289:
597:
seems in his/her unsigned notice on my talk page to be saying one false step and I am in deep shit. I do not want get get into anything resembling an edit war.
1212:
can comment on its artistic quality, but Infolaft gives a truly informed view of the views expressed in the documentary, the errors, omissions or distortions.
1075:
847:
772:
discussion above is a good discussion of this; I think we're still trying to build consensus around this). The single remaining GQ article is not sufficient.
337:
688:
Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you).
269:
109:
1273:
818:
IMDB (Amazon) and Barnes and Noble are reliable for basic facts like people and companies associated with the film, but do nothing to establish notability
1051:
The film itself may be biased – many films, books, politicians etc. are biased – but what counts is whether it has been noted, and that is clearly true.
94:
1254:, and articles on topics so financially focused should require a high bar to meet notability, to prevent Knowledge being abused as free advertising.
1045:
169:
407:
135:
130:
139:
1284:
457:
it would be better to discuss that at the noticeboard since it concerns all the Bitcoin articles. There are a few other AfD's underway. --
876:
per Aymatth, looks to have sufficient enough coverage to be worth keeping, regardless of what we might think about the subject matter.†
122:
709:
If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be,
593:
To be clear, if I restore all the content I added apart from the citations to these three sources, you will not again purge it all?
521:
224:
691:
Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.
191:
89:
82:
17:
377:. I added some information from other reliable independent sources including Cointelegraph, Bitcoin.com (Saint Bitts LLC) and
1280:
1081:
899:
333:
537:
I added some neutral and factual content about the film from sources that discussed the subject, and it was reverted by
572:
In particular, Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com, Nasdaq (reprint from Bitcoin Magazine) are not considered reliable sources.
1091:
712:
If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative.
547:
103:
99:
185:
956:
929:
790:
1318:
40:
1301:
1263:
1221:
1191:
1177:
1163:
1148:
1112:
1095:
1060:
981:
947:
920:
896:
886:
867:
821:
Ben Prunty's bio is probably accurate in saying he composed the music, but does nothing to establish notability
808:
781:
744:
636:
621:
606:
581:
567:
515:
500:
486:
466:
445:
419:
390:
367:
348:
321:
301:
281:
261:
64:
732:
661:
181:
854:, which also indicates both legitimacy and notability, but the nominator has insisted this source be removed.
126:
777:
248:. Single RS talking about the film, after the non-RSes were cleaned out - NFILM requires multiple coverage.
1084:
431:
Bitcoin Magazine has a sizable readership, and I see no reason to doubt what it says about this film. When
1259:
1187:
1087:
482:
363:
317:
297:
277:
257:
231:
1288:
1314:
1012:
976:
525:
118:
70:
36:
877:
1297:
1156:
1105:
217:
702:
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
1217:
1173:
1144:
1056:
1041:
992:
943:
863:
804:
773:
740:
632:
617:
602:
577:
563:
511:
496:
462:
441:
415:
386:
344:
197:
1255:
1183:
594:
543:
538:
529:
478:
474:
359:
313:
293:
273:
253:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1313:
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
1251:
1027:
1008:
972:
851:
378:
249:
902:
1246:
354:
241:
1293:
916:
55:
1275:. Beyond that I find a whole lot of references to it in good enough sources: in this
1242:
1213:
1169:
1140:
1136:
1078:
1052:
1037:
939:
908:
905:
859:
800:
769:
765:
736:
628:
613:
598:
588:
573:
559:
551:
507:
492:
458:
452:
437:
426:
411:
401:
382:
340:
245:
156:
1197:
999:
an unreliable source does not make its content more trustworthy, so the NASDAQ/
996:
1033:
912:
660:
Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a
1205:
520:
I do not understand what is going on here. I came to this discussion from
1269:
252:
shows nothing more. PROD removed, but without any fixes to these issues.
1074:
the documentary is covered and reviewed by the multiple notable sources
731:
I suggest that Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com and Nasdaq should be added to
1003:
item counts for nothing; the closest we get is the single piece from
843:
432:
1279:
at the Telegraph on the best business content on Netflix, or this
1292:
my own personal no consensus about what we should do here. Best,
715:
Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative.
645:
Sometimes when I go to save an article I get warning notice like:
408:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bitcoin_Magazine_reputable
1309:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1209:
959:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
932:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
793:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1208:
can explain the significance of the film to millenials, and
1201:
336:, which is a reliable source. Also, isn't NASDAQ reliable?
406:
David Gerard thinks one cannot cite Bitcoin Magazine. See
152:
148:
144:
216:
895:- Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:
970:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
938:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
799:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1321:). No further edits should be made to this page.
308:Note: This discussion has been included in the
288:Note: This discussion has been included in the
268:Note: This discussion has been included in the
668:To save your changes now, you must go back and
310:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
1032:what about the three other sources listed by
230:
8:
290:list of Finance-related deletion discussions
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
735:to avoid problems like this in the future.
676:your web-browser after the page has loaded.
612:with claims they were supposed to support.
307:
287:
267:
685:If you feel the link is needed, you can:
270:list of Film-related deletion discussions
662:site registered on Knowledge's blacklist
1283:column or as a throw away line in this
528:is an article proposed for deletion by
522:Knowledge talk:Proposed deletion#Flawed
1204:is a glossy that dates back to 1931,
7:
473:I removed the crypto blogs. This is
1036:? None of them are crypto media. --
554:removed all the changes I had made.
24:
542:warning box on my talk page from
1287:article, or as a good primer in
477:, not adding reliable sources -
95:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
672:(shown below), and then save.
240:No evidence of notability per
1:
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1338:
1302:01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
1264:02:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
1222:00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
1192:13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
1178:11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
1164:21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
1149:21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
1113:18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
1096:04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
1061:18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1046:02:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
1017:16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
982:15:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
948:00:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
921:14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
368:23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
349:19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
332:. It has been covered in
322:12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
302:12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
282:12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
262:12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
65:15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
1311:Please do not modify it.
887:12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
868:12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
809:19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
782:08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
745:03:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
733:Knowledge:Spam blacklist
637:12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
622:05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
607:02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
582:02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
568:19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
516:13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
501:12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
487:10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
467:15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
446:12:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
420:02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
391:01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
815:A note on the sources:
670:remove the blocked link
546:saying something about
353:GQ is a single RS, and
83:Articles for deletion
1007:which isn't enough.
550:, and shortly after
548:WP:General sanctions
1241:per the nom. Fails
965:Relisting comment:
848:review of the film
526:Banking on Bitcoin
119:Banking on Bitcoin
71:Banking on Bitcoin
1088:TheBirdsShedTears
984:
950:
811:
324:
304:
284:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
1329:
1161:
1159:
1110:
1108:
1031:
1001:Bitcoin Magazine
980:
969:
962:
960:
937:
935:
933:
884:
852:Bitcoin Magazine
798:
796:
794:
699:census2011.co.in
592:
456:
430:
405:
379:Bitcoin Magazine
235:
234:
220:
172:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1319:deletion review
1289:this the Street
1281:Chicago tribune
1157:
1155:
1106:
1104:
1025:
985:
971:
955:
953:
951:
928:
926:
878:
812:
789:
787:
718:
586:
450:
424:
399:
177:
168:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1335:
1333:
1324:
1323:
1305:
1304:
1266:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1196:In my opinion
1158:Rhododendrites
1116:
1115:
1107:Rhododendrites
1098:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1020:
1019:
968:
963:
952:
936:
925:
924:
923:
871:
870:
857:
856:
855:
846:republished a
841:
837:
822:
819:
797:
786:
785:
784:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
717:
716:
713:
710:
701:
695:
694:
693:
692:
689:
683:
682:
681:
677:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
555:
534:
533:
503:
471:
470:
469:
448:
394:
393:
372:
371:
370:
326:
325:
305:
285:
238:
237:
174:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1334:
1322:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1114:
1109:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
993:BenKuykendall
990:
987:
986:
983:
978:
974:
966:
961:
958:
949:
945:
941:
934:
931:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
903:
900:
897:
894:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
883:
882:
881:Encyclopædius
875:
869:
865:
861:
858:
853:
849:
845:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
823:
820:
817:
816:
814:
813:
810:
806:
802:
795:
792:
783:
779:
775:
774:BenKuykendall
771:
767:
763:
760:
759:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
714:
711:
708:
707:
706:
703:
700:
690:
687:
686:
684:
678:
674:
673:
671:
667:
666:
665:
663:
644:
638:
634:
630:
625:
624:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
590:
585:
584:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
556:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:WP:REFBOMBing
472:
468:
464:
460:
454:
449:
447:
443:
439:
434:
428:
423:
422:
421:
417:
413:
409:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
331:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
233:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:Find sources:
175:
171:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1310:
1308:
1256:Newshunter12
1238:
1184:David Gerard
1131:
1127:
1123:
1100:
1071:
1004:
1000:
988:
967:Final relist
964:
954:
927:
892:
880:
879:
873:
872:
832:
828:
824:
788:
761:
704:
698:
696:
669:
659:
595:David Gerard
544:David Gerard
539:David Gerard
530:David Gerard
479:David Gerard
374:
360:David Gerard
329:
314:David Gerard
294:David Gerard
274:David Gerard
254:David Gerard
239:
227:
221:
213:
206:
200:
194:
188:
178:
165:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1101:Weak Delete
705:Solutions:
204:free images
1250:sustained
1210:That Shelf
1206:Grit Daily
1139:requires.
1132:That Shelf
1128:Grit Daily
1028:XOR'easter
1009:XOR'easter
836:notability
833:That Shelf
825:Grit Daily
58:Sandstein
1315:talk page
1294:Barkeep49
1252:WP:SIGCOV
973:Vanamonde
907:. Thanks
840:relevant.
250:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1317:or in a
1277:listicle
1270:Deadline
1247:WP:NFILM
1214:Aymatth2
1198:Infolaft
1170:Aymatth2
1141:Aymatth2
1053:Aymatth2
1038:Ysangkok
997:Churning
957:Relisted
940:Ysangkok
930:Relisted
909:Aymatth2
860:Aymatth2
801:Ysangkok
791:Relisted
737:Aymatth2
629:Aymatth2
614:Retimuko
599:Aymatth2
589:Retimuko
574:Retimuko
560:Aymatth2
552:Retimuko
508:Aymatth2
493:Aymatth2
459:Ysangkok
453:Aymatth2
438:Aymatth2
427:Ysangkok
412:Ysangkok
402:Aymatth2
383:Aymatth2
355:WP:NFILM
341:Ysangkok
242:WP:NFILM
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
210:WP refs
198:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
1243:WP:GNG
1239:Delete
1137:WP:GNG
989:Delete
844:Nasdaq
770:WP:RSN
766:WP:GNG
762:Delete
433:Nasdaq
246:WP:GNG
182:Google
140:delete
50:delete
1272:e.g.
680:link.
225:JSTOR
186:books
170:Stats
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
1298:talk
1285:CNBC
1260:talk
1245:and
1218:talk
1188:talk
1174:talk
1145:talk
1130:and
1092:talk
1083:and
1072:Keep
1057:talk
1042:talk
1034:Kvng
1013:talk
991:per
977:Talk
944:talk
917:talk
913:Kvng
893:Keep
874:Keep
864:talk
831:and
805:talk
778:talk
741:talk
633:talk
618:talk
603:talk
578:talk
564:talk
512:talk
497:talk
483:talk
463:talk
442:talk
416:talk
410:. --
387:talk
375:Keep
364:talk
345:talk
330:Keep
318:talk
298:talk
278:talk
258:talk
218:FENS
192:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
1162:\\
1111:\\
1005:GQ,
911:. ~
850:by
664:.
244:or
232:TWL
161:– (
1300:)
1262:)
1220:)
1202:GQ
1190:)
1176:)
1147:)
1126:,
1124:GQ
1094:)
1086:.
1080:,
1077:,
1059:)
1044:)
1015:)
946:)
919:)
904:,
901:,
898:,
866:)
829:GQ
827:,
807:)
780:)
764:,
743:)
635:)
620:)
605:)
580:)
566:)
524:.
514:)
499:)
485:)
465:)
444:)
418:)
389:)
366:)
347:)
339:--
334:GQ
320:)
312:.
300:)
292:.
280:)
272:.
260:)
212:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
1296:(
1258:(
1216:(
1186:(
1172:(
1143:(
1090:(
1055:(
1040:(
1030::
1026:@
1011:(
979:)
975:(
942:(
915:(
862:(
803:(
776:(
739:(
631:(
616:(
601:(
591::
587:@
576:(
562:(
510:(
495:(
481:(
461:(
455::
451:@
440:(
429::
425:@
414:(
404::
400:@
385:(
362:(
343:(
316:(
296:(
276:(
256:(
236:)
228:·
222:·
214:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
184:(
176:(
173:)
166:·
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.