534:
with a block. Not a threat, ..." because people will interpret that as a threat especially when you take action on it as you have. Likewise, many other editors also sided to include GunDB, such as D3x0r, me, an unsigned user and now a few independent reviewers that see no problem with it: No1lakersfan and Levlev32. Finally, you accuse me of disruptive editing but all I am trying to do is follow requests including what
Michaelmalak himself said: "To re-add, establish notability by either linking to a dedicated Knowledge (XXG) article about the database" (
513:- You again ignore the fact that both HackerNews and Reddit are vetted news sites. Your claim might be relevant if those postings had no upvotes, but they both were significant enough by others (not the author) to land them in the top news. (Unrelated note: You finally let me add ArangoDB back in to the Graph list, which I am thankful for. According to your own requirements though, it has less significant sources and even cites HackerNews. This suggest to me that either those are qualified enough sources, or you are purposefully targeting GunDB.)
256:
admins have rejected your request to ban me, and I have spent a lot of effort to find credible and significant sources that even match your requirements (you have given no reason why they are not other than just stating they are not) - in order to have a civil discussion you have to actually let me present a case. The current consensus count is 4 pro and 4 con in the graph talk thread (I encourage others to read it), so please do not act like you have consensus when you don't - your statements need to be backed by evidence, not opinion alone.
1167:, saying "You really should consider dropping the stick and backing slowly away" is a misappropriate usage of WP:STICK when this page is not even closed yet! I would much rather you continue the discussion and make arguments for why you are correct rather than simply stating "I believe" 3 times in the previous paragraph - we obviously have different opinions, and I would love to hear why you believe what you do. Thanks! (Edit: format/numbering)
960:), evidence shows that an anonymous IP started the revert war of deleting that you then continued when other members of the community (like D3x0r) tried to restore the list to its original long standing consensus. Also given that Cayley and ArangoDB have been added back in, it looks like the original long standing consensus was correct and disagrees with your deletionist (like you are trying to do to this GunDB page entry) agendas.
1366:
links)? Why is it that you're trying to weasel out of your last salvo of incorrect allegations and your misattributing of actions to me. Why is it that you maintain your allegation that the nominator of this AfD (me) had previously nominated *3* articles and the "deletion was overruled" (which doesn't apply to PRODs) and don't apologise and withdraw your remark but rather try to adopt a position that you are correct all along?
31:
937:
not entitled to "I don't actually believe that you really thought". I am glad you posted your full remarks because it lets me point out more of the pieces that personally offended me (note: it might not others). When you say "That isn't how we do things here" that is a very ostracizing/excluding/otherizing comment when I know for fact that
Knowledge (XXG) founded on the idea (
501:- GitHub is peer review, and you have avoided replying to this countless times, and you have provided no citation, policy, or evidence against this. Claiming that GitHub's rating system is "user generated" is false because GitHub stars are not self report, they are peer vetted. You still need to address the fact that GunDB, Cayley, and ArangoDB are almost as popular as Neo4j.
880:
701:. You continued to insert your product details into the article despite the effores of three of four other editors (including me) to remove it and discuss at the Talk page. If there is a dispute, it gets settled on the Talk page and only then does an article reflect the decision reached. The consensus on the Talk page was to remove GunDB as it was
911:- Third question: If the editorial staff and credentialed members who run site do not think the voting algorithm is generating good results onto their homepage, is it or is it not in their best interest to modify the algorithm to prevent abuse or gamification? (If you are curious how they deal with this, check out
1374:
and understand that the references you provided *all* fail and therefore your product has *zero* coverage that we can rely on to establish notability? Why is it that you fail to address the abject failure of the sources you have put forward as reliable sources? Why is it that you fail to address any
898:
5. Angel.co is not an investor, it is an independent secondary source that allows people to verify a company's claims of investment because it requires the approval of
Billionaires like Tim Draper and Marc Benioff of Salesforce. Of course they are biased, but that is not what is being discussed here,
533:
Maybe we are from different cultures, but if you do not want people thinking you are threatening to ban (correction: block, thank you for clarifying that, I am wrong on saying ban then) them don't say things like (in the link you posted) "...this will not end well for you and you will probably end up
1688:
article! So this has already been taken care of (and thus not a reason for deletion as a whole). was originally used in the Graph Talk discussion to comply with admin EdJohnston's and editor
Michaelmalak's list inclusion requirements of "preferably an article that either interviews actual users of
1464:
where it states "..on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." and "Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may
1378:
3. Why is it that after all this discussion here and on other pages, you still maintain that you have provided "significant" coverage? Why is it that you have such difficulty in reading the analysis of your sources (above) and accepting that they fail for the reasons specificied? Why is it that you
936:
10. This is very much off subject, but I am fine with discussing it - so apologies to others that the following remarks are going to be written in a very personal and emotional tone rather than what I try my best (and probably fail often) as being a logical one. Yes, I was offended, and no, you are
679:
I don't actually believe that you really thought this was a threat to have you banned/blocked and I believe you have chosen to portay my comment in this way to cast me in a bad light. This is more of a reflection on you than me. You've proclaimed that you were threatened in 4 or 5 difference places
1099:
and how you'd failed to produce a single source in order to include your produce in a List - which is a much lower bar than having its own article, I don't think there are any grounds for criticising this AfD. On the other hand I believe your attempted creation of this article can be criticised on
1754:
6. I've been advocating for Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB not just GunDB, so please don't claim I'm COI when all Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB had long standing consensus since 2015 (links of proof of this are listed in (12) above) and I/others have gotten all except GunDB to be restored on the Graph
633:
codenewbie .. OK - I stand corrected - it is an interview of Mark Nadal and not a poscast by Mark Nadal. As a source, codenewbie would not be regarded as being a reliable source since it is a "community" grown out of a weekly
TwitterChat. Leaving that aside - content produced by Mark Nadal is not
529:
An independent reviewer, No1lakersfan, has already approved of this page. At this point in the discussion having independent third party reviewers is important, because you have unilaterally dismissed this entire page because of your deletionist agenda on the graph page - so much to the point you
670:
OK, you asked for a point-by-point response, which I provide. You then fail to respond with any argument based on policy or address any points I've raised - and then revert the article anyway. That isn't how we do things here. I'm going to request that the article is protected from editing by IP
255:
Why are UCLA, Forbes, WSJ, AllThingsD, hackernews, angel.co, BoostVC, reddit, and others not independent sources? Many of those sources are used elsewhere in
Knowledge (XXG) to establish significance. Could you please justify and back your claims rather than personally attacking me? Two separate
1365:
1. Why is it that you have such difficulty in paying attention to what is said and discussed? Why is it that you have such difficulty in reading simple sentences? Why is it that you always ask open-ended questions rather than answering specific points using specific policies and guidelines (and
918:
To conclude, while you are correct that adding stories is user generated, the ranking system is not. And on community news sites that are as popular as HackerNews and Reddit, achieving a high upvote is a sign that the algorithm authored by the editorial staff views it as being notable (which is
894:
4. You are correct that NPM is not an established outlet like UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD. NPM is an independent secondary source to verify download counts and the popularity of GunDB. It is much better to cite a source than for the
Knowledge (XXG) article to just state "GunDB has X downloads",
588:
I don't give a hoot about Mark Nadal although I do think he has lovely hair in his photographs. You say that authors can be considered sources and this is true - but with a qualification. You need to read the rest of that guidelines where you'll find that the qualification for authors is
821:
2. The author of GunDB does not work for UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD - these are not self published. He is not being quoted as an expert, instead there has been significant media coverages of him as a founder and his work, published by multiple independent and reliable sources.
491:. This leaves us with two logical options: (A) you have to justify why Kafka, PokemonGo, and others also should be disregarded or why they are different in their migration/pivot/spin-out or (B) My counter argument does bring up a valid point as to why your argument is non-unique.
649:, plucked out a sentence that appears to support your adopted position, but its pretty obvious to the rest of us that you've ignored everything else (and especially the bit that shows that the bit you're trying to rely on has a qualification on "author" that you've ignored).
510:- Your claim is factually false and can easily be checked by going to CodeNewbie's site, it is not by Mark Nadal but an interview of him, CodeNewbie is a well established podcast in the industry having interviewed 100+ others, and has an audience of over 17,000+ developers.
487:- Many projects emerge from R&D at previous companies and is common in the tech industry, and for startups this happens so often they coined a term for it "pivot". Kafka came from LinkedIn, as a nice big corporate example. The recent PokemonGo hype is another example:
1289:
Tmobii, at this stage it appears to me that you are deliberately misquoting me or attributing actions to me that have nothing to do with me. Is there a reason why? This is the 4th/5th/6th/? time you've done this. I have not nominated any of those articles for deletion. I
692:
in
December 2015 - a year ago) and is irrelevant unless (s)he decides to get involved now. This isn't a contest to count !votes. Arguments must be based on policies and guidelines and the closing admin will use that criteria to decide. Finally - disruptive editing - read
1016:) have covered the events relating to the article, this is not a reason for deleting the article as a whole. As far as the Forbes article itself, the author has been published in "Fast Company, The New York Observer, The Next Web and VentureBeat" which may be okay since
1301:(and be aware that lots of articles are deleted if they only have one reference since a single source does not qualify as "significant coverage" - but it doesn't seem to get enforced all the time). If you check those articles you will probably find at least one source.
1427:
1. It would be nice if you did not attack me though, saying that I am "weaseling" or "have such difficulty" or am "incomprehensible" (or at least, why and where am I being incomprehensible?) are personal claims against my character and intelligence that goes against
825:
3. Other editors disagree with you on this. A neutral third party editor answered the RfC saying that GitHub's rating system is 'yes ish' qualified "Yes, GitHub is suitable source for the purposes of indications on what is "notable" enough to go into the list."
1654:
for this product to have gained multiple independent RS. Given the semi-biographical nature of the article irrelevant to the software, I think it likely that there are COI issues as well. But the main problem is lack of notability of the database according to
641:
and so unacceptable. (Aside:- I didn't "allow" you to add ArangoDB back in. I edited that ArangoDB article to add in a reference to a book (see! ... a reliable source that was independent of the subject!) and that (in my opinion) was enough to denote
565:(A) & (B) No. I don't have to justify Kafka or Pokemon Go unless you provide links as to what precisely your counter-argument is. If you are trying to claim that Kafka or PokemonGo should not have an article, then you clearly (still) haven't read
1750:
does state "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability" which has been done already (granted by the fact that your arguments are addressing multiple sources). If you could expand on your argument here, I think it would be
687:
Some final notes, it isn't the number of people that "side" with you that counts but policy first, then consensus. I see no contributions from No1lakersfan - please provide links/diffs. Levlev32 has made 3 edits (one of which was to add GunDB to
1704:
states that it is policy "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in
Knowledge (XXG), but only with care". So I think there is still a good argument that this citation ought be
671:
addresses and revert the article once more. I predict that if you want to edit-war rather than discuss, this will not end well for you and you will probably end up with a block. Not a threat, just reciting what I've learned through experience.
498:) states that the writer/creator/author can count too. So there is no reason to dismiss sources because they are about the author of the system (with the exception perhaps if it is completely irrelevant, but that is not the case with GunDB).
932:
9. You seem offended by my question if we are from different cultures, I am sorry about that (it is not something I would have thought is offensive, so please accept my apology). I'm from the USA, and it looks like you are from
Ireland?
1140:
2. Sources provided (to refute your claim that I did not provide a single source): UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, The Kauffman Foundation, HighScalability, GitHub, Angel.co, HackerNews, BoostVC, Reddit, NPM, a page to their tradeoffs
1455:
that have significant coverage, and dealing with an already presumed subject (which I expanded on in this section, about the already established precedence - which you have not replied to or denied), winds up being counteractive to
1297:, there's a difference. I can see lots of crap references in those articles but to understand why they have been accepted as notable topics, you have to realise that there must be *at least* one reference that meets the criteria in
615:
and other collablratively created websites. GitHub falls into this category. The exceptions are where the content is authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff. GitHub does not fall into the
335:) "But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a friendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you." There is nothing wrong with me defending the article.
1369:
2. Why is it that you think you have the right to continue to disrupt these pages with incomprehensible arguments that have no bearing on policy and guidelines? Why is it that you fail, over and over and over, to read
944:
11. Could you quote policy on why other editors' historical contributions do not count? Not everybody has unlimited time (like it seems I do) to engage, but that should not be held against them unless there is policy.
507:- Angel.co / BoostVC are not self report, the billionaire investors actually had to approve of their listing. You still are not explaining why that is not notable, fund raises are a big deal in the technology industry.
659:
You appear to be making a habit of plucking parts of sentences out of context and wrapping them in one possible interpretation to bolster the position you adopt. For the benefit of others, the entire comment reads as
504:- NPM tracks downloads yes, and if you noticed what the current report is: 4,500+ downloads in this last month and that is being reported by the independent source of NPM which matches verifiability requirements.
1077:(C) guidelines of offering suggestions for improvement first on new articles, they immediately rushed for deletion. Having other editors review and improve the article would be a great start first before hand.
1436:. We have different views, but that does not make either of us ignorant, instead we have the right to defend them with reasonable and thorough arguments backed by evidence - and I encourage that discussion.
1146:
919:
separate from Knowledge (XXG)'s rules for notability). But that does not dismiss the fact that those user-generated additions of news stories were notable on those platforms, they are, and so was GunDB's.
742:
Thank you for your thorough reply! I am going to reset the indention level because it is getting hard for me to read anything on my laptop's screen because all the text is squished in such a narrow column:
198:
1842:
exists because numerous other databases are included on Knowledge (XXG) (see the comparison section) which survived deletion proposals. Others have replied to this argument but offered no rebuttal.
1160:
3. I have advocated for Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB, all of which had long standing consensus since 2015 before you and others started deleting them (see point 12 above for links/evidence of this).
1578:
Could you clarify what you are talking about? When I go to their website I don't see anything about that? When I follow links through to their investor profile it says "San Mateo" which goes to
569:
and you don't grasp what is required to denote notability. If you are trying to claim that your product is the same as Kafka or PoGo then I'll repear - you obviously have not read or understood
1041:
The nominator has very patiently and thoroughly made the case that there are insufficient reliable sources -- that is to say, source which are not user-generated. And I remind everyone that a
1330:
1. What is the difference between "proposed for deletion" (what I claimed you did in the previous paragraph) and "Proposing article for deletion" (what you said you did in this edit summary:
596:
are largely not acceptable. Can you provide a reference that shows Mark Nadal is a recognised expert in this field whose work has been published by a reliable third-party publication?
922:(On the aside: Thanks for editing that reference to ArangoDB. Why did you leave the HackerNews comment though, which is UGC, if you think HackerNews is unacceptable for GunDB? Here:
591:
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
151:
461:
but you just keep repeating the same sources and the same arguments over and over without adding anything new and without referring to policies. Creating this article is a sign of
445:
was when you continued to insert your product without engaging in discussion. Many editors including me have repeatedly pointed out why your sources fail as they do not qualify as
1133:
1. I already said it was a guideline. Your response seems like I said it was a policy? As far as whether you are the nominator for this page's deletion, that is easy to check (
818:
at you, that does not mean I suddenly have a super power to judge you about how short sighted what you say is. Next time, please try to provide reasons why and not just quote.
1518:
1650:. WSJ is generally a reliable source, but the video was a primary source. A number of sources were pointed out above, but I agree that all had problems. It seems that it is
1498:
1095:
is a guideline and not a policy, so it doesn't *have* to be followed. Nevertheless, I believe in this circumstance and given the discussions that had already taken place at
538:). I hope you can see how people might feel scammed, because we've made every attempt to comply with your standards and then you accuse us of being disruptive when we do!
523:) in order to avoid the important significances. You then discredit extraordinarily recognizable sources like UCLA, WSJ, Forbes, AllThingsD, etc. in a double standard way.
1537:
1147:
http://myrighttocode.org/blog/artificial%20intelligence/particle%20swarm/genetic%20algorithm/collective%20knowledge/machine%20learning/gun-db-artificial-knowledge-sharing
929:
8. Please see my policy comment in (1). You claim "obvious to the rest of us" but do not cite anybody else - if other people agree with you, they can comment themselves.
830:) As far as this page (which is not the Graph list), the GitHub references are about events (like the Open Source MIT/ZLIB/Apache2 license decision), not as qualifiers.
40:
1091:
And here we go again....incorrectly attributing actions to me. You've done it so many times that I believe you're doing it on purpose so please stop. First of all,
192:
1556:
Adding to the mystery around this company and its tireless advocate on this page is that the company's website and email seem to indicate it's located in the
836:- Editor Markbassett's list is a great resource, I'm going to repost it (which is for table/list inclusion) here "Supporting examples of GitHub data use ..."
1066:) have been explained as being met in the previous (1) point, could you please explain why those are invalid reasons? Discussion and reasons are important,
899:
it is about verifying that they are investors. If somebody were to claim "Bill Gates gave me a million dollars" you would want them to back that up right?
374:
1012:
This argument is acceptable and backed by an explanation. If you would like to discard "Forbes" that seems reasonable, but given that multiple sources (
986:. Indeed, the Forbes ref on the article expressly states: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." By Forbes' own admission, it has
371:
1684:
1. Your point about is good, and I believe you are correct that it is not from an established source. Note however is not cited as a source in the
1062:
UCLA/WSJ/AllThingsD are not user-generated. Further, notability requirements (Significant, Reliable, Multiple Sources, Independent, and Presumed, at
811:- Kafka and PokemonGo are both companies/projects that spun out from a previous company, same with Gun, there is no policy or argument against this.
859:
902:
6. Which is better, for the article to just claim that the author said those things, or reference the actual podcast where he said those things?
365:
1794:, which says that WP:GNG coverage is not sufficient for a startup's notability. If a product has potential, we can wait. Once the topic has
833:- GitHub's ranking system is not self report. GitHub's ranking system is separate from the self-published user-generated content on GitHub.
484:
HighKing, thank you for going through the sources mostly 1 by 1 - that is the exact sort of discussion I was looking to have! Cheers to you.
1271:
requirements of being "Presumed". If you could explain why these are invalid comparisons, that would help contribute to the discussion per
1708:
3. For the sake of being able to defend any claim, could you please go into more detail on your "I agree that all had problems" such that
158:
1416:
1. Yes, I see your point, 1 you did and 2 you did not - you are correct, I apologize (I just checked the other histories). According to
423:
309:
17:
1943:
1275:. I look forward to hearing your responses (also recommendations on how to improve the article versus just deleting it)! Thank you.
1157:. Could you please explain your claim that "you'd failed to produce a single source"? I've provided evidence to disprove this claim.
963:
Do not let this stop you from trying to make your points though, they ought be heard. Cheers to open discussion and debate for all!
1769:
Thanks so much for jumping in! Looking forward to your response, thanks for being respectful and bringing up good/valid arguments.
1042:
645:
Nope, I point you to the policies and guidelines and encourage you to read them. For example, in your response you've pointed to
1379:
haven't found other sources that don't fail if this topic is not notable? Why is it that others can't find any sources either?
875:
842:
488:
1597:
1557:
585:. You should also understand the definitions of each of the bolded terms before you grasp the requirements for notability.)
1681:
Thank you for your respectful and policy based input! I really appreciate it, and here are some rebuttals to your points:
1135:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/GunDB&diff=750112258&oldid=749113463
801:? Yes. They are all institutions that do fact checking and verification to maintain the integrity of their institutions.
553:
305:
286:
1925:
1238:
69:
46:
1605:
1565:
1506:
1246:
1049:
999:
318:
1881:
1846:
1795:
213:
1717:
1067:
619:
NPM does not qualify since the criteria is "notability" and not "number of times it has been downloaded". Refer to
229:
Non-notable product. The article has listed a lot of references but *none* of the references meet the criteria for
1766:
requirement has been given elsewhere, particularly (1) previously. Would love to hear your response against these.
630:
and not neutral (assuming they want their investment to succeed ... with investors sometimes you can never tell!).
180:
81:. Nobody except the page's creator wants to keep this, so it's a clear case despite the disruptive walls of text.
1803:
1757:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F
1691:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F
1155:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F
870:
536:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Graph_database#Why_can.27t_I_add_an_entry_for_a_new_Graph_Database_into_the_list.3F
124:
119:
1201:
Please compare against the other Open Source graph database pages that have been accepted for Knowledge (XXG):
698:
462:
386:- sources not connected with the topic, gundb, but with "accelsor", a previous company connected with Mark Nadal
1644:
380:
128:
1857:
page with long standing consensus since 2015 (see point 12 above). I was told to create an article so I found
1020:
states "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
1017:
991:
1876:
states "Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included." and
1823:
is met because there has been ongoing coverage since 2011, including notable fund raising from billionaires
814:
Policy is great, just because you quote it does not mean others are violating it. As an example, if I quote
1880:(UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD/Kauffman Foundation, etc., see point 1 in a previous section above), therefore
1713:
1457:
1417:
541:
1601:
1561:
1502:
1242:
1045:
995:
314:
111:
1820:
1791:
1747:
1743:
1660:
1344:
3. Several sources I have found provide significant coverage of the people/events/things discussed. What
855:
UC Davis - StackOverflow and GitHub: Associations Between Software Development and Crowdsourced Knowledge
681:
1921:
1668:
530:
claim I have provided no new sources even though you responded to them! Neutral perspectives are needed.
414:
which this user is trying to get recognition of GunDB as a source of notability for open source products
65:
1709:
1461:
1433:
990:
be subject to any editorial review. It may well be challenged as a reliable source on that basis, per
908:- Second question: Is it true or false that the upvoting system is authored by the admins of the site?
905:
7. Simple question: Is it true or false that GunDB was launched on HackerNews and was on the homepage?
702:
174:
1596:
Odd, well, the .io suffix used on the corporate website and corporate email corresponds, I'm told, to
1865:
might be lost - so this would need to be done carefully and with approval), to then connect with the
1799:
1643:
I was unable to find in-depth independent reliable sources for this database; the closest to such is
1468:
I would love to carry the discussion forward there. Cheers to you and looking forward to the debate!
1701:
1651:
1150:
1375:
of the policy/guideline arguments put forward and instead change tack and try a different argument?
1096:
938:
804:- Are other databases and their vendors accepted on Knowledge (XXG)? Yes. Then inclusion of GUN is
411:
206:
1092:
627:
593:
466:
170:
1896:
1888:
1861:
sources for this page (I would not be opposed to a redirect, but then the citations establishing
1770:
1619:
1583:
1582:
of California. I'm not sure why this is relevant as a reason for why the page should be deleted?
1469:
1352:
1276:
1221:
1176:
1168:
1078:
1021:
964:
948:
12. Given that Cayley, GunDB, and ArangoDB had consensus on the Graph list since 2015 (see edits
763:
545:
336:
297:
278:
257:
1887:
Thank you for bringing up these points! Would love to hear your response to the above analysis.
1429:
1105:
864:
495:
115:
1904:
1807:
1778:
1746:("meeting times", "announcement of mergers or sales", etc.) apply to the citations given, what
1672:
1627:
1614:
Ah, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. Yeah, `.io` is popular in the tech startup world:
1609:
1591:
1569:
1548:
1529:
1510:
1477:
1387:
1360:
1309:
1284:
1250:
1229:
1184:
1116:
1086:
1053:
1029:
1003:
972:
771:
713:
557:
477:
344:
322:
265:
249:
93:
1164:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1920:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1720:)? Thank you, I appreciate how kind and explanatory you have been in your involvement so far!
1291:
220:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1900:
1892:
1774:
1664:
1623:
1587:
1473:
1356:
1280:
1225:
1180:
1172:
1082:
1025:
968:
958:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Graph_database&diff=744210160&oldid=744035674
954:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Graph_database&diff=725428050&oldid=725139748
767:
549:
489:
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-to-spin-out-game-maker-niantic-labs-as-independent-company/
340:
301:
282:
261:
237:
and created this page in response to failing to gain concensus for including his product at
1873:
1862:
1858:
1850:
1836:
1763:
1685:
1656:
1446:
1267:) and their deletion was overruled. This should be an indication of precedence and meeting
1101:
694:
638:
620:
608:
570:
566:
458:
438:
290:
234:
107:
99:
1153:. All of these sources have been found in order to comply with the requests outlined here
1647:
1440:
1371:
1298:
854:
646:
604:
600:
377:
794:? Yes. They went into detail about the people, events, software, demos, things covered.
1755:
page - I'm simply trying to finish restoring GunDB by complying with requirements (see
689:
626:
Angel.co and BoostVC are not "independent" sources as they are investors and therefore
389:
383:
332:
238:
84:
1422:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ArangoDB&diff=746918873&oldid=737874348
1332:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961
1265:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ArangoDB&diff=737874348&oldid=737850961
828:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Graph_database#RfC_about_Open_Source_software_notability
496:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source
1937:
1541:
1522:
1380:
1334:)? You agree yourself that you "PRODed" it, how is that misquoting or misattributing?
1302:
1109:
706:
470:
242:
886:
1828:
1732:
1137:) which indicates that you are - is this wrong? I'm not trying to misattribute you.
599:
You keep referring to GitHub as being peer-reviewed and therfore acceptable. Again
186:
1263:
These articles were already proposed for deletion (by the same nominator as here,
368:
145:
404:- promotional page on gundb with description and list of people who have invested
1723:
4. Could you explain how the fund raising from many notable sources, including
1348:
could be done that satisfied the other database's significance but wasn't here?
1345:
1337:
2. More important, you did not counter the argument for "Presumed" precedence (
359:
1832:
1824:
1736:
1728:
1718:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
1068:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion
912:
520:
231:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
1659:
and given the article's emphasis on the founders and company marketing it,
1346:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion
1142:
895:
especially since downloads change all the time. For this, NPM is reliable.
395:
1294:
950:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Graph_database&oldid=693524343
611:
content from websites are generally unacceptable. It uses the example of
1697:
680:
including the Talk pages of at least two admins. That kind of behaviour
1866:
1854:
1756:
1690:
1646:, but this is part of a blog and is considered unreliable according to
1560:, a tiny chain of atolls described as having no commercial activities.
1154:
848:
827:
815:
656:? This sort of comment is condescending in the extreme and distasteful.
535:
1465:
only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion."
979:
417:
1816:
Wonderful points, here are some responses that address your points:
1341:) of Knowledge (XXG) on the subject of databases - do you have one?
1074:
494:- Additionally, if all you care about is Mark Nadal, then policy (
1351:
As always, waiting to hear your input and thankful for your time!
1272:
1145:), an actual user story "Distributed Machine Learning with GunDB"
1151:
https://medium.com/a-weekend-with/a-weekend-with-gun-a61fdcb8cc5d
939:
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
881:
Data Just Right: Introduction to Large-Scale Data & Analytics
1914:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1724:
612:
398:- shows the gundb logo among a group of 32 logos as "Wild Cards"
1716:
can be promoted, and this does not turn into a "I agree" poll (
1338:
1268:
1063:
1013:
759:
407:
1884:
does not have weight here (especially since it is not policy).
1106:
dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the dead horse
25:
1579:
1165:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Encourage_full_discussions
787:? Yes. They are multiple different outlets and publications.
1453:
reliable, independent, verifiable multiple secondary sources
1424:), an admin removed the deletion, thus overruling your PROD.
780:? Yes. They are not controlled by GunDB or any of its team.
1696:
2. The WSJ source's was published by an Associate Editor (
289:) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
1215:
1205:
923:
333:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
331:
Per policy, creators of the article should be notified (
1790:
Startups have little interest to Knowledge (XXG). See
1421:
1331:
1264:
1134:
957:
953:
949:
442:
434:
401:
141:
137:
133:
205:
362:(twice) - a discussion created by the CEO Mark Nadal.
1739:, and others as cited in the article are "too soon"?
1210:
845:
Knowledge (XXG) already mentions GitHub as indicator
433:And please stop saying I tried to have you banned.
219:
1615:
637:Hackernews and Reddit - the links you provide are
762:(bold added below to focus discussion on policy)
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1928:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1519:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
876:Fossbytes - Top Programming Languages on Github
849:Arxiv On the popularity of GitHubs applications
601:(and on the same page you pointed out yourself)
1499:list of Computing-related deletion discussions
1043:Google News search reveals absolutely nothing.
808:to not be a random collection of information.
437:was when you were IP hopping and warned about
1538:list of Software-related deletion discussions
924:https://en.wikipedia.org/ArangoDB#cite_note-3
8:
1536:Note: This debate has been included in the
1517:Note: This debate has been included in the
1497:Note: This debate has been included in the
1443:without replying to (1) (further above now)
860:InfoWorld GitHub's top 10 rock-star projects
816:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Recentism
790:- Were UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD articles
519:You keep on committing a strawman fallacy (
1535:
1516:
1496:
607:are those with no editorial oversight and
539:
420:- download and installation page for GunDB
1075:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BEFORE
913:https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
843:Measuring programming language popularity
521:https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
1273:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AFDEQ
1143:https://github.com/amark/gun/CAP-Theorem
1100:that basis alone - and you have a clear
410:- GitHub page for GunDB. Related RfC at
45:For an explanation of the process, see
1339:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:GNG
1269:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:GNG
1064:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:GNG
1014:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:GNG
760:https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:GNG
352:The sources listed in the article are:
1698:https://www.linkedin.com/in/withdrake
1616:https://en.wikipedia.org/.io#Startups
865:RedMonk Programming Language Rankings
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1853:had previously been included on the
1420:an admin decides, and according to (
654:Maybe we are from different cultures
1798:, a redirect is then appropriate.
41:deletion review on 2016 November 21
776:1. Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD
24:
1445:where it is explained that every
1216:https://en.wikipedia.org/OrientDB
1206:https://en.wikipedia.org/ArangoDB
797:- Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD
783:- Are UCLA/WSJ/Forbes/AllThingsD
1895:) 09:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
1878:reliable sources have been found
1175:) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1149:, and another actual user story
956:had an invalid reason, and then
915:, I am sure Reddit has its own)
426:- a reddit page discussing gundb
29:
1742:5. None of the items listed in
941:) of openness and inclusivity.
871:Wired - How GitHub Conquered...
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1693:), and is not being used here.
1598:British Indian Ocean Territory
1558:British Indian Ocean Territory
1211:https://en.wikipedia.org/Neo4j
1073:Also nominator did not follow
1:
1905:09:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
1835:(see evidence above). Again,
1808:00:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
1796:WP:DUE weight on another page
1779:21:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1673:19:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1628:19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1610:18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1592:18:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1570:16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1549:20:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
1530:20:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
1511:20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
1478:18:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1388:12:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1361:00:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1310:21:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1285:17:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1251:15:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1230:02:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1185:00:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
1117:21:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1104:. You really should consider
1087:17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1054:14:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1030:17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
1004:14:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
973:00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
772:17:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
714:15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
558:16:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
478:14:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
345:17:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
323:14:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
266:14:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
250:14:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
94:10:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
360:Hacker news from ycombinator
1960:
1845:2. I am glad you bring up
1663:as well. Hence, delete. --
1580:https://angel.co/san-mateo
583:independent of the subject
455:independent of the subject
233:. The editor Tmobii has a
1869:page and other databases.
1944:Pages at deletion review
1917:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
392:- podcast by Mark Nadal
1700:), which according to
682:can sometimes backfire
639:user-generated content
594:Self published sources
1762:7. Evidence of every
573:(Hint: They all have
310:few or no other edits
275:Note to closing admin
1102:conflict of interest
605:questionable sources
575:significant coverage
447:significant coverage
312:outside this topic.
1872:3. Also given that
1689:the database" (see
1097:Talk:Graph database
412:Talk:Graph database
1239:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
887:IEEE use of GitHub
463:disruptive editing
1882:WP:INSIGNIFICANCE
1602:Shawn in Montreal
1562:Shawn in Montreal
1551:
1532:
1513:
1503:Shawn in Montreal
1243:Shawn in Montreal
1046:Shawn in Montreal
996:Shawn in Montreal
984:contributor model
980:Forbes#Forbes.com
785:Secondary Sources
603:, it states that
560:
544:comment added by
315:Shawn in Montreal
313:
294:
92:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1951:
1919:
1546:
1527:
1385:
1307:
1114:
982:, it now uses a
978:As explained at
711:
579:reliable sources
475:
451:reliable sources
295:
272:
247:
224:
223:
209:
161:
149:
131:
91:
89:
82:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1926:deletion review
1915:
1800:Unscintillating
1727:, Billionaires
1542:
1523:
1381:
1303:
1110:
707:
699:WP:AVOIDEDITWAR
697:and especially
471:
243:
166:
157:
122:
106:
103:
85:
83:
77:The result was
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1957:
1955:
1947:
1946:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1885:
1870:
1843:
1817:
1811:
1810:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1767:
1760:
1752:
1740:
1721:
1706:
1694:
1682:
1676:
1675:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1573:
1572:
1553:
1552:
1533:
1514:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1466:
1437:
1425:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1376:
1367:
1349:
1342:
1335:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1219:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1161:
1158:
1138:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1071:
1057:
1056:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1018:WP:SELFPUBLISH
1007:
1006:
992:WP:SELFPUBLISH
892:
891:
890:
889:
884:
878:
873:
868:
867:(using GitHub)
862:
857:
852:
846:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
690:Graph database
685:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
662:
661:
657:
650:
643:
635:
631:
624:
617:
609:user-generated
597:
586:
531:
524:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
499:
492:
485:
467:not getting it
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
421:
415:
405:
399:
393:
390:codenewbie.org
387:
381:dailybruin.com
366:allthingsd.com
363:
354:
353:
326:
325:
269:
268:
239:Graph database
227:
226:
163:
102:
97:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1956:
1945:
1942:
1941:
1939:
1929:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1912:
1911:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1841:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1765:
1761:
1758:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1719:
1715:
1714:WP:DISCUSSAFD
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1692:
1687:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1638:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1545:
1539:
1534:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1520:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1495:
1494:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1458:WP:DISCUSSAFD
1454:
1450:
1448:
1442:
1439:2. 3. Citing
1438:
1435:
1431:
1426:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1389:
1386:
1384:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1196:
1195:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1139:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1118:
1115:
1113:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
961:
959:
955:
951:
946:
942:
940:
934:
930:
927:
925:
920:
916:
914:
909:
906:
903:
900:
896:
888:
885:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
866:
863:
861:
858:
856:
853:
850:
847:
844:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
834:
831:
829:
823:
819:
817:
812:
809:
807:
802:
800:
795:
793:
788:
786:
781:
779:
774:
773:
769:
765:
761:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
715:
712:
710:
704:
700:
696:
691:
686:
683:
678:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
658:
655:
651:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
629:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
592:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
537:
532:
528:
525:
522:
518:
515:
512:
509:
506:
503:
500:
497:
493:
490:
486:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
474:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
425:
422:
419:
416:
413:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
388:
385:
382:
379:
376:
373:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
357:
356:
355:
351:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
271:
270:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
246:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
160:
156:
153:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
104:
101:
98:
96:
95:
90:
88:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1916:
1913:
1877:
1839:
1829:Marc Benioff
1821:WP:SUSTAINED
1792:WP:SUSTAINED
1787:
1748:WP:CORPDEPTH
1744:WP:CORPDEPTH
1733:Marc Benioff
1661:WP:CORPDEPTH
1640:
1600:. Whatever.
1543:
1524:
1452:
1449:has been met
1444:
1382:
1304:
1237:Please read
1220:
1200:
1111:
1038:
987:
983:
962:
947:
943:
935:
931:
928:
921:
917:
910:
907:
904:
901:
897:
893:
835:
832:
824:
820:
813:
810:
805:
803:
798:
796:
791:
789:
784:
782:
777:
775:
757:
708:
669:
653:
634:independent.
590:
582:
578:
574:
540:— Preceding
526:
516:
472:
454:
450:
446:
349:
274:
244:
230:
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
154:
86:
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
1751:beneficial.
1710:WP:CLOSEAFD
1705:considered.
1665:Mark viking
1544:-- HighKing
1525:-- HighKing
1462:WP:CLOSEAFD
1434:WP:Civility
1383:-- HighKing
1305:-- HighKing
1197:Comparisons
1112:-- HighKing
792:Significant
778:Independent
709:-- HighKing
703:WP:TOOEARLY
642:notability.
616:exceptions.
473:-- HighKing
369:startupucla
308:) has made
245:-- HighKing
193:free images
1833:Salesforce
1825:Tim Draper
1737:Salesforce
1729:Tim Draper
1702:WP:PRIMARY
1652:WP:TOOSOON
652:You ask -
87:Sandstein
1922:talk page
1847:WP:weight
1093:WP:BEFORE
628:WP:BIASED
581:that are
453:that are
372:wsj video
66:talk page
1938:Category
1924:or in a
1849:because
1840:presumed
1430:WP:AFDEQ
1418:WP:PRODS
1295:ArangoDB
806:Presumed
799:Reliable
660:follows:
554:contribs
542:unsigned
517:Summary:
402:angel.co
396:boost.vc
384:ucla.edu
306:contribs
287:contribs
152:View log
68:or in a
1867:GraphDB
1855:GraphDB
457:as per
350:Comment
199:WP refs
187:scholar
125:protect
120:history
1897:Tmobii
1889:Tmobii
1874:WP:DUE
1863:WP:GNG
1859:WP:GNG
1837:WP:GNG
1788:Delete
1771:Tmobii
1764:WP:GNG
1657:WP:GNG
1641:Delete
1620:Tmobii
1584:Tmobii
1470:Tmobii
1447:WP:GNG
1353:Tmobii
1292:PRODed
1277:Tmobii
1222:Tmobii
1177:Tmobii
1169:Tmobii
1079:Tmobii
1039:DELETE
1022:Tmobii
965:Tmobii
883:(book)
764:Tmobii
695:WP:WAR
621:WP:GNG
571:WP:GNG
567:WP:GNG
546:Tmobii
459:WP:GNG
439:WP:3RR
424:reddit
408:GitHub
375:forbes
337:Tmobii
298:Tmobii
279:Tmobii
258:Tmobii
235:WP:COI
171:Google
129:delete
79:delete
1851:GunDB
1686:GunDB
1648:WP:RS
1441:WP:RS
1372:WP:RS
1299:WP:RS
647:WP:RS
527:Note:
378:prweb
214:JSTOR
175:books
159:Stats
146:views
138:watch
134:links
108:GunDB
100:GunDB
16:<
1901:talk
1893:talk
1827:and
1804:talk
1775:talk
1731:and
1725:UCLA
1669:talk
1624:talk
1606:talk
1588:talk
1566:talk
1507:talk
1474:talk
1460:and
1432:and
1357:talk
1281:talk
1247:talk
1226:talk
1181:talk
1173:talk
1083:talk
1050:talk
1026:talk
1000:talk
969:talk
768:talk
758:Per
613:IMDb
550:talk
465:and
443:here
441:and
435:Here
341:talk
319:talk
302:talk
283:talk
262:talk
207:FENS
181:news
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
1831:of
1819:1.
1735:of
1451:of
1163:4.
988:not
577:in
469:.
449:in
418:NPM
291:XfD
221:TWL
150:– (
1940::
1903:)
1806:)
1777:)
1759:).
1712:,
1671:)
1626:)
1618:.
1608:)
1590:)
1568:)
1540:.
1521:.
1509:)
1501:.
1476:)
1359:)
1283:)
1249:)
1241:.
1228:)
1183:)
1108:.
1085:)
1052:)
1028:)
1002:)
994:.
971:)
952:,
926:)
770:)
705:.
556:)
552:•
343:)
321:)
304:•
296:—
293:.
285:•
277::
273:—
264:)
241:.
201:)
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
43:.
1899:(
1891:(
1802:(
1773:(
1667:(
1622:(
1604:(
1586:(
1564:(
1505:(
1472:(
1355:(
1279:(
1245:(
1224:(
1179:(
1171:(
1141:(
1081:(
1070:.
1048:(
1024:(
998:(
967:(
851:]
826:(
766:(
684:.
623:.
548:(
339:(
317:(
300:(
281:(
260:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
155:·
148:)
110:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.