763:
two brief mentions of Embers. It reads "Along with
Oakland's Embers", and then "Opening was Embers' female-fronted ambient black metal mix of despair, keys, and continuous flow while supporting the band's latest album, the self-released 'Memoria In Aeterna.'" I don't know if you are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the coverage in this debate in the hope that nobody will actually read it, or if you think this actually constitutes coverage -of Embers-, but in my view the latter is certainly not the case. I also have no idea what this means: "As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument." Are you suggesting we allow unreliable sourcing because Knowledge (XXG) is unreliable? That's a circular argument if I've ever heard one! (Yes, the last point is a trivial one -- just struck me as an odd argument, heh).
231:
actually to a film that is related to the band only because the film includes one member of the band (the film itself has nothing to do with the band). If you remove the references to the film, you are left with 13 references: 5 Myspace, 1 blog, one to an unnotable music review site, another to a separate band's web site, and two to the same issue of
Decibel, the content of which hasn't been verified by anybody other than the article's author (the Decibel Web site features a review of another band that mentions Embers by name once, in passing). The article failed a CSD nom (the article credibly claims notability now), and while you are right to point out the number of references, quantity certainly doesn't equal quality, at least not in this case.
582:
sources are available rather than vice versa ("many publications before the 1980's" may not have been documented online... back in the 1980's ... true .... but have been scanned, uploaded in, etc. since then). Especially true for DIY and punk acts which disseminate themselves through printed zines and such. Also, I think that what needs to be taken into account is the OVERALL sourcing - yes, you can nitpick each source provided but the fact that they come from many different venues adds up to notability here.
1547:
your tendency towards "underground bands". I'm sure many on wikipedia feel that having more comprehensive music content than you do would be in wikipedia's best interest as a useful resource. I agree that coverage and reliability are important, but I believe the coverage should be within the context of the genre, not some huge breakthrough into mainstream media. I believe both our perspectives fall within a gray area the guidelines don't specifically address (hence AfD). noodle 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
376:. There are clearly defined standards for determining notability on Knowledge (XXG), and they far exceed something being "real." For example, you are a real person, but you do not have an article on Knowledge (XXG) about you. There are standards that determine an individual's notability (and preclude an article about you, or me for that matter), just as there are standards that determine a band's notability. The Web sites you list above, in my opinion, do not pass
1207:. I guess my point is that we should look at the totality of the circumstances because every music group is different, and standards of notability, no matter how exhaustively defined, are still subjective. I hope you don't believe an artist must be famous in order to be notable because these musical groups are certainly not household names like Bono. javascript:insertTags('noodle 01:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)',
1146:
in credibility to me. Also, read the notability inheritance standard: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Embers needs to be an ensemble with "independently notable musicians." The latter point, the one you think applies to the article, is a point that applies to articles about
1463:. So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. I see that Cunard is now attacking the notability of
1454:), and then without any justification call the webzine Heathen Harvest unreliable. I will also take issue with your assertion earlier that my arguments have been disingenuous. So far you have made three verifiably false statements. First, that the Decibel review didn't exist., second, that the Noisecreep article only had one sentence on Embers (in fact three), and that
558:(with the search term: Embers "Steven DeCaprio") — the band's name and its founder — returns only thirty-eight results is a testament to its lack of a significant following and its lack of coverage in reliable sources, and thus its lack of notability. Notable contemporary bands have much more coverage than this, even if some of the coverage is unreliable. A band of the
1794:
stands Cunard only began researching after the AfD which is more competetive than collaborative. Now I am involved in two AfDs while both pages are only two weeks old and addmitadly need some work which is also on my shoulders. This is a legitimate point of process not a personel attack. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',
1109:. I do not know what the content you are quoting above actually is, but it is not something Decibel considers to be a "review." Nor do I believe it constitutes non-trivial coverage, particularly when one considers that this is the only source that, in my view, -clearly- passes verifiability standards.
1793:
from the beginning. It appears that
Ginsenbomb followed the guidlines in regard to Embers but Cunard did not in regard to Lesser of Two. Cunard should have done research, made suggestion, and given me a reasonable time to do research before doing the AfD of Lesser of Two. That is my only point. As it
1422:
Only thing I will leave in is this: Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that I'm saying that "online magazines are unreliable without explanation," and also disagree with "I don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online." The first is an absurd blanket statement and I quite
1226:
This is trivial coverage that contains no substance. Sentence #1 does not tell me anything about the band; it is a generalization about The Bay Area. Neither does sentence #2 which compares the band to two other non-notable local bands. Sentence #3 is the only useful sentence and contains information
762:
This strikes me as disingenuous: "they also were discussed in the article on
Noisecreep.com". Perhaps also a matter of semantics, but an off-hand reference does not constitute Embers being "discussed." I reviewed that citation. The source is verifiable. The coverage is dedicated to another band, with
1837:
coverage in independent reliable sources. (good work by
Ginsengbomb). 6 refs to say one member was in an unrelated documentary? 3 to say another was in an unrelated project? 3 links to an unrelated organisations website to say a member is involved? Let's overload an article with references to make a
1588:
Ginsengbomb, what is your problem? You said in a post above that "I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this." I count SEVEN (7) posts you've made subsequent to your promise. You not only "appear overly engaged;" you are
1340:
17. Heathen
Harvest is a webzine. It's just as reliable as a print source. It is not a blog and has Editorial control. There is even an "editor's note" at the bottom of the review showing that submissions are subject to an editorial process. (hmm. you don't like printed sources because they are hard
1145:
Look, put yourself in my shoes. Who do I trust more to tell me what reviews are in
Decibel magazine: Decibel.com's list of reviews in Decibel Magazine or "Noodlesteve"? My issue with most of the other coverage (and, really, the Decibel coverage) is its trivial nature. The SFBG coverage seems lacking
1129:
It is on page 88 in issues number 65. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I don't have a scanner handy. Can someone with a scanner please go to the news stand. Decibel is not an online magazine. Just because
Decibel does not list every review they have does not mean its not there. I am
910:
Re the band "Filth" - it's true that that article is unsourced but actually that band is pretty legendary, with members of the band being basically associated in some way with most punk music that came out of
Northern California (and beyond) during the 90's (and later). The reason your search is not
737:
Oh, they also were discussed in the article on
Noisecreep.com which is an Aol/Time Warner news site. That's the first citation in the entry. I believe the reviews in Decibel and Profane Existence are more substantial, but these things should be looked at cumulatively relative to the genre of Red and
647:
Regarding the "OVERALL sourcing" point, I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point out that without exception every single source is either a blog, a passing reference, or a link to Myspace (or a Decibel "review"). It's not as if by sheer volume of unreliable, trivial sourcing one achieves notability.
1959:
had numerous changes in line-up with Nelson and DeCaprio as the only consistent members. Is an ensemble the project or the people in the project? I would have merged the articles, but that would have interfered with it's readability due to the change in music styles as well as the fact that members
1270:
4-9. References discussing totally unrelated to band activity by one member. Said member is not notable, nor are most of the references actually directly about this member. Again, this reference is not about the band, it attempts to establish the notability of one member of the band, and in my view
1170:
By way of illustrative example of the last point there, Bono is notable as a member of U2. The New Pornographers, pre-fame, could have been notable because of their incorporation of several notable Canadian musicians. Keanu Reeves' band does not automatically become notable and worthy of an article
581:
Uh, I wouldn't call the SF Bay Guardian a "tabloid" - it basically set the standard for the "free alternative newspaper" genre (and is probably more reliable than most "local" non-alternative newspapers). And I think you got it flipped - the longer the band's been around the more likely that online
390:
I really hope I'm not coming across like someone with a vendetta against this band, or any band, for that matter. I AfD'd this and am frustrated to see my arguments dismissed out of hand when I actually put in a good amount of time trying to find reliable sources for this article before AfD'ing it.
309:
I see no legitimate reason cited here for deleting the Knowledge (XXG) entry on the band Embers. Embers is real, and the Knowledge (XXG) article is factual. The band plays fairly regularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, and tours occasionally in other parts of the country. I have seen their most
230:
The references are to Myspace pages, blogs, a reference to one member's participation in an unrelated film, and a review for another band that mentions this band as the opening act without commenting on them. I don't think the references pass muster by a long shot. More than half the references are
1546:
requires "several paragraphs" is incorrect. The guidelines state that you need "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." As such a band spontaneously discussing Embers in their own interview is sufficient. I do however appreciate you honesty regarding
1191:
If I were in your shoes I would realize that Decibel's list of reviews may not be exhaustive and that if I misrepresented the facts I would get banned from wikipedia. At the very least it's a net sum zero game, but you have taken the position of concluding the review doesn't exist when in fact it
1026:
article). As for Filth, at a first glance they seem notable to me, because they have released a lot of albums on significant indie labels (Lookout Rec., Springman Rec., and especially Alternative Tentacles - all these labels have a relatively long history and a number of notable bands). Now let's
962:
You brought it up (here and at the other AfD). And you're missing the main point - not whether the single sfweekly is sufficient to establish notability or not. Rather that checking Google for "Filth band East-bay" is not going to be a very good gauge of notability here because the word "Filth" -
553:
I acknowledge that sources do not need to be online. In fact, in many cases, sources cannot be found on the Internet due to the age of the band, in that many publications before the 1980s were not documented online. In this particular case, the band is only five years old. If it is notable, there
1613:
Ginsengbomb has policy-based arguments that are valuable additions to the debate. I do not see that in the other participants of the debate. Whilst I do not see the need for Gingsengbomb to abstain from further participation in this debate, the aforementioned user does not wish to get in debates
1516:
So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources
1418:
I wrote a lengthy response to Noodle's thoughts above and have decided to remove most of it. We're going in circles. Noodle and I should both detach ourselves from this AfD at this point, methinks. We're just gumming up the works with endless banter, and I think the above two reference lists are
1021:
First of all, I'm here because the article in question appeared in the access logs of my website as a referring page. I don't make many edits here, since my knowledge of English language is far from perfect. I also have accounts in Russian and Spanish Wikipedias (though not very active too). No
697:
is a reliable news source with competent journalism and an editorial review process. As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument. It probably only refers to the layout and manner of distribution, not the editorial process. As it
1333:
4-15. political media review, imdb, SF Bay Guardian (again, different article), law.com/the Recorder, etc. various reliable publications establishing the political activities of the band establishing their political activism. This is relevant to their status as a Red and Anarchist Black Metal
328:
This is a real band, with real people, recording real CDs and playing in real concerts. There is no legitimate reason to delete the Knowledge (XXG) article on Embers, and doing so would do a disservice to Knowledge (XXG) users who turn to this site to seek information on the band.
1224:(1) The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. (2) Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. (3) hey've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy . (4) Bands like this you hold onto for a while.
685:. It appears no one working on this has read it except for me. The passing reference referred to in Decibel is from a previous issue not the current issues. I have already partially quoted the review on the talk page so please check your facts. They are also former members of
1072:
The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. They've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy . Bands like this you hold onto for a while.
463:. Because this band was founded in 2004 and is still active, it would likely have articles in newspapers or magazines that are available online if it were notable. The fact that there are no reliable sources indicates that this band fails the criteria listed at
1318:
1. Noisecreep. This is an interview with a band that played a show with Embers and they talk about Embers music and why the band decided to play with Embers. Embers is not the sole focus of the article, but there is more than one sentence on them. Three to be
997:
My searches for sources (1. Filth band "East Bay" ; 2. "Lesser of Two" band Decaprio ; 3. Embers "Steven DeCaprio") are apt queries for bands with such generic names. If you disagree with this mode of searching for sources, please provide better search terms.
415:
Aaaand on that note, I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this. Additionally, re-reading my comments above, they may have come across harsher than intended. Was not my intent.
504:
is not going to be mentioned in Rolling Stone or whatever. But that doesn't make them non notable. The fact that the band has appeared and has been mentioned in many of the most important publications dedicated to the topic adds up to notability
1382:
I see one recurring theme in your analysis of the sources. The argument for Embers' notability is based off passing mentions in articles about other bands, some of which are notable. The issue with the sources here is that none of them provide
1192:
does. This is irresponsible, and as such you are spreading misinformation. On your other points I believe we agree on the facts, but disagree on our conclusions. We can let the consensus unfold, but I want this to be an informed discussion.
499:
and some other very notable and influential punk and underground publications. It's true that not all of them are available online but we're supposed to AGF here. The thing is, pretty much any musical act that adheres to the philosophy of
1348:. They do accept music from bands for possible review, but the reviews are controlled by staff. Perhaps you were confused by the "Review Submissions" box. Read a little further and it becomes clear. There is no access to upload content.
1252:
I'm going to go batty and just do an itemized list of what the sources in the article actually are, because I think people are reading certain names in the sourcing and going "oh, well that sounds reliable." Listing by reference number:
706:
both of which are sufficiently notable to have their own entries. This band thus is notable on two grounds: 1. sufficient coverage and 2. former members of notable music groups. javascript:insertTags('noodle 23:49, 10 February 2010
1458:
allows reviews by subscribers. All this along with your attack on Heathen Harvest makes your arguments suspect. To be fair I assume that these were merely oversights on your part, but to call me disingenuous is not in keeping with
911:
finding anything is simply because the word "Filth" is such a common word (as is the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers") so any relevant hits are likely to drown in a sea of unrelated noise. But here is one for Filth:
766:
Additionally, as the article's author it is generally assumed you are in favor of it not being deleted :). Not that you don't get to vote, I just want to make sure it's clear that your involvement is not independent of bias.
1322:
2. SFBG. Embers is mentioned as one of 6 metal bands in the SF Bay Area Featuring women. The article states this is a higher number than other cities, and the existence of Embers is one of a handful of bands supporting that
1784:
state, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself" Since Cunard never participated in the process of editing either article and proposed AfD of
159:
1059:
may have been inadvertently misrepresented. The reference is a review in Decibel from the current issue, not an old blog which was never cited as a reference. This is the full quote from the current Decibel review:
608:
True, the longer the band's been around, the more likely the band will have received coverage in reliable sources. However, those sources may not necessarily be online if they were not scanned. See an example at
1589:
demonstrating an obsession with this topic that (a) is not healthy, and (b) destroys such minimal credibility as could be attributed to your little vendetta. Be true to your word, and give it a rest, already.
1227:
about the genre. Sentence #4 also provides no context; how do "ands like this hold for a while? The lack of context in this source disqualifies it from being a possible factor of establishing notability.
1624:
coverage about the subject. Bad faith accusations will not allow the article to be retained. Sources will improve the arguments of those voting "keep" and will enable the article to be retained. Thanks,
387:
I would highly suggest you read the relevant notability standards before throwing out claims like there being "no legitimate reason cited here." My reasons are legitimate and according to the guidelines.
1315:
Well, since I created the page I'm not wholly independent either. Also, since we updated the page simultaneously then I guess we're both going batty. I will give my perspective on the aforementioned.
190:
No sources mentioned on article talk page suggest notability of the actual band. To say nothing of sources mentioned in actual article. Agree that this passes A7 for speedy purposes but seems to fail
1766:
If your interested in keeping this article (I think of only one reason why this much effort has been spent in it's defence) you should stop attacking people and concentrate on improving the artiucle
395:, else this article wouldn't have been up for AfD in the first place. Blogs, reviews from anonymous sources and listings for upcoming gigs are not sources that can be used to demonstrate notability.
1022:
wonder that I'm familiar with the criteria of notability and reliability of sources, because I've already had a big discussion about it before (see the talk about the inclusion of RABM section into
648:
I could get an article written about myself on here with about one week's work in "Internet PR" by that standard. Apologies for the vague straw man there but I completely disagree with your point.
287:
1450:
Although I could have phrased the comment to be less of a blanket statement my point was that I thought it was contradictory for you to deny the existence of the Decibel article (see:
1509:
Even if the reviews you listed above were considered reliable, they are not sufficient because one (or two or three) sentence(s) does not pass the "significant coverage" required by
1330:
a three piece with two of the three founding members of Embers that has passed notability standards for wikipedia and that Embers is often referred to as ex members of Lesser of Two.
1230:
848:
contains references that are analogous to those in this article — none of these references are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Lesser of Two. Having done a
887:
I note that your account has 21 edits, the last of which made on January 8, 2010, before you posted to this AfD. As you seem to be familiar with Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, such a
114:
1996:
there is no doubt that any grey area regarding a threshold of said criterea will be passed as Embers continues to tour and release new music. noodle 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
619:'s lack of notability is due to its lack of coverage in reliable sources. One word / one sentence mentions in a few local sources do not provide the depth of coverage required by
1171:
because Keanu Reeves is a member (although, of course, that Keanu Reeves has a band is so hilarious that the band gets significant non-trivial coverage and becomes notable).
550:
I am asking for significant coverage in two reliable sources. As of now, the article contains only unreliable sources (e.g. blogs) or a one word mention in a reliable source.
153:
1789:
immediately upon discovering its existence it seems that he is violating this guidline. This is different from the Embers AfD because Ginsengbomb had been involved in the
511:, particularly since this doesn't appear to be a puff-piece or the other extreme, attack article. It's basic information cited to the kind of sources that cover the genre.
310:
recent CD listed at one time or another on the Amoeba Records website, Amazon.com, and eBay. The band is listed on music websites devoted to heavy metal, for example at
843:
The two bands you list above are not notable. I note that the band we are currently debating and one of the two bands you list above have been created by the same user.
852:
about Lesser Than Two, I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. I note that this band is also founded by Steven DeCaprio, who is likewise non-notable per
1981:
1940:
1649:
1726:
Well, it seems more like a way of collaterally attacking the Embers article by attacking the notability of associated articles. I see that you are now arguing that
1519:
You are correct. Underground bands which lack coverage in reliable sources cannot be included in Knowledge (XXG) because they fail Knowledge (XXG)'s core policy of
1423:
clearly never said anything like that, and the second isn't actually true. It's actually very easy to verify printed sources online -- particularly current issues.
1257:
1. Noisecreep. This is a review of another band's show that mentions that Embers opened, and then has one sentence which describes Embers' style. That sums it up.
1138:
reliable and not, MRR, Profane Existence, SF Bay Guardian, etc.? Also, no one has spoken to the second element of "former members of other notable music groups".
1290:
There, I've now gone insane over this AfD. If you're still reading this far, your tolerance for debate is...very well-suited to Knowledge (XXG), go check out
1960:
of Lesser of Two who were less consistent nonetheless went onto play in other note worty groups such as Ballast, Look Back and Laugh, and Pleasant Valley.
610:
119:
1352:
is a nationally known zine. Your assertions on P.E. are false. I assume you are not a reader of this magazine. noodle 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
849:
992:
828:
1260:
2. SFBG. Lengthy article that mentions Embers in a list of bands that include women. No actual coverage of Embers, just a mention in a list.
1596:
863:
555:
456:
1892:
447:'s articulate analysis of the sources. I fully agree that the links in the article are not of the caliber required by Knowledge (XXG)'s
853:
832:
364:
17:
1814:
1758:
1679:
1563:
1495:
1368:
1195:
Also, if Bono formed another band I'm sure you would agree it was notable. Well, the founding members of this band were involved in
1096:
754:
727:
360:
341:
87:
82:
221:
91:
1392:
630:
that provide at least several paragraphs of coverage about the band, feel free to link to them. I have been unable to find any.
624:
174:
878:
464:
141:
74:
452:
1703:
1617:
1395:
963:
like the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers" (and this is why this is in fact on topic) - is such a common word.
627:
1993:
384:, because the only music notability standard that is even being argued in this band's case appears to be press coverage.
2014:
1742:, and so on are not reliable publications. It just seems like a downward spiral. noodle 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
1690:
Nominating an equally non-notable band for deletion is appropriate because it upholds Knowledge (XXG)'s core policy of
36:
217:
1964:
1968:
694:
602:
536:
484:
135:
1913:
in consecutive sentences to make it appear as if there has been significant independent coverage of the subject."
1707:
1691:
1520:
545:
1032:
986:
824:
811:
1604:
1309:
1105:
Here is a link to a page on Decibel's Web site which lists all of the reviews present in the March, 2010 issue:
2013:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1600:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1951:
under a different name adding more musicians including Buchanan who was in Fields of Shit with two members of
1896:
131:
1886:
1847:
1771:
931:
Though a discussion about the lack of sources of another band is deviating from the discussion at hand, the
794:. I see no reason for the deletion, since the band in question is related to 2 independently notable bands (
1802:
1746:
1667:
1592:
1551:
1510:
1483:
1388:
1356:
1084:
742:
715:
1922:
1868:
1851:
1775:
1719:
1661:
1634:
1614:
where the participants with the opposing viewpoint engage in unfounded, abrasive accusations of bad faith.
1532:
1441:
1411:
1242:
1186:
1165:
1124:
1036:
1007:
972:
952:
922:
900:
891:, do you have another account on Knowledge (XXG)? And how did you find out about this discussion? Thanks,
815:
782:
663:
639:
591:
571:
520:
476:
431:
410:
345:
302:
274:
246:
225:
209:
56:
1878:
869:
Yes, the band has been "mentioned" in several local publications; these mentions are always present in a
181:
2000:
1810:
1754:
1675:
1559:
1491:
1436:
1364:
1304:
1181:
1160:
1119:
1092:
777:
750:
723:
658:
426:
405:
356:
337:
241:
204:
1286:
18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by subscribers to the publication. Conclude what you will.
1142:
coverage is just one of a number of reasons to keep this article. noodle 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1080:(There is a photo of the cover of their C.D. next to the review.)noodle 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
738:
Anarchist Black Metal which is pretty underground by it's nature.noodle 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
933:
912:
352:
333:
1881:, I ask that you say specifically which references you believe suffice. In the comment before yours,
1028:
982:
820:
807:
1248:
Description of Sources by AfD Nominator (Keep that in mind when reading, I'm not wholly independent)
937:
source you posted above mentions the band Filth in one sentence. This does not establish notability.
802:). They're also mentioned in multiple published sources (including printed magazines). According to
167:
1468:
703:
392:
377:
258:
1914:
1882:
1843:
1790:
1767:
1739:
1711:
1652:. I don't know how I feel about this move by Cunard. Especially since Cunard was not part of the
1626:
1524:
1403:
1234:
999:
944:
892:
631:
563:
488:
483:
There are some less than reliable sources in the article (myspace, blogs, etc.) but there's also
468:
78:
1781:
1476:
888:
803:
381:
373:
191:
147:
1455:
1349:
1131:
968:
918:
873:
of other bands, some of which are notable, most of which are not. There is no indication that
678:
587:
516:
496:
492:
372:
Something being real does not mean that something warrants an article on Knowledge (XXG). See
298:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1989:
1944:
1933:
1229:
A band does not inherit notability from non-notable members of marginally notable bands; see
1997:
1918:
1864:
1806:
1750:
1731:
1727:
1715:
1671:
1630:
1555:
1528:
1487:
1427:
1407:
1360:
1295:
1238:
1172:
1151:
1139:
1135:
1110:
1088:
1052:
1003:
948:
896:
768:
746:
719:
682:
649:
635:
567:
472:
444:
417:
396:
232:
195:
1906:
1616:
Instead of discussing the motives of those supporting deletion, please provide examples of
1543:
1460:
1451:
1291:
620:
1337:
16., 19. The Decibel Review is quoted above. It's only controversial if you want it to be.
559:
1910:
1902:
460:
455:
for sources (with the search term: Embers "Steven DeCaprio") garners no results, while a
1909:, and the stilted language resulting when editors stitch together passing references in
1479:
is ScarTissueBloodBlister and they voted to keep. noodle 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
501:
49:
1660:
previous tag which was much less drastic than AfD. Is this really appropriate? noodle
1106:
448:
1956:
1948:
1839:
1786:
1699:
1695:
1653:
1472:
1327:
1200:
1056:
940:
874:
845:
795:
698:
stands both the Decibel review and the S.F. Bay Guardian refer to Embers as peers of
686:
616:
319:
70:
62:
870:
541:
322:
and their gigs in their home town of Oakland are listed on Oakland.com, for example
1992:
any further improvements can be made with proper editing and research. Also, since
1988:. Given the context Embers should pass under criteria #6 as well as criteria #1 of
1952:
1657:
1204:
964:
914:
859:
799:
690:
583:
512:
294:
267:
1471:(despite both having wikipedia entries), and has started a deletion discussion on
1231:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited
108:
981:
I discussed the lack of notability of a band with which Embers performed because
1955:. The application of the term "ensemble" in this context is difficult to apply.
1860:
1842:
is of questionable notability and Filth has no Embers members. Not good enough.
1838:
band look significant. As for being "related to 2 independently notable bands",
1735:
1023:
1341:
to verify online, but now online magazines are unreliable without explanation.)
531:
1134:
Magazine is just as reliable as any other news source. Why do you consider
216:
With the amount of references this article has it should not be deleted.
1426:
I'm babbling. Apologies. We certainly agree on one thing: battyness! :)
323:
315:
1464:
939:
Instead of searching for sources for other bands, please find some for
879:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles
862:
currently contains no references and does not appear to be notable per
699:
465:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles
1943:. Please take them into consideration when considering criteria #6 of
459:
only garners thirty-eight results, none of which can be considered
261:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
1963:
Also these are the links to the not so "infamous" Decibel review:
1027:
discuss the notability of Lesser of Two, where it's appropriate.
544:(which doesn't even mention Ember) does not allow Embers to pass
311:
2007:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
623:. If you, or the other proponents of keeping this article, have
1971:
javascript:insertTags('noodle 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',
1419:
probably the closest either of us will come to a summation.
995:) attempted to use it to bolster the notability of Embers.
562:
that lacks an online presence is very likely non-notable.
554:
should be some online coverage about it. The fact that a
1326:
3. MRR. you forgot to mention that the "other band" was
288:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
1511:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
1389:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
104:
100:
96:
1222:
Thank you for posting the text of the Decibel review:
166:
1150:
musicians. That is not a reason to keep the article.
1130:
rather frustrated with the lack of trust here. Also,
1907:
sources that do not specifically mention the subject
689:
and the drummer collaborated with former members of
1982:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two
1941:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two
1650:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two
266:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
180:
1402:(several paragraphs of) coverage about this band?
320:http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=172603
1475:. I should also note the only person involved in
806:, it's enough to consider Embers a notable band.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2017:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1344:18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by
1939:I have added numberous references and links to
611:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Love Pump
1901:"These articles may have lots of footnotes to
1387:coverage about this band. This is required by
8:
1895:) explained that the article is filled with
1859:as the references are more than sufficient.
1280:16, 19. The controversial Decibel reference.
1203:and Fileds of Shit featuring two members of
391:The sources you reference above do not pass
1947:. Embers is in many ways a continuation of
380:that are required to establish this band's
282:
1648:O.K. so now this AfD has spilled over to
677:. They have received positive reviews in
286:: This debate has been included in the
1247:
606:calls it a tabloid (see the infobox).
324:http://www.oakland.com/embers-e507901
316:http://www.spaz.org/taxonomy/term/240
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1780:The wikipedia notability guidlines,
856:, which returns no relevant results.
600:The Knowledge (XXG) article for the
314:and semi-permanent autonomous zone
1263:3. MMR. This is a reference about
24:
1656:editing process and has undercut
540:does not establish notability. A
1730:is not a notable label and that
1994:Embers is a current active band
1905:(MySpace, Facebook, etc) or to
1517:exist at all is rather unusual.
864:this Google News Archive search
854:this Google News Archive search
1965:File:Decibel.Embers.Review.jpg
1283:17. Link to unreliable source.
312:http://www.metal-archives.com/
192:notability standards for music
1:
1969:File:Decibel.Embers.Cover.JPG
1923:19:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1869:19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1852:00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
1776:14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
1720:07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
1708:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1692:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1662:03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
1635:23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1605:21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1533:07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
1521:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1442:05:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1412:04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1310:01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1243:04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1187:01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1166:01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1125:00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
1037:22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
1008:07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
973:07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
953:07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
923:05:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
901:23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
816:21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
783:01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
664:01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
640:09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
592:09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
572:08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
546:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
521:08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
477:08:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
57:11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
1702:lack sufficient coverage in
1542:Cunard, your statement that
1277:13-15. See above, same deal.
1274:10-12. See above, same deal.
432:02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
411:02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
346:21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
332:—Preceding comment added by
303:19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
275:00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
247:05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
226:02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
210:09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
1984:has ended in a decision to
2034:
850:Google News Archive search
695:San Francisco Bay Guardian
603:San Francisco Bay Guardian
542:user-generated review page
537:San Francisco Bay Guardian
495:, Political Media Review,
485:San Francisco Bay Guardian
453:Google News Archive search
1267:. It is not about Embers.
1075:www.myspace.com/embers666
1047:Decibel review and Embers
681:and the current issue of
534:in the tabloid newspaper
2010:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
467:and should be deleted.
393:verifiability standards
378:verifiability standards
218:ScarTissueBloodBlister
1199:notable music groups
1107:Decibel March reviews
833:few or no other edits
365:few or no other edits
1903:non-reliable sources
934:San Francisco Weekly
835:outside this topic.
367:outside this topic.
621:Knowledge (XXG):GNG
318:and Metal Archives
1791:Talk:Embers_(band)
44:The result was
1819:
1805:comment added by
1763:
1749:comment added by
1740:Flipside Magazine
1684:
1670:comment added by
1595:comment added by
1568:
1554:comment added by
1500:
1486:comment added by
1456:Profane Existence
1373:
1359:comment added by
1350:Profane Existence
1132:Profane Existence
1101:
1087:comment added by
836:
759:
745:comment added by
732:
718:comment added by
679:Profane Existence
497:Profane Existence
493:Maximum RocknRoll
368:
349:
305:
291:
277:
2025:
2012:
1911:reliable sources
1818:
1799:
1762:
1743:
1732:Maximumrocknroll
1728:Nikt Nic Nie Wie
1704:reliable sources
1683:
1664:
1618:reliable sources
1607:
1567:
1548:
1499:
1480:
1439:
1434:
1396:reliable sources
1391:. Are there two
1372:
1353:
1307:
1302:
1184:
1179:
1163:
1158:
1140:Decibel magazine
1136:Decibel magazine
1122:
1117:
1100:
1081:
1053:Decibel Magazine
818:
780:
775:
758:
739:
731:
712:
683:Decibel Magazine
661:
656:
628:reliable sources
532:one-word mention
461:reliable sources
429:
424:
408:
403:
350:
348:
330:
292:
272:
265:
263:
244:
239:
207:
202:
185:
184:
170:
122:
112:
94:
54:
53:
34:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2015:deletion review
2008:
1937:
1800:
1744:
1665:
1646:
1590:
1549:
1481:
1437:
1428:
1354:
1305:
1296:
1250:
1182:
1173:
1161:
1152:
1120:
1111:
1082:
1049:
1029:Black Kronstadt
983:Black Kronstadt
821:Black Kronstadt
808:Black Kronstadt
778:
769:
740:
713:
659:
650:
560:Information Age
427:
418:
406:
397:
331:
268:
256:
242:
233:
205:
196:
127:
118:
85:
69:
66:
51:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2031:
2029:
2020:
2019:
1936:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1872:
1871:
1854:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1723:
1722:
1706:and thus fail
1645:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1597:63.245.179.202
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1537:
1536:
1502:
1501:
1445:
1444:
1420:
1415:
1414:
1375:
1374:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1324:
1320:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1261:
1258:
1249:
1246:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1193:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
976:
975:
957:
956:
926:
925:
905:
904:
838:
837:
788:
787:
786:
785:
764:
734:
733:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
645:
644:
643:
595:
594:
576:
575:
525:
524:
480:
479:
437:
436:
435:
434:
388:
385:
307:
306:
279:
278:
264:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
188:
187:
124:
120:AfD statistics
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2030:
2018:
2016:
2011:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1999:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1980:
1976:
1974:
1970:
1966:
1961:
1958:
1957:Lesser of Two
1954:
1950:
1949:Lesser of Two
1946:
1942:
1935:
1931:
1925:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1888:
1884:
1883:Duffbeerforme
1880:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1855:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1844:duffbeerforme
1841:
1840:Lesser of Two
1836:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1797:
1792:
1788:
1787:Lesser of Two
1783:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1768:duffbeerforme
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1700:Lesser of Two
1697:
1696:Embers (band)
1693:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1654:Lesser of Two
1651:
1644:Lesser of Two
1643:
1637:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1623:
1620:that provide
1619:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1478:
1474:
1473:Lesser of Two
1470:
1466:
1462:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1435:
1433:
1432:
1425:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1398:that provide
1397:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1328:Lesser of Two
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1303:
1301:
1300:
1293:
1285:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1225:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:Lesser of Two
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1180:
1178:
1177:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1159:
1157:
1156:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1116:
1115:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1078:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1058:
1057:Embers (band)
1055:coverage for
1054:
1046:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
994:
991:
988:
984:
980:
979:
978:
977:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
954:
950:
946:
942:
941:Embers (band)
936:
935:
930:
929:
928:
927:
924:
920:
916:
913:
909:
908:
907:
906:
903:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
880:
876:
875:Embers (band)
872:
867:
865:
861:
857:
855:
851:
847:
846:Lesser of Two
842:
841:
840:
839:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
796:Lesser of Two
793:
790:
789:
784:
781:
776:
774:
773:
765:
761:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
736:
735:
729:
725:
721:
717:
710:
705:
701:
696:
692:
688:
687:Lesser of Two
684:
680:
676:
673:
672:
665:
662:
657:
655:
654:
646:
642:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
622:
618:
617:Embers (band)
614:
612:
605:
604:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
556:Google search
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
523:
522:
518:
514:
510:
503:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
457:Google search
454:
451:standards. A
450:
449:verifiability
446:
442:
439:
438:
433:
430:
425:
423:
422:
414:
413:
412:
409:
404:
402:
401:
394:
389:
386:
383:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
347:
343:
339:
335:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
304:
300:
296:
289:
285:
281:
280:
276:
273:
271:
262:
260:
255:
254:
248:
245:
240:
238:
237:
229:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
211:
208:
203:
201:
200:
193:
183:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
129:Find sources:
125:
121:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:Embers (band)
68:
67:
64:
63:Embers (band)
61:
59:
58:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2009:
2006:
1985:
1978:
1977:
1972:
1962:
1953:Filth (band)
1938:
1932:Criteria #6
1900:
1889:
1879:WP:VAGUEWAVE
1856:
1834:
1830:
1795:
1647:
1621:
1615:
1587:
1515:
1514:
1469:Saros (band)
1430:
1429:
1399:
1384:
1345:
1298:
1297:
1289:
1265:another band
1264:
1251:
1228:
1223:
1208:
1205:Filth (band)
1196:
1175:
1174:
1154:
1153:
1147:
1113:
1112:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1051:I think the
1050:
996:
989:
938:
932:
884:
883:
871:laundry list
868:
860:Filth (band)
858:
844:
800:Filth (band)
791:
771:
770:
708:
704:Saros (band)
691:Filth (band)
674:
652:
651:
615:
607:
601:
552:
549:
535:
508:
506:
440:
420:
419:
399:
398:
327:
308:
283:
269:
257:
235:
234:
198:
197:
189:
177:
171:
163:
156:
150:
144:
138:
128:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1857:Keep Embers
1835:significant
1807:Noodlesteve
1801:—Preceding
1751:Noodlesteve
1745:—Preceding
1736:HeartattaCk
1672:Noodlesteve
1666:—Preceding
1622:significant
1591:—Preceding
1556:Noodlesteve
1550:—Preceding
1488:Noodlesteve
1482:—Preceding
1400:significant
1393:independent
1385:significant
1361:Noodlesteve
1355:—Preceding
1323:conclusion.
1089:Noodlesteve
1083:—Preceding
1024:Black metal
831:) has made
747:Noodlesteve
741:—Preceding
720:Noodlesteve
714:—Preceding
625:independent
363:) has made
353:Prairie2010
334:Prairie2010
154:free images
1148:individual
382:notability
52:Skomorokh
1658:WikHead's
1271:does not.
885:Addendum:
295:• Gene93k
1979:Addendum
1893:contribs
1815:contribs
1803:unsigned
1782:WP:FAILN
1759:contribs
1747:unsigned
1680:contribs
1668:unsigned
1593:unsigned
1564:contribs
1552:unsigned
1496:contribs
1484:unsigned
1477:WP:METAL
1431:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
1369:contribs
1357:unsigned
1319:precise.
1299:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
1176:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
1155:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
1114:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
1097:contribs
1085:unsigned
993:contribs
889:WP:MUSIC
829:contribs
804:WP:MUSIC
772:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
755:contribs
743:unsigned
728:contribs
716:unsigned
653:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
445:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
421:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
400:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
374:WP:MUSIC
361:contribs
342:contribs
259:Relisted
236:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
199:É Ç€ÉłĚ©Ď‚ÎµÎťÉˇ
115:View log
1990:WP:BAND
1945:WP:BAND
1934:WP:BAND
1897:puffery
1694:. Both
1465:Ludicra
1294:, thx.
877:passes
707:(UTC)',
700:Ludicra
489:Decibel
270:JForget
160:WPÂ refs
148:scholar
88:protect
83:history
1998:Noodle
1915:Cunard
1861:gidonb
1833:Lacks
1831:Delete
1712:Cunard
1627:Cunard
1544:WP:GNG
1525:Cunard
1461:WP:AGF
1452:WP:AGF
1404:Cunard
1292:WP:ANI
1235:Cunard
1068:Embers
1065:EMBERS
1000:Cunard
945:Cunard
893:Cunard
693:. The
632:Cunard
564:Cunard
469:Cunard
441:Delete
132:Google
92:delete
1346:staff
1334:band.
965:radek
915:radek
584:radek
513:radek
505:here.
175:JSTOR
136:books
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
2001:talk
1986:Keep
1967:and
1919:talk
1887:talk
1877:Per
1865:talk
1848:talk
1811:talk
1772:talk
1755:talk
1716:talk
1698:and
1676:talk
1631:talk
1601:talk
1560:talk
1529:talk
1492:talk
1438:bomb
1408:talk
1365:talk
1306:bomb
1239:talk
1183:bomb
1162:bomb
1121:bomb
1093:talk
1033:talk
1004:talk
987:talk
969:talk
949:talk
919:talk
897:talk
825:talk
812:talk
798:and
792:Keep
779:bomb
751:talk
724:talk
702:and
675:Keep
660:bomb
636:talk
588:talk
568:talk
517:talk
509:Keep
473:talk
443:per
428:bomb
407:bomb
357:talk
338:talk
299:talk
284:Note
243:bomb
222:talk
206:bomb
168:FENS
142:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1798:)
1233:.
1197:two
711:)
507:So
502:DIY
293:--
212:}}
182:TWL
117:•
113:– (
1975:)
1921:)
1867:)
1850:)
1817:)
1813:•
1774:)
1761:)
1757:•
1738:,
1734:,
1718:)
1710:.
1682:)
1678:•
1633:)
1603:)
1566:)
1562:•
1531:)
1523:.
1498:)
1494:•
1467:,
1410:)
1371:)
1367:•
1241:)
1099:)
1095:•
1077:"
1035:)
1006:)
971:)
951:)
943:.
921:)
899:)
827:•
819:—
814:)
757:)
753:•
730:)
726:•
638:)
590:)
570:)
530:A
519:)
491:,
487:,
475:)
359:•
351:—
344:)
340:•
301:)
290:.
224:)
194:.
162:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
1973:,
1917:(
1899::
1890:·
1885:(
1863:(
1846:(
1809:(
1796:,
1770:(
1753:(
1714:(
1674:(
1629:(
1599:(
1558:(
1527:(
1513:.
1490:(
1406:(
1363:(
1237:(
1211:)
1209:,
1091:(
1063:"
1031:(
1002:(
990:·
985:(
967:(
947:(
917:(
895:(
881:.
866:.
823:(
810:(
749:(
722:(
709:,
634:(
613:.
586:(
566:(
548:.
515:(
471:(
355:(
336:(
297:(
220:(
186:)
178:·
172:·
164:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
126:(
123:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.