584:
put up were removed right after he put up another deletion notice, anyone could have removed it after that. I hope that someone will help work out a solution to keep the articles rather than attack me for my ignorance how to use this site. If the articles can’t be redirected or some other alternate solution discovered, then I accept the deletion. I only hope that you see that independent movies without million dollar budgets and revenue should have a place on this website and help me find a place for it. The two news articles I posted from the Times courier are a professional solid news agencies with over fifty years in the business, with ties from
Decatur Illinois to Chicago Illinois news agencies. I think they deserve the respect that they are a legitimate news organization. If you’re debating this movie should not be included because it didn’t make millions of dollars, or how many people watched them than this would be an injustice to the true core of any movie. There’s no scale to follow how many have to watch a particular movie to make it notable or not, both of these movies where notable to some extent maybe not by millions, but thousands possibly. I have provided legitimate news articles from reliable sources Times courier, listings from IMDB, the Mars Society among other, all which are notable in their own right. There comes to a point though where you can’t satisfy being listed in every news paper and company article to satisfy everyone. I truly hope you reconsider deleting these articles.
417:
I asked you for assistance about your concerns with this article. I do not understand your threats; there is no need to be hostile here. I am just trying to correct your concerns peacefully about these two articles. I delete a lot of stuff, I changed my mind, haven’t you ever changed your mind about something? No big deal to me I don’t like something I posted, so I delete it. Why is it a big deal to you? Why wont you tell me what you want, so we can straighten this article thing out. What are you looking for that would constitute legitimate?
674:
make it? I see no well known news articles from the New York Times posted. Also they listed rotten tomatoes as a source and so did I but it was moved down on my page like it wasn’t accepted. I am not trying to make anyone mad, but I am trying to show my stuff I have post should count as credibility if the stuff below count as a creditable news sources. These links are the references to the movie
Mission to Mars that I looked up from this site. Thanks for all the help, theres an awful lot of stuff to read here.
291:
information he wants, he automatically starts putting delete messages on your hard work pages you created. He has been harassing me from day one with threats of deletions. I was trying to add this movie for a friend, but never thought in a million years other users could be so mean. If they would have contacted me with their concerns I would have fixed any problems they had and a simple welcome to the site would have been nice as well. I am new here.
1245:
appears. Any editor always has the option of requesting the article be put in their user space to go search for sources at their leisure, but at this point no one has provided any demonstrable evidence that there is even a likelihood of sources exists. So why spend "extra time" on a pointless exercise? --
1272:
I just happen to read down the line tonight at some of the comments and I saw
Schmidt gave a weak keep. Thank you for re-considering and giving some hope. I appreciate it more than you will ever imagine. I am looking for other news articles on Google, but you guys are right they have probably been
393:
And you asccusation of my having been harrassing you from day one is also not true. You've been here since March, my first edits and interactions with you were two days ago. There were several other editors interacting with you explaining why all of your Eric Shook and
Westfield articles were going
416:
Why would you send this to me? I asked you not to harass me and you send a threatening notice to me. These notices are used for legitimate reasons, like profanity, hate letters that sort of thing which I have done none of these things. You asked me a questions and I simply replied back to you, then
583:
I apologize for saying Proud foot deliberately removed the resources and that was wrong of me without solid proof to make that statement. I can only hope he works with me to solve these article problems rather than request to delete the articles. I correct my statement by saying the new resources I
622:
to understand why the film is not notable. Time
Courier is a reliable source, no one has disputed that, but the articles are local pieces on a local person who happened to be in the films. That does not confer notability on the film nor her (anymore than a story about a business in its local paper
1171:
coverage of the film, since it's all from the same website. Also, this: "Director James
Cameron’s Aliens for instance, proves that it can be a success to make a sequel. Not to say Empire of Danger comes close to an excellent film like Aliens, but you have to remember that Empire of Danger didn’t
816:
Blogs or self-published websites I already did that, try going to the page and look at the bottom of the page. Rotten tomatoes, the mars society, IMDB, Sci-Fi online, io9, cinemarx, vidoeta, times courier. I see no self published, or blogs from me, what are you talking about? Why would it go to a
758:
and userfy if requested. I made the article prettier... I converted the
Wilipedia in-line cites to Wikilinks... I placed the two local news articles into proper ref format... but the majority of the text cannot be properly soucred, and there is no coverage of this film after March 24, 2003. While
673:
I see little credibility with any of these sites that I found as references to a
Mission to mars articale from this site. There is synopsis of the movies, reviews, etc, nothing too much different than the references I posted on my articles. What’s the difference other than they spent millions to
254:
What do you want? Please be specific there are legitimate news paper articles listed on the page, websites as well. I checked
Knowledge and they state News paper articles are legitimate, so I posted them. Will you please tell me what would make you happy and I will locate it if I can. I am unsure
834:
Actually... being "re-screened" at a sci-fi festival five years after initial release could indeed give a consideration toward notability.. as yes, many films do have life on the festival circuit that makes them notable. And yes... I went through proffered sources (again) just as you requested.
645:
Clarification: IMDB is not "user edited", as users do not have access to the IMDB database editing tools. While certainly anyone can "submit" information which then goes through some sort of vetting process by IMDB staffers, it is the IMDB staffers themselves who are the ones with access to the
613:
IMDB is user edited and not a reliable source, nor are inclusions in directories a sign of notability. IMDB lists all movies ever made. Also, the Mars
Society in the article is not the national society, it is a single branch in a single city and the page listed is not a review, nor significant
1244:
Knowledge does not operate on that concept. There is a difference between sources not existing and their being difficult to find. In this case, they simply don't exist beyond the local paper coverage. We don't keep articles around that have no demonstrable notability just in case a source ever
290:
Everard proudfoot put a deletion tag on the page, after he deleted my secondary proof on the page. I had to re edit the page and put the news paper articles back on the page after he removed them. I think he is abusive to other users. One thing I have noticed is he will not be specific about
1230:. This is the problem with articles about older movies. Sources get harder to find, but that does not mean that they are not out there. We should at least spend a little extra time looking for sources before deleting the article, because notability does not degrade over time. --
646:
database editing tools. The staffers are the ones doing the editing... based upon the information submited and the IMDB vetting processes. That said however, simply being listed in the database, no matter how the information got there, does not impart any notability.
773:
does not. Find us some more coverage of THIS film that is not in blogs or self-published websites. Show us proof that it has screened at a festival anytime after 2009. Show us that schools have included it in the sylabus. Something. Please. Show us how it meets
1280:
I have a question why is it when I log in it takes me to a page, but when I go to another page it automatically always logs me out. I can’t stay logged in for some reason, so my signature is always messed up. It doesn’t say Sholun when I hit signature above.
191:
Non-notable film. These Eric Shook films are popping up after the articles about the filmmaker and his production company have already been deleted for lack of notability. This film was made for $ 100,000 and has no box office information at imdb.
1172:
have a million dollars to back the production." Of course that can be fixed/removed, but the COI is obvious here. Some people may be able to write a neutral article on something close to them, but this brother simply can't.
160:
1026:
You seem to be missing the big point - it has NO significant coverage in reliable sources. So what sources, specifically, do you claim will establish that the film is notable when none appear to exist? --
548:, with no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. Even RT has not a single review for it. Local news stories about local people cannot confer notability by themselves. Fails
1274:
1138:
It has the same problem as with the other, those are local articles about a local film maker, and the creator is basically a younger brother proud of his big sister for being in the films
867:
simply lists a brief sysnopsis twice on their "Mars Movie Guide". No coverage or commentary. The only two sources that work toward notability are the 2002 and 2003 articles in the local
817:
festival, it was made in 2004 why would someone send it to a festvial after 2009? That makes no sense to me, I don't even think a festival would allow it since it was made in 2004. --
1119:, there are reliable sources that deal with the film... either directly or as part of their context. However, I my "keep" is "weak" because of the local nature of the coverage.
872:
154:
1296:
That is a local source (again). For the log in issue, have you made sure your browser has cookies enabled? It sounds like it isn't letting your browse keep them.--
1227:
115:
724:
1141:
Local coverage of local folks does not, by itself, give the film notability, and that is all this film has - the local paper talking about its citizens. --
448:
1275:
http://media.www.dennews.com/media/storage/paper309/news/2003/04/18/TheVerge/Eastern.Students.Star.In.Movies.Filmed.In.EastCentral.Illinois-420928.shtml
759:
yes, it exists, and yes it is being distributed... not of the usual sources do anything but repeat what is on IMDB or the production's website. To
88:
83:
1282:
818:
708:
598:
428:
92:
1309:
1258:
1154:
1040:
938:
921:
740:
636:
569:
511:
486:
75:
855:
but only refers to this film by saying "Turns out there's a sequel, and they're both coming out on DVD soon." It does not even use
175:
17:
142:
1115:. I have struck my "delete" above. While the author's arguments are obviously being made by someone totally unversed in
1055:
311:
275:
1063:
399:
372:
346:
328:
197:
871:, and they are less about the film than about a local actress IN the film. Believe me, I have no bias here, as I
136:
1326:
1128:
896:
800:
787:
655:
36:
1325:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1235:
1015:
696:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1313:
1290:
1262:
1239:
1214:
1187:
1158:
1131:
1093:
1067:
1044:
1019:
1000:
963:
925:
899:
826:
803:
744:
716:
699:
658:
640:
606:
573:
531:
495:
463:
436:
403:
376:
350:
332:
315:
279:
240:
223:
201:
57:
843:
is a more compete listing. It might verify the film but being listed in IMDB does not impart any notability.
132:
120:
1286:
822:
712:
602:
432:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1104:
935:
79:
1303:
1252:
1148:
1059:
1034:
915:
734:
630:
563:
395:
368:
342:
324:
193:
480:
182:
71:
63:
1121:
1089:
889:
793:
780:
704:
648:
594:
424:
299:
263:
1231:
1207:
1180:
1011:
937:
is a coverage of it. There are four articles total concerning the film from that one news source.
236:
219:
168:
544:
1010:
the article needs rewriting and sources need to be added. Afterwards the article will be fine. --
760:
679:
589:
303:
267:
1297:
1246:
1142:
1028:
909:
728:
624:
557:
459:
148:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
978:
941:
940:
The article needs to be rewritten, of course, but bad quality is not a reason to delete it.
839:
is a listing that proves its existance, but the listing lacks any comentary about the film.
693:
684:
475:
307:
271:
53:
1078:
765:
727:. It seems pointless to continue just copy/pasting responses between these two AfDs. --
1202:
1175:
848:
614:
coverage, it is a listing of titles they watched on movie nights. I'd urge you to read
524:
232:
215:
975:
1226:
so we cannot find many google hits right now. So what about 7 or 8 years ago because
836:
337:
Other than my addition of the afd template, the only edit I made to the article was
1116:
884:
880:
876:
775:
687:
615:
549:
455:
211:
1199:: Same rationale as the other film.. no significant coverage to build notability.
109:
970:
To nominator, yes it is on IMDB, although I don't see what that matters or not.
619:
553:
49:
887:. With what's available out there currently, this film fails. And I am sorry.
255:
what you are after, if you would just tell me, but be specific, it might help.
1273:
deleted over the years and they are hard to find. Dream Focus found this one
363:
And if we want to start throwing around accusations, perhaps you can explain
697:
http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/feature/best-of-the-aughts-film/216/page_3
517:
700:
http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/5176/year/2000.html
844:
971:
840:
875:
to improve articles whenever I can. I urge you to more carefuly review
860:
675:
341:, reverting the vandalism involved in removing the afd template.
323:
What secondary proof? I don't remember having deleted anything.
1319:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
690:
864:
694:
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~ejohnson/critics/cahiers.html
685:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=missiontomars.htm
1139:
364:
338:
105:
101:
97:
167:
1103:
per at least 4 articles found dealing with the film:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1329:). No further edits should be made to this page.
688:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission_to_mars/
1228:Knowledge:Notability does not degrade over time
725:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lost on mars‎
210:: I can't find significant coverage for this
181:
8:
977:Notable television channels have played it.
1077:- Fails notability requirements for films.
1054:: For those voting keep, what criteria of
443:
449:list of Film-related deletion discussions
908:Again, reply is at Lost on Mars AfD. --
447:: This debate has been included in the
791:Struck my delete. See rationale below.
676:http://en.wikipedia.org/Mission_to_mars
974:Spike television and others have it.
769:has the coverage and notability that
691:http://en.wikipedia.org/Steven_Dillon
7:
972:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518195/
510:This article has been nominated for
1277:and I didn’t even know it existed.
881:WP:NF#Other evidence of notability
763:... all you have shown us is that
24:
869:Journal gazette and Times courier
847:shows viewer submitted comments.
751:I'll cut-n-paste... for emphasis.
623:makes the business notable). --
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
121:for deletion/Empire of Danger
1056:Knowledge:Notability (films)
1346:
1058:does this film address?
1322:Please do not modify it.
1314:06:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1291:02:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1263:16:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1240:16:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1215:03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1188:03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1159:02:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1132:01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
1094:22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
1068:17:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
1045:16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
1020:16:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
1001:11:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
964:11:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
926:22:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
900:02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
877:WP:NF#General principles
827:21:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
804:01:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
745:20:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
717:20:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
659:22:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
641:18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
607:18:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
574:15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
532:15:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
496:17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
464:15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
437:13:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
404:06:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
377:06:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
351:06:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
333:06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
316:03:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
280:02:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
241:01:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
224:00:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
202:06:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
58:10:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
542:Even less notable than
851:has a brief review of
863:is simply a listing.
124:|2=AfD statistics}})
1167:Michael that's not
873:bend over backwards
44:The result was
1092:
1060:Everard Proudfoot
707:comment added by
678:comment added by
597:comment added by
588:comment added by
534:
530:
466:
452:
427:comment added by
396:Everard Proudfoot
369:Everard Proudfoot
343:Everard Proudfoot
325:Everard Proudfoot
319:
302:comment added by
283:
266:comment added by
194:Everard Proudfoot
1337:
1324:
1300:
1249:
1213:
1210:
1205:
1186:
1183:
1178:
1145:
1124:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1031:
997:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
960:
957:
954:
951:
948:
945:
912:
892:
865:The Mars Society
796:
783:
731:
719:
651:
627:
609:
560:
529:
527:
521:
515:
506:
494:
491:
490:
483:
478:
453:
439:
394:to be deleted.
318:
296:
282:
260:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
72:Empire of Danger
64:Empire of Danger
34:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1327:deletion review
1320:
1298:
1247:
1208:
1203:
1200:
1181:
1176:
1173:
1143:
1122:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1029:
995:
992:
989:
986:
983:
980:
958:
955:
952:
949:
946:
943:
910:
890:
837:Rotten Tomatoes
794:
781:
766:Mission to Mars
729:
702:
649:
625:
592:
558:
525:
519:
516:
488:
487:
481:
476:
473:
422:
297:
261:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1343:
1341:
1332:
1331:
1316:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1232:Alpha Quadrant
1218:
1217:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1162:
1161:
1135:
1134:
1097:
1096:
1071:
1070:
1048:
1047:
1023:
1022:
1012:Alpha Quadrant
1004:
1003:
967:
966:
929:
928:
905:
904:
903:
902:
814:
813:
807:
806:
752:
748:
747:
671:
670:
664:
663:
662:
661:
586:
585:
577:
576:
536:
535:
503:
502:
499:
498:
467:
419:
418:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
356:
355:
354:
353:
293:
292:
257:
256:
247:
245:
244:
226:
189:
188:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1342:
1330:
1328:
1323:
1317:
1315:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1283:99.34.109.238
1278:
1276:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1206:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1179:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1140:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1032:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1002:
999:
998:
976:
973:
969:
968:
965:
962:
961:
939:
936:
934:
931:
930:
927:
923:
920:
917:
913:
907:
906:
901:
898:
897:
894:
893:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:film's name.
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
824:
820:
819:99.34.109.238
812:
809:
808:
805:
802:
801:
798:
797:
790:
789:
788:
785:
784:
777:
772:
768:
767:
762:
757:
753:
750:
749:
746:
742:
739:
736:
732:
726:
723:See reply at
722:
721:
720:
718:
714:
710:
709:99.34.109.238
706:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
682:
681:
677:
669:
666:
665:
660:
657:
656:
653:
652:
644:
643:
642:
638:
635:
632:
628:
621:
617:
612:
611:
610:
608:
604:
600:
599:99.34.109.238
596:
591:
582:
579:
578:
575:
571:
568:
565:
561:
555:
551:
547:
546:
541:
538:
537:
533:
528:
523:
522:
513:
509:
505:
504:
501:
500:
497:
492:
484:
479:
471:
468:
465:
461:
457:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
438:
434:
430:
429:99.34.109.238
426:
421:Thanks kim
415:
414:
405:
401:
397:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:
320:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
289:
286:
285:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
253:
250:
249:
248:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1321:
1318:
1306:
1299:AnmaFinotera
1279:
1271:
1255:
1248:AnmaFinotera
1223:
1201:
1196:
1174:
1168:
1151:
1144:AnmaFinotera
1127:
1120:
1100:
1074:
1051:
1037:
1030:AnmaFinotera
1007:
979:
942:
932:
918:
911:AnmaFinotera
895:
888:
868:
856:
853:Lost on Mars
852:
815:
810:
799:
792:
786:
779:
771:Lost on Mars
770:
764:
755:
754:
737:
730:AnmaFinotera
683:
672:
667:
654:
647:
633:
626:AnmaFinotera
587:
580:
566:
559:AnmaFinotera
545:Lost on mars
543:
539:
518:
507:
469:
444:
420:
294:
287:
258:
251:
246:
228:
207:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1169:significant
761:User:Sholun
703:—Preceding
593:—Preceding
489:Not-content
423:—Preceding
298:—Preceding
262:—Preceding
155:free images
231:per nom. (
1224:Question:
1101:Weak keep
1052:Question:
845:SFF World
472:per nom.
456:• Gene93k
233:GregJackP
216:Joe Chill
1310:contribs
1259:contribs
1155:contribs
1123:Schmidt,
1041:contribs
922:contribs
891:Schmidt,
795:Schmidt,
782:Schmidt,
741:contribs
705:unsigned
650:Schmidt,
637:contribs
595:unsigned
570:contribs
477:Treasury
425:unsigned
339:this one
312:contribs
300:unsigned
276:contribs
264:unsigned
116:View log
861:Vidoeta
811:Comment
668:Comment
581:Hold on
288:Comment
252:Comment
161:WPÂ refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
1197:Delete
1112:, and
1081:Snotty
1075:Delete
756:Delete
680:Sholun
590:Sholun
540:Delete
512:rescue
470:Delete
304:Sholun
268:Sholun
229:Delete
208:Delete
133:Google
93:delete
50:Stifle
46:delete
1209:Allen
1182:Allen
1117:WP:RS
1008:Keep:
996:Focus
959:Focus
885:WP:RS
776:WP:NF
616:WP:NF
556:. --
550:WP:NF
520:Chzz
508:Note:
295:Kim
259:Kim
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1304:talk
1287:talk
1253:talk
1236:talk
1204:Mike
1177:Mike
1149:talk
1090:talk
1084:Wong
1064:talk
1035:talk
1016:talk
933:Keep
916:talk
883:and
879:and
857:this
841:IMDB
823:talk
735:talk
713:talk
631:talk
620:WP:N
618:and
603:talk
564:talk
554:WP:N
552:and
460:talk
445:Note
433:talk
400:talk
373:talk
365:this
347:talk
329:talk
308:talk
272:talk
237:talk
220:talk
212:film
198:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
849:I09
482:Tag
454:--
367:?
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1312:)
1289:)
1281:--
1261:)
1238:)
1157:)
1109:,
1106:,
1066:)
1043:)
1018:)
924:)
825:)
778:.
743:)
715:)
639:)
605:)
572:)
526:â–ş
514:.
493:─╢
474:╟─
462:)
451:.
435:)
402:)
375:)
349:)
331:)
314:)
310:•
278:)
274:•
239:)
222:)
214:.
200:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
1307:·
1302:(
1285:(
1256:·
1251:(
1234:(
1152:·
1147:(
1062:(
1038:·
1033:(
1014:(
993:m
990:a
987:e
984:r
981:D
956:m
953:a
950:e
947:r
944:D
919:·
914:(
821:(
738:·
733:(
711:(
634:·
629:(
601:(
567:·
562:(
485:â–ş
458:(
431:(
398:(
371:(
345:(
327:(
306:(
270:(
243:)
235:(
218:(
196:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.