1105:
includes salaries and benefits, biomedical supplies, live-animal care and maintenance costs, reagents and equipment, overhead, and the built-in annual cost increases, could run up to half that, depending on what your salary and the study's particular expenses needs are. If he was going to be hiring more, better paid, clinical people, and had a lot of costly clinical lab testing, genomics or large-animal live-animal studies in the proposal, to me $ 5 doesn't look all that 'substantial'. And this is in a military funding background where DARPA throws money around on fringe all the time, just in case they 'win the lottery' with one of them (or sometimes just on 'shiny pennies'). I am just warning not to let that price tag give you sticker shock: it isn't so sizable that it self-evidently overcomes WP:UNDUE and or WP:PROPORTION, such that we need to find a place to put it.
863:. If an article about Hyman is kept, or if a new article about his Gulf War Syndrome fringe theory were to be written instead, it would have to be written completely from scratch, from the first stence. There's nothing in this page that's usable and worth keeping. If somebody really wants to develop an article of this kind, they should probably work on it in user or draft space first, given the tricky nature of the subject matter. But this turkey here has got to go, GNG or not.
1035:
Even if there is enough coverage to meet GNG I do not think that we have the serious critical sourcing needed to properly address his fringe claims, which, it seems, are all he is really notable for. (The paper from
Southern & Patel linked above isn't usable since it's primary research and fails
881:
might apply. And I am concerned that the sources found so far are along the lines of "hey check out this guy's wacky idea" with little analysis on how the idea actually turned out (although the
Science Mag article is somewhat critical of it). But it's at least helpful to know that secondary sources
854:
is a relatively minor consideration compared to other more important ones. The article, as it stands now, is written completely from the pro-Hyman's fringe theory point of view and actively promotes it. The existence of the page, in this form, is actively harmful, and I have more than half the mind
565:
based on citability of his work, even taking into account when most of his papers were published. Eggishorn is correct that the references cited in the article are not self-published. But they are all (every single one of the 22 references currently cited in the article) to the publications of the
478:
100 citations each. Granted that was usually in reference to contemporary academics, and I am not sure how to evaluate NPROF C1 for someone who was active prior to the internet age, when many papers may not have been catalogued by online search engines (which is why I asked for input at FTN before
1104:
And $ 5 million sounds like a sizable amount of money, but it isn't really, not in this context. Your typical research grant for a small research team studying a seemingly esoteric aspect of gene regulation (say the primary, 1 post doc, 2 grad students, a lab tech), running over 5 years, when one
909:
situation appliable to Hyman himself, and an article about the fringe theory (which had some other advocates as well) would be more appropriate. I still think that this bio article about Hyman should be deleted, with prejudice. There is essentially nothing in this article that is salvageable and
1216:
I read above that we could possibly put the article back in draft. If that is possible, I would like the opportunity to conduct more research to find more corroborating articles and re-write in more neutral verbiage. There is more research that is not listed in the current article. Being new to
932:
and the rest of
Congress gave him, but a few mil is hardly notable among trillions. I think fringe and marginal articles like this should go straight to draft space. If someone cares enough to write an article based on the neutral sources then all well and good, if not then it's still all good.
838:
Wow, nice finds. I had done a cursory search earlier and only turned up the Who's Who/Men and Women of
Science entries, which I agree are pretty useless. The Science Mag and CNN articles seem decent, although I am not sure if they're enough on their own since they address only one aspect of his
523:
is significant by its merely being published at that time period but is highly unlikely to be scooped up in a literature search by authors of post-1990 papers where the cataloging is much more complete and the number of journal articles published each year has comparatively skyrocketed. The :
839:
career. If there are a couple more popular press articles like those there may be an argument for meeting GNG, even if NPROF is not met - and we will have some material to replace the primary sources with. I'll try to see if there's anything on
Newspapers.com/Gale/Proquest tomorrow.
910:
could be used in potential article about his fringe theory. That article would have to be written completely from scratch. We should also be extremely careful in not allowing
Knowledge to be used as a platform for spreading and propagating medical misinformation and quakery.
578:
on other grounds. The article is written in a promotional tone, and reads like a tribute by a close colleague or a family member rather than a neutral third party. The biographical and personal info given in the article is currently completely unsorced and presents
1217:
wikipedia and not fully understanding all of the laws of the site, I have been able to understand better what it is you are looking for based on your reviews of the article. Is anyone apposed to a revision and if not how do I go about putting it into draft space?
518:
100 citation counts for a researcher active in this time period is greatly anachronistic. The pre-internet and poor cataloging issues you mention are real but there were also far, far, fewer journals at that time to publish in. A 1966 article in
657:
is that we need to be able to write about academics who have demonstrable influence even when biographical coverage is spotty, but there still has to be demonstrable influence.) As written, the article is one long failure of
904:
Hmm, interesting. Based on the last few links above, it may be that the fringe theory that Hyman was propagating (that bacteria were causing the Gulf War
Syndrome) is actually notable. If that's so, there seems to be a
202:
597:
I did not quite follow the above discussion regarding the FRINGE issues, as the article doesn't mention this aspect explicitly (or perhaps as a non-expert I am unable to recognize it). If there is a significant
1284:
if a suitable target can be found. While it is possible that the subject is very marginally notable, the current article vastly overstates what he is done, and is undersourced and/or primary-sourced.
497:
687:
877:
I agree that the article (if it is kept) needs to be rewritten from scratch (if not merged into one about the Gulf War bacteria theory), that it needs to be done carefully, and that
163:
196:
1033:
Caution should be exercised when evaluating whether there are enough sources available to write a neutral biography that neither unduly promotes nor denigrates the subject.
670:. The "systemic coccal disease" material is also extremely dubious. (The closest thing I can find to a genuinely independent, third-party evaluation is a brief comment by
386:- All of the references are by the subject of the article and it is doubtful that significant RS can be found to source the statements in place of those (non-)refs. --
1060:. I'm thinking about suitable redirect targets. Would it make sense to add a subsubheading/paragraph "Unknown bacteria" to the "Less likely causes" subheading of
270:
290:
1153:
Congressional micro-managing/pork-barreling, yet again, gets reported on all the time, so that diminished the noteworthy nature of any single specific instance.
340:
Calling published medical journal articles "self-published primary sources" is a baffling misunderstanding of both "self-published" and "primary sources". The
250:
761:
363:
Oops, accidentally used the wrong adjective. Fixed now with respect to the first, but a scientific research reports and position papers are indeed primary.
110:
95:
412:
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
1127:
of
Congress micro-managing research and giving money for unproven treatment to a person in your district. Not enough for a bio and not enough for
136:
131:
140:
709:. I was unable to locate any reliable, secondary sources to replace the primary, non-independent sources that currently dominate the article.
403:
123:
1011:
I looked for sources on the
Internet Archive, Gale, ProQuest and Newspapers.com. There is a lot of coverage of his Gulf War theory, e.g.
1293:
originator, but I tend to think that there is so little that is usable there right now that it would be better to just start over.
678:. Most mentions of it are by G. L. and N. L. Nicolson, who coauthored with Hyman and shouldn't be considered independent experts.)
554:
217:
1320:
I wish the sources existed for this, because the claims made could make him notable, but primary sources do not an article make.
529:
contains specific caveats for older articles. I posited those citations as a minimum reflection of impact on other researchers.
526:
184:
662:, which requires secondary or tertiary sources that evaluate the claims made in primary ones. The assertions about his solving
536:
461:
355:
90:
83:
17:
610:
where it explicitly mentions that certain particular aspects that usually count towards academic notability, do not count in
59:
1015:
676:
remain hypothetical and have not been demonstrated in appropriate test populations using standard microbiological techniques
402:
and policies for determining notability. This nomination appears to be more about providing a quick and facile response to
1041:
454:
has been cited fifteen times, etc. These are independent reliable sources for Hyman's research having significant impact.
1184:
1180:
1040:). I don't buy the NPROF argument, plenty of people who published in the 60s and 70s have impressive citation counts, see
104:
100:
1297:, if you make another attempt at this article, then essentially every sentence should be supported by citation to an
178:
1171:
concerns make sense to me. One could add a "Fringe theories" subsubsection at the bottom of the Causes section of
1329:
1310:
1268:
1244:
1226:
1196:
1162:
1148:
1114:
1099:
1077:
1052:
1003:
978:
942:
919:
895:
872:
833:
718:
639:
592:
539:
509:
488:
464:
390:
372:
358:
331:
302:
282:
262:
242:
65:
1346:
1222:
40:
570:
and they cannot be used for justifying his notability. I am not seeing anything else that would justify passing
174:
1306:
1192:
1073:
751:
671:
127:
1256:
How did you come to know about Hyman? This question may help to find independent sources if they exist. —
224:
1262:
1240:
1095:
974:
714:
258:
238:
789:
119:
71:
1342:
953:, and thanks - I totally missed the Science and CNN cites. Those articles seem to resolve my issue with
762:"Examination of urine sediment by the hyman method does not identify individuals with Gulf War syndrome"
683:
473:
It's my understanding that citation counts of two and fifteen are not considered high enough to satisfy
36:
747:
1294:
1251:
1218:
517:
Almost all of Hyman's pre-fringe research was published in the 50's 60's and 70's. Looking for : -->
399:
1021:
1325:
1302:
1188:
1158:
1132:
1110:
1069:
1028:
533:
474:
458:
407:
368:
352:
327:
298:
278:
210:
1024:
1018:
850:
Absolutely not. In this case whether or not one can make an argiment thatb the subject satisfies
802:
190:
1012:
1187:, but that would be more trouble to write than just adding a paragraph to an existing article.
1257:
1236:
1172:
1128:
1091:
1061:
970:
738:
732:
710:
663:
254:
234:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1341:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
557:
is slightly better than the above discussion indicates, but it is still rather low, with the
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1144:
1136:
1087:
999:
938:
860:
829:
679:
667:
653:
even allowing for citation counts probably being generally lower in the past. (The point of
615:
611:
599:
477:#C1. The rule of thumb that I have heard in AfDs on academics is multiple papers with : -->
1176:
1048:
1037:
966:
958:
954:
915:
906:
891:
868:
844:
706:
698:
659:
635:
588:
505:
484:
414:
This is a researcher published in some of the most prestigious medical journals including
1235:
It doers not matter how much research he has done, what matters is RS reporting about it.
1321:
1154:
1106:
991:
962:
929:
702:
654:
650:
627:
607:
603:
571:
562:
530:
455:
364:
349:
323:
294:
274:
1290:
1286:
1168:
878:
856:
851:
623:
619:
575:
53:
602:
aspect to the subject's work , I would upgrade my opinion to 'strong delete', since
525:
100 citations may be often applied at AfD but appears in no policy or guideline and
1298:
567:
157:
1140:
1065:
995:
969:
list of the subject's primary work, doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.
950:
934:
825:
580:
406:
instead of actually examining notability. Upon examination, this subject passes
561:
of about 9. Certainly far below of what would be needed to justify satidsfying
1044:
911:
887:
864:
840:
631:
584:
501:
480:
387:
448:
442:
438:
431:
777:
398:
Stating "no evidence of notability" ignores both the evidence provided by
1064:? The fringe theory was taken seriously enough to get some substantial (
855:
to blank it right now, before waiting for the AfD to end, basically on
558:
734:
American men & women of science : physical and biological sciences
606:
requires a higher scrutiny in such cases. There are several places in
1027:
and b) most of the articles just repeat his claims uncritically. Per
1289:
applies. I don't strenuously object refunding to user space of the
1020:, etc. And there's a staff obituary in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
1023:
However I am concerned that a) the coverage is largely surrounding
965:
concerns remain substantial. The current BLP, which reads like a
811:
also 1 para in "Gulf War
Illness: The Battle Continues" same page
348:
could not be called "self-published' by any reasonable standard.
1179:(though a little better). It looks like between this stuff and
1337:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
994:
and add some BLP violating text about wasting my tax dollars.
1119:
It's really the only notable issue so far, the criticism in
498:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
674:, which lists it among proposed explanations for GWS that
618:
researchers should have to qualify for notability under
1139:
for it to go in even the "Less likely causes" section.
756:
US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
313:- Not only exclusively primary source, but exclusively
153:
149:
145:
778:"Doctor to test bacteria theory for Gulf War Syndrome"
233:
No evidence of notability, relies on primary soruces.
209:
790:"Gulf War Illness Caused by Bacteria, Doctors Say"
614:cases. I would, in fact, expect that most notable
1031:(this isn't a BLP, but the same concerns apply):
527:Knowledge:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1349:). No further edits should be made to this page.
496:Note: This discussion has been included in the
289:Note: This discussion has been included in the
269:Note: This discussion has been included in the
249:Note: This discussion has been included in the
809:. Vol. 291, no. 5505. February 2, 2001. p. 814.
271:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
223:
8:
291:list of Science-related deletion discussions
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
251:list of People-related deletion discussions
924:I am so tempted to vote keep based on the
495:
288:
268:
248:
1175:, but after looking, I think it's still
1032:
815:"Gulf War Syndrome Research Boosted".
743:neither of which confer any notability
675:
411:
803:"Congress Explores Scientific Fringe"
7:
1185:Fringe theories on Gulf War syndrome
760:Southern, P.M.; Patel, S.J. (1996).
1131:unless that article were expanded.
566:subject himself. Thus they are not
24:
766:Journal of Investigative Medicine
479:jumping immediately to an AfD).
753:Pick v. American Medical Systems
555:citation record in GoogleScholar
96:Introduction to deletion process
746:Committee on Veterans' Affairs
450:New England Journal of Medicine
424:New England Journal of Medicine
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1311:09:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
1269:14:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
1245:08:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
1227:20:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1197:18:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1163:16:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1149:15:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1115:14:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1100:13:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1086:I would rather not, its still
1078:13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1053:12:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
1004:01:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
979:00:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
943:01:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
920:00:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
896:00:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
873:00:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
834:23:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
719:22:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
688:21:17, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
640:20:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
593:20:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
540:19:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
510:19:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
489:19:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
465:19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
391:18:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
373:20:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
359:19:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
332:17:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
303:17:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
283:17:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
263:17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
243:17:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
1181:Multiple chemical sensitivity
447:have been cited twice, their
1330:20:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
1299:reliable independent source
428:Annals of Internal Medicine
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
66:23:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1366:
1183:there might be enough for
1339:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
928:more than five million
1135:it would be undue per
740:Who was who in America
437:has been cited twice,
84:Articles for deletion
784:. February 19, 1997.
819:. October 15, 1994.
568:independent sources
120:Edward Sidney Hyman
72:Edward Sidney Hyman
583:problems as well.
1173:Gulf War syndrome
1129:Gulf War syndrome
1062:Gulf War syndrome
794:Los Angeles Times
664:Gulf War syndrome
512:
322:primary sources,
305:
285:
265:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
64:
1357:
1265:
1260:
1255:
859:grounds and per
820:
810:
797:
796:. March 9, 1997.
785:
773:
320:
228:
227:
213:
161:
143:
81:
56:
34:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1347:deletion review
1295:PropelAssisting
1263:
1258:
1252:PropelAssisting
1249:
1219:PropelAssisting
1167:Yes, meh. The
814:
801:
788:
776:
759:
432:The article in
404:Fringe concerns
400:PropelAssisting
319:non-independent
318:
170:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1363:
1361:
1352:
1351:
1333:
1332:
1314:
1313:
1303:Russ Woodroofe
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1247:
1230:
1229:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1189:Russ Woodroofe
1133:Russ Woodroofe
1081:
1080:
1070:Russ Woodroofe
1055:
1006:
992:Bob Livingston
984:
983:
982:
981:
947:
946:
945:
930:Bob Livingston
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
823:
822:
821:
812:
798:
786:
774:
757:
749:
744:
727:
726:
721:
690:
644:
643:
642:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
493:
492:
491:
468:
467:
393:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
335:
334:
315:self-published
307:
306:
286:
266:
231:
230:
167:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1362:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1253:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:for example.
1042:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
986:
985:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
931:
927:
923:
922:
921:
917:
913:
908:
903:
897:
893:
889:
885:
880:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
853:
849:
848:
846:
842:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
824:
818:
813:
808:
804:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
758:
755:
754:
750:
748:
745:
742:
741:
736:
735:
731:
730:
729:
728:
725:
722:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
697:
694:
691:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:Sartin (2000)
669:
665:
661:
656:
652:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:rathere than
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
582:
577:
573:
569:
564:
560:
556:
552:
549:
548:
541:
538:
535:
532:
528:
522:
516:
515:
514:
513:
511:
507:
503:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
476:
472:
471:
470:
469:
466:
463:
460:
457:
453:
451:
446:
445:
440:
436:
435:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
392:
389:
385:
382:
381:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
357:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
312:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1338:
1336:
1317:
1281:
1277:
1237:Slatersteven
1213:
1125:Science News
1124:
1120:
1092:Slatersteven
1057:
1029:WP:FRINGEBLP
1008:
987:
971:JoJo Anthrax
925:
883:
817:Science News
816:
806:
793:
781:
769:
765:
752:
739:
733:
723:
711:JoJo Anthrax
695:
692:
646:
550:
520:
475:WP:NACADEMIC
449:
443:
433:
427:
423:
419:
415:
408:WP:NACADEMIC
395:
383:
345:
341:
317:
314:
310:
255:Slatersteven
235:Slatersteven
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
77:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1068:) funding.
1066:pork barrel
1025:WP:ONEEVENT
800:9 paras in
430:and more.
197:free images
957:, but the
949:Good job,
680:XOR'easter
563:WP:PROF#C1
1343:talk page
1322:Natureium
1155:Agricolae
1137:WP:FRINGE
1107:Agricolae
1088:wp:fringe
861:WP:FRINGE
668:WP:FRINGE
666:are pure
616:WP:FRINGE
612:WP:FRINGE
600:WP:FRINGE
537:(contrib)
531:Eggishorn
462:(contrib)
456:Eggishorn
365:Agricolae
356:(contrib)
350:Eggishorn
324:Agricolae
295:Agricolae
275:Agricolae
37:talk page
1345:or in a
1282:redirect
1177:WP:UNDUE
1038:WP:MEDRS
988:Redirect
967:WP:PROMO
959:WP:MEDRS
955:WP:FRIND
907:WP:BIO1E
707:WP:MEDRS
699:WP:FRIND
660:WP:MEDRS
439:articles
164:View log
105:glossary
54:Eddie891
39:or in a
1264:Neonate
1121:Science
1058:Comment
963:WP:PROF
807:Science
724:Comment
703:WP:PROF
655:WP:PROF
651:WP:PROF
628:WP:PROF
608:WP:PROF
604:WP:PROF
572:WP:PROF
559:h-index
452:article
203:WP refs
191:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1318:Delete
1291:WP:SPA
1287:WP:TNT
1278:Delete
1169:WP:DUE
1141:fiveby
1009:Delete
996:fiveby
951:fiveby
935:fiveby
879:WP:TNT
857:WP:IAR
852:WP:GNG
826:fiveby
705:, and
693:Delete
649:Fails
647:Delete
624:WP:BIO
620:WP:GNG
576:WP:BIO
553:. The
551:Delete
534:(talk)
521:Nature
459:(talk)
444:Lancet
434:Nature
420:Lancet
416:Nature
384:Delete
353:(talk)
346:Nature
342:Lancet
311:Delete
175:Google
141:delete
50:delete
1280:, or
1259:Paleo
1214:Draft
1045:Spicy
926:$ 4.3
912:Nsk92
888:Spicy
884:exist
865:Nsk92
841:Spicy
632:Nsk92
585:Nsk92
502:Spicy
481:Spicy
388:mikeu
218:JSTOR
179:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1326:talk
1307:talk
1241:talk
1223:talk
1193:talk
1159:talk
1145:zero
1123:and
1111:talk
1096:talk
1074:talk
1049:talk
1000:zero
975:talk
961:and
939:zero
916:talk
892:talk
869:talk
845:talk
830:zero
772:(1).
715:talk
684:talk
636:talk
589:talk
581:WP:V
506:talk
485:talk
396:Keep
369:talk
344:and
328:talk
299:talk
279:talk
259:talk
239:talk
211:FENS
185:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
60:Work
990:to
782:CNN
696:Per
574:or
524:-->
441:in
410:#1
225:TWL
162:– (
1328:)
1309:)
1301:.
1267:–
1243:)
1225:)
1195:)
1161:)
1147:)
1113:)
1098:)
1076:)
1051:)
1017:,
1002:)
977:)
941:)
918:)
894:)
886:.
871:)
847:)
832:)
805:.
792:.
780:.
770:44
768:.
764:.
737:,
717:)
701:,
686:)
638:)
630:.
591:)
508:)
500:.
487:)
426:,
422:,
418:,
371:)
330:)
301:)
293:.
281:)
273:.
261:)
253:.
241:)
205:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
1324:(
1305:(
1254::
1250:@
1239:(
1221:(
1191:(
1157:(
1143:(
1109:(
1094:(
1090:.
1072:(
1047:(
1014:,
998:(
973:(
937:(
914:(
890:(
867:(
843:(
828:(
713:(
682:(
634:(
622:/
587:(
504:(
483:(
367:(
326:(
297:(
277:(
257:(
237:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.