1121:. I was pretty optimistic when reading through the article as it's better presented and more substantial than the last time we discussed it but despite it's promising appearance the subject still isn't notable. Take the list of sources. Remove the primary sources. Remove the sources that could be considered pure "Ankit Love self-promotion". Remove the less reliable sources from minor and local blogs and magazines. All remaining sources either simply record the fact the party exists and contests elections (Electoral Commission, London Elects) or mentions the party in passing as part of normal electoral coverage (BBC News, The Guardian, Newsweek). Having gone through this notability discussion several times previously, I'll keep it simple: If you want to show the party is notable find a single article in a major British newspaper that directly discusses the impact of the One Love Party as it's central subject and then maybe we can establish a claim to notability here. Such an article hasn't been presented because such an article doesn't exist because the party is not notable. They don't even meet
607:: as someone who was not the author of the article, that is allowed as a judgement call. However, a new AfD discussion is an unsurprising development. Drowz0r has been working on the article to improve it, as have I. I thought about bringing this to AfD myself, but I'm somewhat undecided as to whether an article is warranted or not. The One Love Party appears to be a rich guy's vanity project that has had zero psephological impact. However, I also agree with the discussion above that vote share alone is not the decisive factor in determining notability. If Ankit Love or whoever is bankrolling the party wants to throw their money away on lost deposits, that's their choice. Can you "buy" notability by just standing at lots of elections? Perhaps. There has been some RS coverage of this party and continues to be.
566:
uniforms. I think it's noteworthy to include Love's father wished he had not gone into politics too and that the twitter account seems to have been deactivated after receiving a massive (fake?) boost of subscribers - I guess that also happened here on wiki with the citation overkill. I'm just wary of dismissing the article due to it being a vanity project. It might well be a vanity project from Ankit but with some injected balance, it can be made into something more educational as oppose to propaganda (I consider UKIP a Farage vanity project but hey ho~).
522:
have criticized, some have supported, analysed. There isn't a common curiosity theme, there is a variety of different media going for different things. I know because I've been improving the article for a few hours now and read through the articles and watched the videos. For example, one exposes a suggested military coup from the party. Seems to be around 10 citations now which are not relating to the london mayor thing btw
975:. Regarding the other half of the argument (that there are more candidates that have contested more elections), quantity of candidates fielded or elections contested is a poor indicator of notability for much the same reason raw vote count is a poor way of judging notability. We need independent, reliable, significant sources to demonstrate notability and I'm not satisfied there are any. (I'll expand on this below.)
73:
443:
updated repeatedly and keeps getting new citations daily. As per the speedy deletion removal note on the talk page, if you look at the revision history you can clearly see the improvements and citations being added. This deletion discussion is jumping the gun but even so, the article easily stands on it's own. Is it a major party? No. Is it a minor, notable party? Yes.
1144:
deletion discussion accordingly and I suspect we'll reach exactly the same conclusion as the three that came before it. The repeated recreation of Love-related articles in opposition to community consensus in the absence of arguments to change the consensus is annoying and disruptive. I would like to
565:
A second set of eyes is very welcome, if nothing else, I typo a lot. I did notice before I started editing the piece it only included the positive pieces from the press and I've been adjusting that, such as the bonkers military coup suggestion was missing along with having fashion designers do school
516:
To count a party's notability by how many people vote for them is to fundamentally misunderstand UK politics under the FPTP system, secondly there are dozens of political party pages with precisely double digit votes that have been deemed notable so I do not see where that method of deletion you have
442:
I am in no way a member or related to this party but it is notable. They've stood in a variety of seats in varying levels of government, the citations have been vastly improved since the last deletion. They feature in a large amount of maintstream, individual and foreign media... the article has been
1064:
It appears we are trying to establish a higher threshold of notability for political parties than for other organisations. There are multiple independent sources here. Another way of looking at the question is "Would a reasonable observer expect to find out about this organisation by consulting an
457:
Further to the OP's new insert on where the citations are focusing on; naturally the frontier launch/candidacy of any party creates a lot of press so you'll probably see that in bulk for some time, especially when that candidate is also the continual leader of the party. Even so, there are now six
923:
I nominated for deletion and made a convincing case, only for it to be re-created and kept despite others nominating it for deletion again. It remains a dead page, kept for no apparent reason. It seems that if enough people bombard wiki with "Keep it! Keep it!" with no real substance, the page is
521:
vote number. If the only press this party had was a bullet pointed name and a vote result in the press I would agree but they have consistently been given an allotment of space in every press piece covering the election as to what their policies and backgrounds are. Some press have reported, some
1167:
The common complaint from all, which seems valid, is the article simple did not contain enough media hits in reputable papers, outside of election curiosity for this piece to be notable. I had a sniff around and have added several new citations since this was nominated for deletion that meet the
685:
in the previous debate it even had more hits than the Green Party (UK) page at the time. So well done guys last time in deleting it, as it seemed that must have been the only way to get things under control. That made sense then, but now it’s a completely different and normal article and all the
1232:
Looks like a little-known musician created a "Party" as a means of self-promotion. The problem I have an an editor who regularly works at AFD is that it seems to have worked, at least in the sense that it generated profiles in major media in
Britain and India that go far beyond routine news
472:
P.S. Some of the "Mayor election" pieces are a bit confusing. There were actually two mayor elections, a by-election for hackney and a London mayoral. Some of the wording and citations seem to confuse the two and it may appear that only one notable event happened, while there were actually
1209:
Thanks for checking - I've added another but it's related to the up-coming by-election, so while notable doesn't really solve our "continual media outside of elections" issue. I did add some others prior to those two, which seem acceptable (well, they haven't been removed at least)
1190:
Thanks for looking for more material, but I've just removed the two you added. One made no mention of the party, only of Mr Love, and it didn't say much about him. The other had one paragraph on the One Love Party only and is too trivial to warrant inclusion, I feel.
1139:
creation of an Ankit Love related article that was created in spite of the fact that the three previous deletion discussions (even though heavily contested and contrived) reached the snowball conclusion that neither Love nor his party merit an article. This is the
686:
bizarre attention and vandalism has subsided. There are now notable citations about two more candidates over four more elections since the Mayor of London and the last AfD. No doubt this is an odd-ball even wacky party, but if other minor and odd UK parties like
458:
citations (naturally not including links to Love Party's own site and such) that don't reference the
Mayoral election and indeed reference their Witney candidate with some information on her. You can bet your bottom dollar more will be added shortly
694:
that also seems like a self-funded vanity project for one guy, then come on One Love is certainly more notable then those and so should be kept. Taking about bizarre attention grabbing narcissism along with buying notability on steroids, what about
1134:
is that this isn't of any relevance to this discussion. The reason why this particular subject seems to be nominated for deletion more than other non-notable
British parties is not "political" as an above editor suggests. It is because this is the
545:
In general though, small protest parties get coverage for the elections they contest and not much else. If there is significant, sustained coverage in relation to the party, not PR stunts and wild claims by Love to get press, I will reconsider.
1168:
proposed criteria. They are not linked to elections and speak of either Ankit Love individually but talking about the common policies or feature Ankit and the party but are not linked to an election. I'd appreciate everyone who has voted a
517:
suggested has ever been enacted. It is near impossible to compare different constituencies and even more so different levels of elections (national, local, etc) on vote count but generally it is a better indicator to go off vote share and
918:
You are right here of course, in terms of the written rule - but I have noticed a massive inconsistency in wikipedia over this. I've had pieces deleted while far lesser pieces have been kept and vice versa. Articles like
997:
On the basis that it is a registered political party with the UK Electoral
Commission and has participated in a number of elections. If this is the case, then what possible reason ought this topic be deleted other than
536:
I will dig through the sources you have added later in the day. I have been through so many overblown, trivial and downright deceptive sources in relation to Ankit Love and his projects on
Knowledge (XXG) that I am
302:
543:(This article also has the massive citation overkill the past articles showed. I would be much more convinced by a half dozen or so good citations rather than 37, most of which were discounted in the last AfD.)
200:
195:
641:
I've actually found a number of citations now that are not related to the elections, especially the mayoral one that can be added but I'm super swamped - I plan to add them tomorrow, but here is another:
663:
but this is to be expected during an election campaign as the nominator has stated. Besides, if you invent flamboyant, outrageous policies solely for the purpose of getting attention, you will succeed.--
334:
883:
777:
417:
703:
idea? I really wish those could be taken off here too. But that doesn't mean they should be though. As sad as it is even Donald Trump and his pages must be protected from vandalism.
373:
80:
255:
490:
Parties whose average number of votes are in the low double digits (32, 34, 44) are simply not notable no matter the temporary splash or even repeated curiousity press coverage.
1100:. There are many independent sources but few of them are reliable. Of the sources that are reliable, all of them feature trivial coverage of the subject. See my comment below.
347:
As near as I can tell the sources in this version are, in bulk, the same sources about the London
Mayoral campaign which were deemed inadequate for notability at the last AfD.
681:
Based on the last AfD this article had attracted vandals most likely from the significant amount of news coverage for the London Mayor election at the time. According to
395:
296:
338:
190:
262:
900:
explains why the existence of other articles that may warrant deletion is never a good reason to keep an article. I've now PROD'ed Ooog. I would suggest that the
1130:
Are there inconsistencies in how and when non-notable articles are nominated for deletion on
Knowledge (XXG)? Yes, of course there are, but the whole point of
928:
and a review some months/weeks later, generally that allows time for citations to appear and if they do not, the page can be deleted without any real argument.
796:
942:
Deletion decisions and processes can be far from consistent, but practically it makes sense to debate each case on the basic principles. That's why
643:
655:- My reasons for deletion in the previous Afd remain valid - this is not a serious political party but a means for self promotion by a narcissist.
1020:
1006:
89:
700:
1028:
800:
119:
228:
223:
17:
1172:
variation to check the citations again and then we can continue to discuss if it needs to meet anything further. Thanks in advance.
1125:. The assertions (and for the most part, they are simply assertions) that the party is notable hold zero ground. Notorious, perhaps.
232:
1242:
1219:
1200:
1181:
1158:
1109:
1074:
1052:
1014:
984:
955:
937:
913:
671:
632:
575:
559:
531:
502:
482:
467:
452:
431:
409:
387:
359:
56:
215:
317:
105:
548:
It is the existance sustained coverage, outside of coverage of individual contests, which would indicate notability to me.
284:
792:
595:
I tagged this as a speedy delete, as a recreation of a recently deleted article. The article was, this time, created by
1261:
972:
40:
813:
707:
888:
782:
78:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
644:
https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2016/10/26/hackney-central-masterplan-resurrecting-hackney-brook-ideas-feedback/
1091:
687:
656:
278:
151:
1024:
1010:
810:
788:
704:
596:
1002:
943:
897:
274:
135:
109:
94:
1257:
1238:
1039:
I've struck out this comment as the fact the party exists is not an argument demonstrating the party is
36:
324:
1196:
1070:
951:
909:
628:
53:
809:
To add I was also the initial author of the new version of this article which has been edited since.
310:
219:
557:
500:
429:
407:
385:
357:
141:
72:
924:
ultimately kept, despite the rules above saying this doesn't. Personally I've always suggested
1215:
1177:
933:
920:
619:
do point to this being insufficient. Whether the article stays or goes, I entirely agree with
571:
527:
478:
463:
448:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1256:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1146:
1131:
616:
612:
342:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1234:
290:
1122:
600:
1192:
1087:
1066:
968:
947:
905:
665:
624:
660:
211:
62:
1040:
620:
549:
492:
421:
399:
377:
349:
1211:
1173:
1154:
1105:
1048:
980:
929:
696:
623:'s concerns about all things Ankit Love on Knowledge (XXG). Vigilance is required.
604:
567:
523:
474:
459:
444:
169:
157:
125:
249:
104:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
901:
691:
682:
690:
that’s just done one election with 30 votes can be considered notable or the
506:
You are correct. Raw vote count is a poor way to judge notability. Struck.
967:. The argument regarding other non-notable parties has been addressed by
1150:
1101:
1044:
976:
335:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination)
1250:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1233:
coverage. I'm just seeing too much in-depth coverage to delete.
67:
611:, it is all in the context of specific campaigns, so I think
98:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
88:
among
Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1094:
that was nominated for deletion due to discussion above.
245:
241:
237:
309:
816:
710:
201:
Articles for deletion/One Love Party (3rd nomination)
196:
Articles for deletion/One Love Party (2nd nomination)
339:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/One Love Party
333:
Non-notable party. Essentially a vanity project for
418:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
323:
877:
771:
374:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
657:Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for self-promotion
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1264:). No further edits should be made to this page.
878:{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}}
772:{\displaystyle {\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}}
341:. Coverage is routine election coverage. Fails
541:skeptical of anything relating to that topic.
946:arguments are generally given little weight.
396:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
118:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
603:. The tag was then removed in good faith by
416:Note: This debate has been included in the
394:Note: This debate has been included in the
372:Note: This debate has been included in the
1000:
415:
393:
371:
92:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
818:
817:
815:
712:
711:
709:
112:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
188:
337:. The article was deleted back in May
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
191:Articles for deletion/One Love Party
870:
867:
864:
861:
858:
855:
852:
849:
846:
843:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
825:
822:
819:
764:
761:
758:
755:
752:
749:
746:
743:
740:
737:
734:
731:
728:
725:
722:
719:
716:
713:
186:
24:
71:
1:
108:on the part of others and to
1243:16:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
1220:15:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1201:13:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1182:13:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1159:06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
1110:06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
1075:22:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
1053:06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
1015:19:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
985:06:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
956:12:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
938:10:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
914:21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
672:14:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
659:. There is some coverage in
633:15:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
576:12:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
560:12:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
532:11:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
512:12:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
503:11:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
483:11:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
468:11:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
453:10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
432:10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
410:10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
388:10:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
366:11:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
360:10:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
57:08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
1090:is the creator of the page
904:should go to a second AfD.
1281:
1092:Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog
1084:Note for the closing admin
688:Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog
887:08:50, 22 September 2024
781:08:50, 22 September 2024
1253:Please do not modify it.
597:User:Stephen Nightingale
32:Please do not modify it.
150:; accounts blocked for
120:single-purpose accounts
90:policies and guidelines
879:
773:
185:AfDs for this article:
1029:few or no other edits
880:
801:few or no other edits
774:
1031:outside this topic.
814:
803:outside this topic.
708:
789:Stephen Nightingale
102:by counting votes.
81:not a majority vote
1123:general notability
973:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
875:
769:
1032:
1017:
1005:comment added by
921:Wales_Green_Party
804:
544:
513:
434:
412:
390:
367:
183:
182:
179:
106:assume good faith
54:Black Kite (talk)
1272:
1255:
1018:
884:
882:
881:
876:
874:
873:
786:
778:
776:
775:
770:
768:
767:
668:
555:
552:
542:
508:
498:
495:
427:
424:
405:
402:
383:
380:
362:
355:
352:
328:
327:
313:
265:
253:
235:
177:
165:
149:
133:
114:
84:, but instead a
75:
68:
34:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1262:deletion review
1251:
1119:Delete and salt
1065:encyclopaedia?"
1021:151.231.229.214
1007:151.231.229.214
812:
811:
706:
705:
666:
553:
550:
496:
493:
425:
422:
403:
400:
381:
378:
353:
350:
270:
261:
226:
210:
207:
205:
167:
155:
139:
123:
110:sign your posts
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1278:
1276:
1267:
1266:
1246:
1245:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1204:
1203:
1162:
1161:
1127:
1126:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1095:
1078:
1077:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1034:
1033:
990:
989:
988:
987:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
845:
842:
839:
836:
833:
830:
827:
824:
821:
806:
805:
766:
763:
760:
757:
754:
751:
748:
745:
742:
739:
736:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
715:
675:
674:
649:
648:
647:
646:
636:
635:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
470:
455:
436:
435:
413:
391:
331:
330:
267:
212:One Love Party
206:
204:
203:
198:
193:
187:
184:
181:
180:
76:
65:
63:One Love Party
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1277:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1254:
1248:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1166:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
996:
992:
991:
986:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
963:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:WP:OTHERSTUFF
941:
940:
939:
935:
931:
927:
922:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:WP:OTHERSTUFF
896:
893:
892:
891:
890:
885:
808:
807:
802:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
779:
702:
698:
693:
689:
684:
680:
677:
676:
673:
670:
669:
662:
658:
654:
651:
650:
645:
640:
639:
638:
637:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:User:Jbhunley
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
591:
590:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
556:
540:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
520:
515:
514:
511:
507:
504:
501:
499:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
471:
469:
465:
461:
456:
454:
450:
446:
441:
438:
437:
433:
430:
428:
419:
414:
411:
408:
406:
397:
392:
389:
386:
384:
375:
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
358:
356:
348:
344:
340:
336:
326:
322:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
289:
286:
283:
280:
276:
273:
272:Find sources:
268:
264:
260:
257:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
230:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
208:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
175:
171:
163:
159:
153:
147:
143:
137:
131:
127:
121:
117:
113:
111:
107:
101:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
82:
77:
74:
70:
69:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1252:
1249:
1229:
1187:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1141:
1136:
1118:
1097:
1083:
1061:
1001:— Preceding
994:
993:
964:
925:
894:
886:
780:
697:Donald Trump
678:
664:
652:
608:
605:User:Drowz0r
592:
547:
538:
518:
510:Last edited:
509:
505:
489:
439:
364:Last edited:
363:
346:
332:
320:
314:
306:
299:
293:
287:
281:
271:
258:
173:
161:
152:sockpuppetry
145:
134:; suspected
129:
115:
103:
99:
93:
85:
79:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1235:E.M.Gregory
1165:Note to all
1149:the title.
1027:) has made
902:Roman Party
799:) has made
701:Mexico-wall
692:Roman Party
683:User:JMiall
593:Weak delete
297:free images
1228:reluctant
1193:Bondegezou
1088:Rathfelder
1067:Rathfelder
998:political?
969:Bondegezou
948:Bondegezou
906:Bondegezou
667:obi2canibe
625:Bondegezou
86:discussion
1258:talk page
142:canvassed
136:canvassed
95:consensus
37:talk page
1260:or in a
1145:suggest
1003:unsigned
797:contribs
256:View log
174:username
168:{{subst:
162:username
156:{{subst:
146:username
140:{{subst:
130:username
124:{{subst:
39:or in a
1212:Drowz0r
1188:Comment
1174:Drowz0r
1147:salting
1132:WP:ININ
1098:Comment
1041:notable
965:Comment
930:Drowz0r
895:Comment
699:or his
617:WP:NORG
613:WP:NPOL
609:However
568:Drowz0r
524:Drowz0r
475:Drowz0r
460:Drowz0r
445:Drowz0r
343:WP:NORG
303:WP refs
291:scholar
229:protect
224:history
138:users:
1170:delete
1142:FOURTH
1137:FOURTH
653:Delete
601:WP:SPA
275:Google
233:delete
971:with
661:WP:RS
599:, an
318:JSTOR
279:books
263:Stats
250:views
242:watch
238:links
116:Note:
16:<
1239:talk
1230:keep
1216:talk
1197:talk
1178:talk
1155:talk
1106:talk
1071:talk
1062:Keep
1049:talk
1025:talk
1011:talk
995:Keep
981:talk
952:talk
934:talk
926:keep
910:talk
793:talk
679:Keep
629:talk
572:talk
539:very
528:talk
479:talk
473:two.
464:talk
449:talk
440:Keep
311:FENS
285:news
246:logs
220:talk
216:edit
889:UTC
783:UTC
519:not
325:TWL
254:– (
170:csp
166:or
158:csm
126:spa
100:not
52:.
1241:)
1218:)
1199:)
1180:)
1157:)
1151:N4
1108:)
1102:N4
1086::
1073:)
1051:)
1045:N4
1043:.
1019:—
1013:)
983:)
977:N4
954:)
936:)
912:)
795:•
787:—
631:)
574:)
554:bh
530:)
497:bh
481:)
466:)
451:)
426:bh
420:.
404:bh
398:.
382:bh
376:.
354:bh
345:.
305:)
248:|
244:|
240:|
236:|
231:|
227:|
222:|
218:|
176:}}
164:}}
154::
148:}}
132:}}
122::
1237:(
1214:(
1195:(
1176:(
1153:(
1104:(
1069:(
1047:(
1023:(
1009:(
979:(
950:(
932:(
908:(
871:e
868:l
865:a
862:g
859:n
856:i
853:t
850:h
847:g
844:i
841:N
838:n
835:e
832:h
829:p
826:e
823:t
820:S
791:(
765:e
762:l
759:a
756:g
753:n
750:i
747:t
744:h
741:g
738:i
735:N
732:n
729:e
726:h
723:p
720:e
717:t
714:S
627:(
615:/
570:(
551:J
526:(
494:J
477:(
462:(
447:(
423:J
401:J
379:J
351:J
329:)
321:·
315:·
307:·
300:·
294:·
288:·
282:·
277:(
269:(
266:)
259:·
252:)
214:(
178:.
172:|
160:|
144:|
128:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
