589:. It's just one sentence so I don't think that's significant coverage. The source is just a student newspaper, so it's hardly national coverage or even the professional media. In fact, it's the Georgia Tech newspaper when the author of the comic was a student at Georgia Tech, so arguably it is not even independent coverage. It is one student writing one sentence about a fellow student's comic. As for the New Times article, it's three short paragraphs in a weekly local paper with a circulation of 37,000. If this coverage was repeated in multiple local papers, that would help, but this seems to be a one-off. The point that the paper reprinted some comic strips is nice but I don't see how that is relevant to establishing notability.
1033:“It used to be that to have a career as a furry artist you had to be an animator, a children’s book illustrator, or a comic artist,” said Keslensky. “Now we have folks who can produce original, on-demand artwork and can make good amounts of money off of that artwork alone. Being a furry artist is now much more profitable, and it’s thanks to the Internet.”
1025:
Keslensky’s work, as she explains, is a statement about the Autism
Spectrum. “All of these creatures not only look different, but also perceive the world differently as well,” she said. Certain characters hear better than others; some see better. “All this leads to a world where what you can sense is
968:
I was also unable to find any sources to establish notability, beyond the New Times SLO article and a reprint of it somewhere else. It's an interesting question whether the
Georgia Tech newspaper counts: easy to dismiss as not independent but there are 25,000 people at GT and the newspaper of a town
517:
While a single paragraph in an article certainly isn't enough to hang an article on, it is worth noting that Last Res0rt has been running nonstop for the past five years, updating every single Sunday since it began, even if it is sometimes filler. THAT is certainly worth something. Add to that the
371:? Your argument implies she would be notable, but the comic itself is not, despite it being her reason for being notable and discussed in said sources at all. That seems backwards to me... or at least that it would imply that both the talent behind the comic as well as the comic itself are notable.
611:
we're talking about here; I understand notability isn't inherited, but it's not "just a student newspaper". Also, as I previously mentioned at the top of this discussion, the New Times SLO featured the article as the cover story for that edition, and used artwork from the comic as cover art. It's
433:
still applies and requires "significant coverage", defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Mentioning that
336:
that says articles used as sources on a topic must exclusively focus on that topic. It discusses what trivial coverage implies, though: "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of
Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such
337:
content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores." Stating that the creator of a specific comic presented at multiple comics panels at a convention to talk about her experiences working on said comic doesn't sound like trivial content to me.
1324:
While the article in New Times is decent, subjects need to have multiple reliable sources in order to pass the GNG. I'm not finding anything other than the single article, and it would appear that no one else is as well. This isn't enough on its own to establish notability.
1080:
ensure that the article is in fact as prominent and neutral as the content implies. This article does not meet these requirements, not because of arbitrary guidelines formed to determine if a specific type of article is notable or not, but because it fails to meet the
668:
Given the current perceived attitude to webcomic articles on
Knowledge, this is a loaded question; any acknowledgement or denial to this accusation will color the conversation and distract from the merits of the discussion. Also, does this mean I get to call
633:
Veled, are you personally acquainted with Rachel
Keslensky? You both seem to be grad students at Georgia Tech with highly similar interests. A google search on Rachel Keslensky Veled suggests some further connections. I could go on.... If you have a
1303:(which is different from verifying its existence). It's fair to say that in previous AFDs, some people thought this article could improve as more sources were found. But after this much scrutiny, giving people more time to find appropriate sources
500:
It's not that they're online instead of in print. It's that they DON'T DEDICATE MORE THAN A DAMN SENTENCE to the context. Tell me how "Oh yeah, the person who created this comic will be at the convention" is enough to hang a WHOLE ARTICLE on.
1026:
just as important as what others can’t. The world around them has learned to adjust and accommodate for these differences primarily because they can see that they exist—if a creature has big ears, you know not to shout at them, for instance.”
1071:
reliable sources, not a single source. Finding sources for anything is hard when it does not meet the general notability requirements; there is no exception for this requirement because without multiple reliable sources we cannot form a
518:
noteriety of it being singled out, by name, in a panel of three(neither of the other two comics is named), and having multiple paragraphs dedicated to the author in a separate article, and you have something a bit more substantial.
916:
I also find it interesting that the editor that created this account instantly had a very elaborate user page. So far not making a big deal because I see no evidence of a sock, but it sure seems there is more going on here.
263:
article features the comic much more extensively than the online version of the article implies -- the print edition devotes several pages of images to the comic, including the cover art for that print edition of
167:
939:(there aren't many), you'll see that one of them, on a different page, was subsequently re-signed by a non-IP user. It looks like that person just commented without realising that they weren't signed in.
1135:
543:"It's been up a long time" is not per se a reason to keep. I can think of several other webcomics that have been just as long-lived or longer-lived, but have flown completely under the radar.
1038:
Seems like enough significant coverage to me. Finding sources for a web comic are hard, Google news archive search not indexing anywhere near everything ever published of course.
387:
No. I'm implying that "she was at a con" is not a notability assertation, no matter how big the con. Any derp with at least one good drawing hand can get a booth at a con.
320:
I'm not seeing how that's non trivial. They only mention it in PASSING. For ONE SENTENCE in the context of something else. The article is NOT EXCLUSIVELY about the comic.
1076:
article with content equal to its prominence. We can't have an article based on a single reliable source and then draw the rest of the information from primary sources;
1299:: a lot of sources previous identified were either unreliable (self-published, affiliated with the subject), or didn't provide the necessary coverage to independently
560:
228:
None of those seem to meet the source guidelines except for the New Times SLO article, but even that only dedicates a short segment to the comic. The rest are either
161:
719:
by several kilometres. A few paragraphs in a single small local weekly newspaper is not the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources we are looking for.
122:
1214:
399:
If we were talking about an article that just happened to rattle off a list of vendors at the con, you might have a point; that's not the case here. Singling
1018:
Keslensky’s online comic strip Last Resort features a gaggle of aliens and anthropomorphic creatures engaged in a deadly reality show in outer space.
1138:
article, it implies that the comic being available in print is part of its notability assertion. Would pointing out that Last Res0rt is also
127:
1089:. An article that cannot follow such a core policy does not need to be on Knowledge, at least until more reliable sources can be found. -
1388:
403:
out for mention, to the exclusion of multiple other comic artists at those panels and vendors with comics in attendance, is still notable.
856:
525:
969:
of 25,000 people would be accepted as a source, even though it's probably also written by and mostly about people living in the town.
673:
on TenPoundHammer for repeatedly nominating various webcomic articles for deletion and questioning the notability of their sources?
1119:
1008:
NewTimes has been publishing for more than 25 years in San Luis Obispo County and is the largest circulated paper in the region
95:
90:
17:
1360:
Because at 7 days, consensus had not yet been established. It was relisted on the 15th, so it will likely close on the 22nd.
282:
So I did. Still, the
Technique article only name drops Last Res0rt for one sentence, saying that she'll be at a con. That is
99:
182:
1267:
1195:
612:
quite a bit more than just the "three short paragraphs" that are readily apparent in the online version of the article.
149:
82:
1300:
482:-- Just because some of the sources are online instead of in print doesn't make the print sources any less relevant.
724:
806:, not something to establish reliability on). The only reference that helps establish any real notability is the
1415:
40:
833:
all this arguing and still no RS. I will also add that trying to drag the nominator into AN/I was a very good
638:, at the very least you should acknowledge it before editing an article or voting in an AfD such as this one.
1181:
903:
837:. Instead of complaining about an editor pointing out lack of sources, improve the article by adding sources.
699:
643:
594:
860:
529:
143:
1312:
1158:
anyone can self publish. Unless the collection has coverage in multiple reliable sources it's meaningless.
774:
1003:
1382:
1177:
899:
695:
639:
590:
1411:
1308:
991:
811:
753:
720:
139:
36:
1396:
1367:
1351:
1334:
1316:
1291:
1240:
1205:
1185:
1167:
1151:
1126:
1096:
1061:
995:
978:
948:
926:
907:
882:
864:
846:
825:
778:
757:
728:
703:
682:
663:
647:
621:
598:
574:
533:
508:
491:
474:
443:
412:
394:
380:
362:
346:
327:
315:
293:
277:
247:
64:
368:
367:
Are you implying that you would be in favor of starting an article on the artist/writer of the comic,
86:
1255:
521:
970:
940:
435:
1330:
1285:
1202:
1114:
1093:
974:
944:
834:
822:
439:
189:
175:
814:. This single source does not give the article's subject the notability necessary to satisfy the
1347:
1304:
1190:
Being in print would only help establish the notability if it met one or more of the criteria of
1173:
1163:
922:
878:
842:
790:. A brief mention (or "name dropping") in a college newspaper is not significant coverage. The
770:
470:
306:
is the only comic (out of the many creators with comics in attendance) mentioned in the article.
78:
70:
570:
229:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1410:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1263:
1218:
1191:
1039:
987:
936:
749:
738:
873:
never even implied it wasn't random IP that seems to know a lot about how
Knowledge works.
236:
reliable sources on the comic — only one hit on Google News. This seems to completely fail
1147:
1010:. The coverage they give about this webcomic is sufficient coverage in a reliable source.
678:
617:
487:
408:
376:
342:
311:
273:
268:. Regardless of your opinions of online media, both newspaper articles are solid sources.
155:
1251:-- coverage of the topic found does not seem to be strong enough to show its notability.
1326:
1280:
1199:
1109:
1090:
1086:
1073:
819:
656:
Finally, someone with some sense. Logical Cowboy, you are indeed the logical one here.
55:
429:
that says articles used as sources on a topic must exclusively focus on that topic."
205:
An article on the furry fandom which only mentions Last Res0rt for a couple sentences.
1343:
1159:
1082:
918:
895:
874:
838:
815:
803:
787:
716:
712:
670:
635:
608:
586:
466:
430:
426:
333:
237:
566:
212:
1106:
Fails GNG. The New Times article is nice, but not enough to establish notability.
116:
1011:
807:
585:
I don't think that the
Technique reference does much to establish notability per
1259:
1143:
1139:
674:
613:
483:
404:
372:
338:
307:
269:
769:
due to the lack of covarage about the comic. A name drop is not non trivial.
741:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
298:
That "name drop" is still non-trivial coverage. It should also be noted that
434:
somebody is attending an event is not "addressing the subject in detail".
795:
302:
is a large anime convention (10000+ people in attendance that year), yet
299:
1213:
Note: This debate has been included in the
Article Rescue Squadron's
1404:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1085:
for an article, and because of this cannot accurately adhere to
1136:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The
Whiteboard (3rd nomination)
255:
There are TWO newspaper articles -- you completely ignored the
799:
798:
for me, as do the versions on archive.org (but at any rate
112:
108:
104:
174:
986:because name-dropping is not significant coverage.
748:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
898:to acknowledge. Geolocates to Atlanta, Georgia.
215:to be a reliable site (it hosts webcomics itself).
232:or unreliable publications. I was unable to find
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1418:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1196:Knowledge:Notability (books)#Threshold standards
1142:help bolster its notability enough to meet GNG?
561:list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions
188:
8:
559:Note: This debate has been included in the
1212:
855:The AN/I is secondary to this discussion.
558:
1342:why is this still open after two weeks?
1215:list of content for rescue consideration
894:I wonder if the random IP editor has a
224:The comic itself, twice, again, again.
351:Sure does to me. It tells us nothing
7:
810:article, which comes from a local
24:
202:A personal blog, which I removed.
218:The comic itself, twice, again.
211:A 404'd interview on what does
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
259:newspaper article. Also, the
816:general notability guideline
221:A podcast with the creator.
1435:
465:based on the "name drop".
1078:multiple reliable sources
549:• 04:34, 8 May 2012(UTC)
1407:Please do not modify it.
1397:09:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
1368:21:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
1352:21:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
1335:21:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
1317:21:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
1292:02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
1241:10:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1206:03:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1186:03:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1168:03:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1152:03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1127:02:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1097:00:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
1062:23:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
996:09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
979:08:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
949:17:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
927:16:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
908:15:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
883:15:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
865:14:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
847:05:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
826:04:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
779:07:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
758:00:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
729:16:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
704:12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
694:per my comments above.
683:02:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
664:02:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
622:04:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
444:09:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
425:"There is nothing about
208:The comic itself, twice.
65:06:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
937:IP user's contributions
648:03:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
599:03:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
575:19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
534:04:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
509:02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
492:01:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
475:01:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
413:21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
395:15:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
381:04:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
363:03:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
347:03:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
332:There is nothing about
328:02:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
316:01:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
294:00:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
278:00:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
248:22:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
1083:most basic requirement
1004:San Luis Obispo County
812:alternative newspaper
1301:WP:verify notability
286:extensive coverage.
935:If you look at the
1140:collected in print
1067:Articles requires
792:palaceinthesky.com
355:the comic itself.
198:Source breakdown:
48:The result was
1272:
1258:comment added by
1243:
800:the domain itself
760:
577:
564:
524:comment added by
63:
1426:
1409:
1391:
1385:
1379:- per Rorshacma
1365:
1363:Ten Pound Hammer
1290:
1288:
1283:
1271:
1252:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1049:
1046:
1043:
747:
743:
721:Rangoondispenser
661:
659:Ten Pound Hammer
565:
548:
546:Ten Pound Hammer
536:
506:
504:Ten Pound Hammer
392:
390:Ten Pound Hammer
369:Rachel Keslensky
360:
358:Ten Pound Hammer
325:
323:Ten Pound Hammer
291:
289:Ten Pound Hammer
245:
243:Ten Pound Hammer
193:
192:
178:
130:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1416:deletion review
1405:
1393:
1389:
1383:
1361:
1286:
1281:
1279:
1278:-- fails GNG.
1253:
1235:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1220:
1120:
1115:
1110:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1041:
794:site returns a
736:
657:
544:
519:
502:
388:
356:
321:
287:
241:
230:primary sources
135:
126:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1432:
1430:
1421:
1420:
1400:
1399:
1387:
1384:TheSpecialUser
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1355:
1354:
1337:
1319:
1294:
1273:
1245:
1244:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1188:
1178:Logical Cowboy
1155:
1154:
1129:
1100:
1099:
1036:
1035:
1029:
1028:
1021:
1020:
1014:
1013:
1006:has 269,637.
998:
981:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
930:
929:
911:
910:
900:Logical Cowboy
886:
885:
868:
867:
850:
849:
828:
802:looks to be a
781:
763:
762:
761:
745:
744:
733:
732:
731:
706:
696:Logical Cowboy
688:
687:
686:
685:
666:
651:
650:
640:Logical Cowboy
627:
626:
625:
624:
602:
601:
591:Logical Cowboy
579:
578:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
538:
537:
512:
511:
495:
494:
477:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
209:
206:
203:
196:
195:
132:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1431:
1419:
1417:
1413:
1408:
1402:
1401:
1398:
1395:
1392:
1390:Contributions
1386:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:Shooterwalker
1306:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1277:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1250:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1216:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1002:
999:
997:
993:
989:
985:
982:
980:
976:
972:
967:
964:
963:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
928:
924:
920:
915:
914:
913:
912:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
890:
889:
888:
887:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:
870:
869:
866:
862:
858:
857:108.200.70.59
854:
853:
852:
851:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
829:
827:
824:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
782:
780:
776:
772:
771:duffbeerforme
768:
765:
764:
759:
755:
751:
746:
742:
740:
735:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
705:
701:
697:
693:
690:
689:
684:
680:
676:
672:
667:
665:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
632:
629:
628:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:The Technique
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
562:
557:
547:
542:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:75.70.242.162
523:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
505:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
476:
472:
468:
464:
461:
460:
445:
441:
437:
432:
428:
424:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
397:
396:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
359:
354:
350:
349:
348:
344:
340:
335:
331:
330:
329:
324:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
290:
285:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:New Times SLO
262:
261:New Times SLO
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
244:
239:
235:
231:
223:
220:
217:
214:
210:
207:
204:
201:
200:
199:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1406:
1403:
1380:
1376:
1362:
1339:
1321:
1296:
1275:
1254:— Preceding
1248:
1219:
1131:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1077:
1068:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1024:
1017:
1007:
1000:
983:
965:
891:
835:WP:Boomerang
830:
791:
783:
766:
737:
708:
691:
658:
630:
582:
545:
520:— Preceding
503:
479:
462:
400:
389:
357:
352:
322:
303:
288:
283:
265:
260:
256:
242:
233:
227:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1305:WP:WONTWORK
1174:WP:ITEXISTS
988:Someguy1221
750:Ron Ritzman
401:Last Res0rt
304:Last Res0rt
162:free images
79:Last Res0rt
71:Last Res0rt
213:not appear
58:Sandstein
1412:talk page
1340:Question?
1327:Rorshacma
1282:GregJackP
1192:WP:BKCRIT
1134:: In the
971:Dricherby
941:Dricherby
808:New Times
567:• Gene93k
436:Dricherby
257:Technique
37:talk page
1414:or in a
1344:Ridernyc
1268:contribs
1256:unsigned
1160:Ridernyc
1132:Question
1069:multiple
919:Ridernyc
875:Ridernyc
839:Ridernyc
786:- Fails
739:Relisted
631:Question
522:unsigned
467:Ducknish
123:View log
39:or in a
1287:Boomer!
1087:WP:NPOV
1074:neutral
892:Comment
711:Misses
607:That's
583:Comment
300:MomoCon
168:WPÂ refs
156:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1377:Delete
1322:Delete
1297:Delete
1276:Delete
1260:Yaksar
1249:Delete
1104:Delete
984:Delete
966:Delete
896:WP:COI
831:Delete
804:WP:SPS
788:WP:GNG
784:Delete
767:Delete
717:WP:GNG
713:WP:WEB
709:Delete
692:Delete
671:WP:COI
636:WP:COI
587:WP:GNG
431:WP:GNG
427:WP:WEB
334:WP:WEB
238:WP:WEB
140:Google
100:delete
50:delete
1236:Focus
1203:Ghost
1144:Veled
1094:Ghost
1057:Focus
823:Ghost
675:Veled
614:Veled
484:Veled
405:Veled
373:Veled
353:about
339:Veled
308:Veled
270:Veled
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1348:talk
1331:talk
1313:talk
1264:talk
1200:Sudo
1198:. -
1194:and
1182:talk
1172:aka
1164:talk
1148:talk
1091:Sudo
1001:Keep
992:talk
975:talk
945:talk
923:talk
904:talk
879:talk
861:talk
843:talk
820:Sudo
818:. -
775:talk
754:talk
725:talk
715:and
700:talk
679:talk
644:talk
618:talk
595:talk
571:talk
530:talk
488:talk
480:Keep
471:talk
463:Keep
440:talk
409:talk
377:talk
343:talk
312:talk
274:talk
176:FENS
150:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1366:•
1176:.
1121:ian
1116:dar
1111:Ish
796:404
662:•
507:•
393:•
361:•
326:•
292:•
284:not
246:•
234:any
190:TWL
125:•
121:– (
1350:)
1333:)
1315:)
1307:.
1270:)
1266:•
1217:.
1184:)
1166:)
1150:)
994:)
977:)
947:)
925:)
906:)
881:)
863:)
845:)
777:)
756:)
727:)
702:)
681:)
646:)
620:)
597:)
573:)
563:.
532:)
490:)
473:)
442:)
411:)
379:)
345:)
314:)
276:)
240:.
170:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
1394:*
1381:→
1346:(
1329:(
1311:(
1262:(
1233:m
1230:a
1227:e
1224:r
1221:D
1180:(
1162:(
1146:(
1054:m
1051:a
1048:e
1045:r
1042:D
990:(
973:(
943:(
921:(
902:(
877:(
859:(
841:(
773:(
752:(
723:(
698:(
677:(
642:(
616:(
593:(
569:(
528:(
486:(
469:(
438:(
407:(
375:(
341:(
310:(
272:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.