771:, thank you for your comments. I hope you are keeping well. You are 100% right about keeping pages tight and clean. Mr Ansar is not known for his community work, for this reason I've taken it off the page. It bloats the article unnecessarily and there is too much (arguably) irrelevant and non notable information there. With no disrespect to that work, we cant have people outlining their entire work history. However there are some important issues here. Islamophobia or anti Muslim hate is a serious matter. This person is a leading activist and moderate, a progressive thinker who talks (and is criticised for his stance) on gay rights, evolution, faith and politics. He has many enemies on social media including the EDL, Robert Spencer, the zionist lobby amongst others. The police are actively prosecuting people who have attacked and abused him and his children. He is regularly on television screens in the UK and there are very, very few (almost none) notable orthodox Muslim commentators on television in the UK. We cannot strike out one of only a handful. Kind regards,
716:- Opinions as to whether Mr Ansar is an official imam or an Islamic scholar are irrelevant in terms of whether his page should be deleted or not. The significant issue is the contribution he makes to society and particularly his influence on social media where he has a substantial following. He regularly debates with important figures, interacts with a extensive network of Muslims and non-Muslims. He is therefore significant in terms of multifaith dialogue and is well respected by members of the Christian, Jewish and Atheist community with whom he has productive and positive dialogue. I would suggest that the page should be edited as opposed to deleted. The act of deletion seems to stem from a personal dislike rather than an objective view of a person's influence within the media, his local community and on social networking sites. I, for instance, would happily see Kim Kardashian deleted from wikipedia but I have to concede that she has a substantial following however banal she may be. (user: saritaagerman posted 8 Sept)
823:, the assertion he does not meet the notability criteria can only be made if wilfully ignoring (or undervaluing) the contribution this person makes in the UK. Constant removal on his page of the contexts and importance of his contribution seems to be an attempt to reduce his notability. WP reflects contemporary commentators, context is everything. Notable does not only mean famous - we resist the day we base WP entries on numbers of Twitter followers. Agree with your views that more citations are needed but some of them are clearly absurd. One citation you have asked for is where Mr Ansar makes the claim the EDL are linked to Breivik. It is in the video of the BBC1 debate - you need only watch it. We cannot remove material on this basis or start littering with 'citations required'. What is VERY disturbing is the fact it is not only listed for deletion, but
503:
are to media articles which merely include trivial mentions within coverage of separate stories (not about the subject) or which do not mention him at all. I have not seen any evıdence that
Mohammed Ansar has any Islamıc or Arabıc language qualıfıcatıons whatsoever. Evıdence for hıs 'valuable role ın the communıty' ıs certaınly not provıded by ındependent references. Although he he ıs a chaplaın and sıts on varıous local commıttees he does not act as an Imam or organısed leader of the Muslım communıty ın the local area where he lıves (Chandlers Ford/ Hampshıre). Although he has around 4000 Twıtter followers and has made sporadıc TV and radıo appearances, none of these have been as an expert panelıst and I do not thınk these automatıcally ınfer notabılıty. Claıms such as 'vısıtıng lecturer' need to be ındependently referenced and explaıned!
854:
conferences and lectures, so he does a lot of valuable ground work. He is also a major contributor to inter-faith and political dialogue and his views are representative of the majority of
Muslims, so cutting him off would be cutting off a valuable contributor of discourse. He is also one of the few Muslims attempting to tackle sensitive issues which affect us all, one of the few who are treading on controversial ground, one of the few who are trying to rise above the limitations inherited by Muslims in the west and break the mould and the barriers of communication. So putting a foot down on Muhammad would be putting a foot down on valuable commentary, integration and suppressing a sincere attempt to engage with our society.
745:, I hope you are well. Actually, I think that Mr Ansar seems a very nice man and on talk pages (including this one) I have praised his local community work and his obvious enthusiasm for good causes. I have no axe to grind whatsover against him. But, believe it or not, some of the editors who edit his page are neither detractors nor fans. I for one am just an ordinary Knowledge (XXG) editor who has both an opinion and the right to share it. My only intention is to keep pages tight, clean, unbiased, relevant and well referenced. You may disagree with my views. That's your right. But accusations of bias are needless. I repeat: he seems like a perfectly decent man, and I wish him well in life. Best wishes,
1624:
evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review. Policy: Knowledge (XXG) articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source."
1243:(3) That he regularly engages with significant people on Twitter. To this I would provide two responses: (a) This is no evidence that he himself is of significance. Anybody can create a Twitter account and engage with anybody they like through it. (b) Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for original research. If somebody can provide an independent source which explains the significance of Ansar's role on Twitter then there would be grounds for a discussion. However, in the absence of any third party sources about Ansar's activity on Twitter then his Twitter activity should not be considered an argument in favour of his inclusion on Wiki.
527:
does not ın my opınıon make hım an Imam. Also, apart from a very medıocre blog he has no serıous Islamıc publıcatıons to speak of eıther ın peer revıewed journals or formally publıshed lıterature. COI I am an academıcally qualıfıed Muslım (PhD ın Islamıc Studıes) and I resent unqualıfıed 'commentators' speakıng on our behalf. He should at least obtaın somethıng more an a GCSE ın Islamıc Studıes before he starts actıng as an 'expert, on Islam. Another COI, untıl 3 years ago I used to lıve ın
Chandlers Ford and dıd not observe hım to have any major role or sıgnıfıcant followıng amongst the local Muslım communıty.
1276:(5) That attempts to delete Ansar's page are "Islamophobia" and are intended to somehow attack a moderate figure. This is a serious allegation. If there is any evidence of Knowledge (XXG) editors holding anti-Muslim views then they should certainly be held to account through proper processes. However, this is an entirely separate matter to the question of Ansar's personal significance - which is what we are discussing here. If there is evidence of his personal significance, then he should stay. However, my view is very much that there is no such evidence and therefore this article should be deleted.
1025:"In August 2012, Channel 4 aired a documentary by British historian Tom Holland called Islam: The Untold Story. The controversial documentary attracted significant media coverage, and outrage from the British Muslim community, receiving over 1200 complaints. On 6th September 2012, Ansar gave an exclusive one hour interview on the subject to the Islam Channel. Ansar discussed his relationship with Holland, his recent book In the Shadow of the Sword, upon which the documentary was based, and the potential impact for Islamophobia and far right groups such as the English Defence League"
1657:
sources are not always required or relevant especially when the person is regularly appearing on our television screens as an opinion maker / commentator, the videos ARE primary sources of information. There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit and delete this person's contributions, article and presence on WP. It smells fishy. The objections are clearly non-NPOV. The WP guidelines support categorisation of this person as notable and despite a lack or primary sources - we have the videos available of him on the BBC in discussion programs as an expert guest.
1121:(b) The Politics Show - he only appeared on a local edition of this show, not the national one. He is clearly invited on as a representative of the Muslim Council of Southampton (ie the area where that local edition was broadcast) and therefore this is only evidence of him being involved in a local group which was asked to contribute to a local TV discussion, not of his own personal significance. Again, he was merely contributing to a discussion rather than being the subject of the programme.
1572:
misleading in this case as it implies academic qualifications. If you have any evidence that Mr Ansar has ever been appointed as a university lecturer then please feel free to re-instate and reference the deleted (contentious) claim. I have deleted the 'creeping sharia' section as again, there is no evidence whatsoever for Mr Ansar's involvement in the issue. None of the references quoted cite Mr Ansar at all. Perhaps the section would be more appropriate on the Tommy
Robinson page.
1069:
to entirely delete an article which appears to be indicative of improper bias or a non-NPOV approach as it is illogical and irrational. Where citations are needed, they should be gathered, or even requested. A line of text to provide a context for the
Holland controversy and interview is not unreasonable in light of the gravity of the story. It is a regular practice for articles. Removing the contexts for debates, activities or discussions are designed to create a
1022:"He is a visiting lecturer at the University of Winchester speaking on theology, Islamophobia and Islam in contemporary Britain" - Any evidence for this claim? There is no reference to Mr Ansar on the University website. Does visiting lecturer mean that he came in once and gave a talk, or does it mean that he is a qualified university academic in these areas. Please provide a reference for this claim or delete.
189:
1099:(1) That Mohammed Ansar is "a great advocate for equality and unity among different faiths" and has done praiseworthy work challenging bigotry. I don't doubt that this is the case, but so are many other people who do not merit a Wiki page. This is simply not an argument which should be considered as it does not provide any evidence of his personal significance.
1031:"After their televised debate, knock-on exchanges on Twitter between Mohammed Ansar and Tommy Robinson led to the comedic #CreepingSharia Internet meme being generated when Tommy expressed his disgust that the Taj Mahal (which he mistakenly thought was a mosque) was displayed on Twitter's home page. The debacle was reported in the British press."
1102:(2) That Ansar regularly appears on television/comments in the media. He should perhaps be compared with Raheem Kassam, whose Wiki page was recently (and in my view, rightly) deleted on the grounds that he did not meet the notability guidelines, despite there being greater evidence of him appearing regularly in major media outlets like the BBC.
1780:
contributor to this article, I suggest we look to amend, revise or gather additional information. Deletion is an extreme measure. The article is already half the size it was due to deletions and redactions and virtually all objections have now been addressed (aside from the non NPOV and any personal attacks which are not relevant here).
1403:. Many of the key issues are similar or the same - the conclusion was that the article should be deleted because Kassam had clearly been quoted in media contributing to discussions but there were no independent sources which discussed Kassam at length. This is certainly the case with Ansar, and therefore he should also be deleted.
797:, I am sure you weren't meaning me when you made your bold claim about anti-Islamic bias in the recent edits. I've made over 11,000 Knowledge (XXG) edits, most of them on the pages of Muslim (and esp. Pakistani) scholars, poets and authors whom I find interesting or, in many case, admire. Best wishes,
1354:
Nobody is suggesting that we should discard media commentators. However, there needs to be a way of objectively assessing whether somebody is notable, not merely the opinions of individual contributors. The way of assessing this is whether there are independent and significant secondary sources about
479:
I began the article, and I tweet with the gentleman a lot, so I am not a disinterested party. Mr. Ansar is appearing on the BBC again next week, which is hardly trivial, and he is a notable Muslim presence on the
British airwaves and on social media. (How many television appearances does it take to
1604:
stop vandalising the article, especially whilst it is under review and discussion. Mr Ansar says himself he is visiting lecturer at the
University and he regularly Tweets when he is going in to deliver his lectures. Visiting lecturers are not always listed on the website. Either we can ask him for a
1068:
Unreferenced claims are not misleading, they are just unreferenced. For example, the Islam
Channel interview as an expert guest went out to several million viewers which people watched live. We have no reference or citation for it (yet). It is absurd to suggest it is misleading. Again, further calls
642:
the creeping sharia meme is non contentious material. You have removed the referenced to the interview which went out to several million viewers on the world largest Muslim channel, the Islam
Channel. Awaiting a reference does not support deletion of the information in its entirely. Clearly you have
1630:
Similarly, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without
1571:
I note that Mr Ansar has encouraged his supporters to contribute to this discussion by posting a link on his facebook page. I have deleted the claims that he is a 'lecturer' at
Winchester University as there is no reference to Mr Ansar on the University's website. The use of the label 'lecturer' is
1285:(6) That the proper citations have not yet caught up with Ansar. At best this is original research and at worst this is pure conjecture. Every article needs proper citations now - not in the hypothetical future - and the fact there aren't enough yet is precisely why this article should be deleted.
941:
Although Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball, Muhammad Ansar is, so to speak, notability timber. He is a prominent Muslim advocate in the UK media, and in the ultra-bandwidth world of social media (such as Twitter) his influence is such that arguably the (proper) citations haven't caught up with
502:
Agree the article should be considered for deletion on the grounds that he does not meet the general notabilıty criteria. It ıs also very poor ın terms of the qualıty of ıts references. Agree that vırtually all of the sources are either not independent of the subject or are not significant, ie they
1707:
I believe that there is inadequate evidence that Ansar is independently believed to be a significant figure - and I believe the key evidence for this is the absence of secondary material about him. The only sources adduced so far have been primary sources which show that Ansar has contributed to a
1380:
are pretty clear. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are two key matters of importance arising from this. (1) Ansar is not
676:
above and biased attacking of this Muslim figure in the UK. It is not unexpected. Some of this seems irrational and irrelevant and we should assume could be anti-Islam / Muslim hostility. I don't believe Ansar has claimed to be either an Imam or Islamic academic scholar. The personal attacks above
526:
Sorry, above entry contınued. Most of us would agree that our local Parish Prıest wouldn't warrant a Wikıpaedia entry even ıf he had been on TV once or twıce. Had Mo Ansar been a prıest or Imam/clergy man thıs would have been consıdered. But the fact that he sıts on a few PTA type local commıttees
427:
Mohammed is a notable Muslim figure, regularly on British television and radio and someone who commentates on a variety of issues. He has tackled the far right and Muslim extremists in media debates and is one of very few Muslims on television in Britain. He is regularly attacked by Islamophobes,
1830:
I have been following the discussion (which has been very interesting given the issues in play), and suffice to say I am satisfied that the criteria for the subject's notability or lack thereof are being duly considered. To date I know of no such sources, so I'm just letting the process play out.
847:
i dont see why this page shud be deleted, Mohammad's one of the few who have tackled Islamophobia so well. This page must be visible so people know what British Muslims went through few years on & how Mohammad tackled such sensitive issues. Why delete one of the few sane voices in the Islamic
1747:
due to the lack of coverage about Ansar in independent reliable sources. Article is a mass of coatracks trying to puff Ansar's claim to notability. Nothing notable here. He might be doing great work but for his community but that doesn't make him notable. A few guest spots on TV does not satisfy
1209:
Notability guidelines cannot be applied prejudicially to support a concluded view to remove an article. As there is no straightforward explanation for the non-neutral stance of the objectors (or the personalised attacks) and the extreme nature of the responses (deletion not revision) we can only
961:
is here for entirely for that reason and to provide protection against bias. The notability argument does not stand since the article itself references at a number of examples of his appearances on mainstream British television as a main guest and commentator on programs. You must set aside your
597:
Would it be possible for anyone to provide an independent reference for the 'valuable local community work' and for evidence of his role in the 'creeping Sharia' debacle? Apart from spending half his life on Twitter does he have anything significant that can be verified to merit Wikis notability
1656:
The notability guidelines have been listed above clearly - they should be considered in the round. We cannot misapply them by disregarding guidelines which are inconvenient. All of these repeated objections have been answered ad nauseam - repeating them again is unhelpful. Primary and secondary
581:
for precisely the reasons given immediately above. I appreciate his local-level community work, and I can see he is a highly motivated man and that he tweets and keeps a blog (as do countless people), but these things alone do not satisfy the notability guidelines. The lack of references in the
1678:
who has stated that it was Ansar and Robinson's television debate and subsequent exchanges which lead to the meme" Please stop accusing people of vandalism, bias and Islamophobia and discuss the article and its references instead. The two statements you have made above are hearsay and are not
1307:
To conclude, this article should be deleted. It is incumbent upon those who want to keep it to prove that Ansar is himself significant. They need to provide third party, independent sources which prove that there is external interest in Ansar as a figure - not simply that he has contributed to
853:
Muhammad Ansar is one of the few well-known advocates of Islam and one of the few well known Muslims who not only voices his opinions, tackles issues on daytime TV and has befriended academics such as Tom Holland, but also heavily engages with the public on social networks as well as attending
1073:
view of individuals. The further calls based on non-notability, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are now discredited. The individual (whether people like it or not) is a regular Muslim spokesman on British television. People are curious to know more about him. This is what WP is
956:
you clearly are personally pursuing for total deletion, not revision and are hell bent on making sure it happens. Despite Mr Ansar being on BBC1 debates, political programs, radio shows and giving key expert commentary in areas of public debate, you have attempted to delete the context to his
1623:
The problem with this article is that there are no secondary sources about Ansar. Consider the following guidance about sources: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or
677:
are irrelevant to the notability argument. According to his Ansar's Twitter feed, he is under special protection from the Police due to threats from the far right and English Defence League supporters, some of which have already been convicted. We should remove reference to his home location.
1779:
requires consultation with him on revision and deletion with his involvement. I have updated the article noting Mr Ansar's appearances in television and in the press this year - of which there have been three notable ones alone this week, as an expert in his field of interest. As a primary
484:, who was described as being "a national figure of the second degree." In terms of Muslim advocacy, he is just that in the British media. And even if, for the sake of argument, his influence was tertiary or quaternary, the low hanging fruit have long since been picked on Knowledge (XXG).
957:
appearances including the one hour television interview on the recent 'Islam:The Unknown Story' controversy. Merely because you have some difficulty fathoming the notability of his appearances, it DOES fit the WP guidelines. Your arguments are entirely subjective and a personal position.
1640:
It also does not meet the additional criteria for a biography ("has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" or "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"
1186:
Objective assessment of the article has resulted in redaction and deletion of the less notable community work. We cannot commit death by a thousand cuts and so we must recognise his media appearances and noteworthy debates (specifically against the far right in Britain).
625:
guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
428:
racists, the far right and also Muslims for his progressive views on homosexuality and treatment of minority groups. Far more significant than "valuable community work" - probably a biased review within itself. If the issue is better references than let's say so.
1616:
Having done so, I think that we should keep this focused on the absolutely key issue, whether or not Ansar has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
1465:
it is stated that where a case fails to meet basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria, either:
916:. After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of clutter (even though more has subsequently been added, in my view), and having searched the internet to see what the subject has been doing, I do not believe that he meets
1139:- This is a Sunday morning religion and ethics program on national BBC1 aired to the whole of the UK. Mr Ansar was a main guest and expert panellist discussing a number of issues along with other recognised personalities. Watch the program if you are unsure.
1554:
Enough time has been given to this matter. There is evidence of personalised attacks and unfounded allegations which include the wilful ignoring of evidence which shows that the person meets notability criteria. This article will be returned to active
309:. The Sources are either not independent of the subject or are not significant, ie they are to media articles which merely include trivial mentions within coverage of separate stories (not about the subject) or which do not mention him at all
1858:. Coverage in independent sources is the main way that we judge notability here. As a relatively common name I had trouble searching for any possible better sources; if some are (concisely) presented I would be happy to reassess my position.
1034:
Again, please provide a reference to support Mr Ansar's involvement in the 'creeping sharia' hashtag creation or delete the section. This is not an article about Tommy Robinson and neither of the two references cited mention Mr Ansar.
1280:
Unfounded objections are being posited which are refuted from the reference themselves and we now also see evidence of other potentially prejudicial actions. Inferences must be drawn from illogical actions and arguments which are ill
1673:
Hi Avenger. "Mr Ansar says himself he is visiting lecturer at the University and he regularly Tweets when he is going in to deliver his lectures" "As per the creeping sharia matter, that was added by the originator of this article
1605:
confirmatory email or we need some other evidence - you should elucidate clearly what evidence you would like to support the stipulation. As per the creeping sharia matter, that was added by the originator of this article
153:
1091:
I started this discussion, which is starting to get a bit rambling, so I though it would be a good time to respond to what appear to be the key arguments in favour of keeping this article and make the case for
1442:
of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
1679:
independent references. Please provide a reliable independent reference that the above issues are true or delete the claims. The statement about being a universtiy lecturer in particular is misleading.
1171:
These are serious allegations which you are making against me, and entirely unfounded. Suggest we stick to topic of discussion rather than suggesting that one another has malign motives for taking part.
1613:
This discussion would benefit from some external involvement, ideally from experience Wiki editors who have not previously been involved in this article - I am therefore making a request for comment
1143:(d) A number of radio programmes - which are all unsourced but there is no evidence provided that he was anything other than a contributor to a discussion, rather than the subject of the programmes.
1038:
Agree with the above comments that article should be considered for deletion. Does not meet notability criteria. If not deleted, then unreferenced claims should be removed as they are misleading.
1132:(c) Sunday Morning Live - is not a prominent programme and he was just one of three guests who contributed to the discussion in the studio. Again, he was merely a contributor to a discussion.
1805:
might want to contribute to this discussion to see if he can highlight any independent, significant, secondary sources which would attest to Ansar's notability. I will also seek input from
1254:(4) That he has debated with prominent figures like Anjem Choudary or Tommy Robinson. This is much like points one and three; it provides no evidence that Ansar himself is of significance.
451:
Also of note is the regular guidance that he provides to individuals on issues of faith using Twitter and social media sources and Mo does not dissuade from discussing any matter of faith.
1110:
To go through his (listed) media appearances one by one: (a) The Big Questions - he was not a main guest and merely contributed to a discussion - he was not the subject of the programme.
200:
108:
1719:
This is clearly going nowhere fast. The question of whether or not Mohammed Ansar is a notable enough figure to merit an article in Knowledge (XXG) is chiefly being debated by
1716:
of said user, and that there is no independent corroboration of this. I do not believe that this concern has been answered at any point in the extensive discussions above.
147:
1536:- on The Big Questions, Ansar debates the leader of the far right in Europe (English Defence League), the first orthodox Muslim to do so on daytime British television
1400:
1373:
We need to answer a simple question: how many appearances on national television as a guest / expert commentator do we need to have for someone to make them notable?
348:
326:
1549:
It is clear that WP does not support biased or prejudiced actions to reduce the notability and / or delete unreasonably or unfairly (clearly evident in this case)
1520:
The guidelines clearly state that individuals such as Mohammed Ansar - an "opinion maker with significant roles in television shows" - meets notability criteria.
989:
which was a keep. Visit the talk page, and the deletion discussion is on the top. Mo is well known commentator popular in the journalistic community within UK.
305:
This page is for a figure who has clearly done some valuable community work in the UK but there is no indication that he meets the Notability, general guideline
1155:
Significant concern that the irrational and unfounded nature of these arguments suggest a serious level of subjective bias against the subject of this article.
1106:
If there is a trend of deleting Muslims who are on television in the UK as being non-notable, then we need to consider this potentially discriminatory policy.
1723:
and myself (albeit with limited input from a couple of others) and therefore I suggest this would be an appropriate time to use the third opinion process (
1355:
the subject of the article. Unless there are examples of such sources (I have searched the internet and found none) then this article should be deleted.
113:
1459:
An accepted category is specifically stated to include "opinion makers with significant roles in television shows" (as defined in the guidelines).
1533:- on Sunday Morning Live, Ansar is on the show as a main guest introduced by the presenter as he has written a guide on sex education for schools
1381:
the subject of any of the sources (merely a contributor to a discussion about something else) and (2) the sources provided are not secondary. --
1695:
1588:
1054:
1213:
I would conclude that there is no evidence of media interest in Ansar himself - he has merely contributed to discussions about other matters.
1474:
If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.
1028:
If you wish to include this section, please modify it to talk about Mr Ansar and his views, rather than discussing the documentary itself.
723:
417:
1261:- A civil rights activist and community organiser who debates with both Muslim and Far Right extremists, in the British media, is notable.
209:
1637:
The absence of secondary sources which focus on the subject of this article means that it does not meet the basic notability guidelines.
1150:- radio programs can be rarely sourced, often circumstantial evidence (such as other promotional material, social media) needs to be used
861:
467:
1801:
is correct that the article is now much shorter. However, this merely highlights the lack of meaningful content. I have suggested that
239:
827:. This says something about bias. It certainly says something about strength of motivation, it is not about expediency. Kind regards,
700:
605:
534:
510:
435:
81:
76:
17:
85:
1625:
659:
569:
1618:
1377:
1336:- It is an absurd suggestion that we discard and discount media commentators, who are purely engaged to provide their opinions.
1005:
68:
582:
article -- let alone GOOD references -- is something that needs to be addressed regardless of the page's rentention. Regards,
168:
225:
135:
1926:
1543:
Where citations are insufficient editors are asked to find more information, the response is NOT to delete the article.
1117:- He has appeared four times and was a main guest the last two times. We need to ask why the contrary is being claimed.
40:
1523:
It has been stated from multiple sources and links have been provided to some of those numerous television appearances
1324:
925:
802:
750:
631:
587:
1854:- With no reliable, secondary sources in the article that cover the topic in detail, the subject appears to fail the
1018:
Regardless of whether this article is deleted or not it requires significant improvement in its sources and content
1724:
1609:
who has stated that it was Ansar and Robinson's television debate and subsequent exchanges which lead to the meme.
1691:
1584:
1050:
621:
Agreed. It must be referenced or removed. The "creeping Sharia" stuff must be treated likewise, particularly as
271:
129:
1292:- It has been stated that at least one major media interview is not yet able to be cited but should be shortly.
1708:
number of media programmes - of varying levels of significance and with varying levels of prominence himself.
727:
413:
865:
480:
achieve Knowledge (XXG) notability, BTW? Is there a magic number?) Too, in a sense Mr. Ansar reminds me of
1757:
704:
609:
538:
514:
463:
439:
1907:
1867:
1840:
1817:
1789:
1776:
1761:
1738:
1712:
maintains that this itself is evidence of Ansar's notability. However, it should be noted that this is the
1699:
1687:
1683:
1666:
1650:
1601:
1592:
1580:
1576:
1565:
1450:
1415:
1390:
1364:
1345:
1312:
1301:
1270:
1237:
1196:
1181:
1083:
1058:
1046:
1042:
1009:
993:
971:
929:
907:
869:
857:
836:
806:
780:
754:
731:
719:
708:
696:
686:
647:
635:
613:
601:
591:
557:
542:
530:
518:
506:
493:
455:
443:
431:
405:
392:
362:
340:
318:
255:
229:
125:
953:
921:
820:
798:
768:
746:
627:
583:
388:
409:
214:
1922:
459:
36:
1892:
1526:
Ansar has been a MAIN guest and expert contributor on a number of BBC and satellite television programs
175:
1785:
1662:
1561:
1546:
If necessary, additional articles should be written to support the notability so long as appropriate.
1341:
1297:
1266:
1233:
1192:
1079:
967:
903:
832:
776:
682:
655:
565:
1880:
1836:
1001:
947:
489:
161:
72:
373:
1753:
261:
188:
1884:
1876:
693:
How can you delete the page of one of the leading Muslims on British tv? This is Islamophobia.
1888:
384:
358:
336:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1921:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1806:
958:
673:
401:
Do not delete this Page Mo is a great advocate for equality and unity among different faiths
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1863:
1161:
Also concerning is the suggestion Muslim commentators are being removed from WP unreasonably
141:
1855:
1749:
622:
306:
1903:
1813:
1798:
1781:
1734:
1720:
1709:
1658:
1646:
1557:
1411:
1386:
1360:
1337:
1320:
1293:
1262:
1229:
1188:
1177:
1168:
1075:
963:
899:
828:
794:
772:
742:
678:
651:
561:
481:
314:
1221:
917:
1832:
1802:
1772:
1675:
1606:
997:
943:
485:
64:
56:
1632:
1887:
for me. There might exist the possibility to merge content into other articles, e.g.
1631:
incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
354:
332:
289:
277:
245:
52:
given potential BLP and personal attack problems in the inflamed discussion below.
102:
224:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1859:
1449:
A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under
986:
553:
are inappropriate as is disclosing personal information about a public figure.
1898:
1809:
1730:
1642:
1626:
Knowledge (XXG):No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
1407:
1382:
1356:
1316:
1173:
310:
942:
him yet. Of course I speak here as an decided eventualist and inclusionist.
376:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1883:, with no disrespect to Ansar's achievements and standing. The above is
1505:
Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources, or
1308:
discussions about other matters. 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1250:- The individual's Twitter use is incidental to his contributions.
1915:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1128:- The South Today region covers approximately a fifth of the UK.
1470:
Merge the article into a broader article providing context, or
195:
183:
1727:). Is this an acceptable course of action to those involved?
1633:
Knowledge (XXG):N#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity
914:
Propose: Delete for the reasons mentioned higher on this page
1479:
Where there is a failure to explain the subject's notability
218:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
1225:
1399:
For reference, the AFD discussion about Raheem Kassam is
208:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1228:
is not here to reflect media interest but notable works.
98:
94:
90:
160:
383:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
174:
1619:Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
1378:Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1929:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1509:Put a tag on the article to notify other editors
1495:If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:
1224:. It is an individual's contribution and work.
848:community? (re-posted, as placed in wrong area)
1438:"People are likely to be notable if they meet
1431:The relevant sections are made available below
939:Propose: article is returned to normal status
897:Propose: article is returned to normal status
238:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
347:Note: This debate has been included in the
325:Note: This debate has been included in the
1425:Application of the WP Notability Guidelines
878:Objections against the individual based on:
643:some biased intent towards the individual.
349:list of People-related deletion discussions
1889:Interfaith dialog#Interfaith organisations
1490:asking the article's editor(s) for advice.
1220:- Media interest is not the test used for
883:biased, personalised comments (irrelevant)
346:
327:list of Islam-related deletion discussions
324:
212:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
232:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
886:lack of broader citations (agreed upon)
1891:, in which case the article should be
1771:- The original author of this article
892:notability guidelines (now retracted)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
985:Mo Ansar fits a criteria similar to
24:
962:personal issues and be rational.
1775:has as an important voice since
187:
50:no consensus, default to delete
1908:10:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1868:08:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1841:22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1818:18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1790:17:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1762:11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1739:08:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
1700:10:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1667:09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1651:09:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1593:08:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1566:02:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
1416:09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1391:09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1365:13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1346:12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1302:12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1271:12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1238:12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1197:12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1182:09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
1084:09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
889:bloated article (now redacted)
672:Clearly there is a lot of non-
1:
1725:Knowledge (XXG):Third_opinion
1501:Look for sources yourself, or
1059:23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
1010:14:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
972:15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
930:20:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
908:14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
870:12:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
837:14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
807:12:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
781:14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
755:12:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
732:12:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
709:12:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
687:12:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
636:11:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
614:10:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
592:20:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
543:09:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
519:09:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
393:18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
228:on the part of others and to
1856:General Notability Guideline
494:21:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
444:20:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
363:01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
341:01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
319:18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
198:, please note that this is
196:https://twitter.com/MoAnsar
1946:
1777:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1451:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
662:) 12:00, 8 September 2012
572:) 12:00, 8 September 2012
470:) 22:57, 4 September 2012
420:) 14:04, 8 September 2012
194:If you came here because
1918:Please do not modify it.
1486:rewriting it yourself or
1210:conclude other motives.
32:Please do not modify it.
270:; accounts blocked for
240:single-purpose accounts
210:policies and guidelines
954:George Custer's Sabre
922:George Custer's Sabre
821:George Custer's Sabre
799:George Custer's Sabre
769:George Custer's Sabre
747:George Custer's Sabre
628:George Custer's Sabre
584:George Custer's Sabre
1807:Knowledge (XXG):BLPN
1481:Try to improve it by
825:fast track deletion
222:by counting votes.
201:not a majority vote
1703:
1686:comment added by
1596:
1579:comment added by
1329:
1315:comment added by
1062:
1045:comment added by
1013:
996:comment added by
860:comment added by
722:comment added by
699:comment added by
664:
650:comment added by
604:comment added by
574:
560:comment added by
533:comment added by
509:comment added by
472:
458:comment added by
434:comment added by
422:
408:comment added by
395:
365:
352:
343:
330:
303:
302:
299:
226:assume good faith
1937:
1920:
1901:
1702:
1688:OliviaCunningham
1680:
1602:OliviaCunningham
1595:
1581:OliviaCunningham
1573:
1463:In special cases
1376:The guidelines (
1328:
1309:
1061:
1047:OliviaCunningham
1039:
1012:
990:
920:requirements.}}
872:
734:
711:
663:
644:
616:
573:
554:
551:Personal attacks
545:
521:
471:
452:
446:
421:
402:
382:
378:
353:
331:
297:
285:
269:
253:
234:
204:, but instead a
191:
184:
179:
178:
164:
116:
106:
88:
48:The result was
34:
1945:
1944:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1927:deletion review
1916:
1896:
1681:
1574:
1428:
1310:
1040:
991:
855:
717:
694:
645:
599:
555:
528:
504:
482:Harold Nicolson
453:
429:
403:
371:
287:
275:
259:
243:
230:sign your posts
121:
112:
79:
63:
60:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1943:
1941:
1932:
1931:
1911:
1910:
1895:upon request.
1870:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1793:
1792:
1765:
1764:
1705:
1672:
1670:
1669:
1611:
1610:
1569:
1551:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1534:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1503:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1487:
1482:
1476:
1475:
1472:
1471:
1427:
1422:
1420:
1405:
1404:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1349:
1348:
1305:
1304:
1283:
1282:
1274:
1273:
1252:
1251:
1241:
1240:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1141:
1140:
1130:
1129:
1119:
1118:
1108:
1107:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1014:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
933:
932:
894:
893:
890:
887:
884:
875:
874:
873:
850:
849:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
812:
811:
810:
809:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
760:
759:
758:
757:
736:
735:
724:188.218.194.80
713:
712:
690:
689:
666:
665:
639:
638:
618:
617:
576:
575:
547:
546:
523:
522:
499:
498:
497:
496:
474:
473:
448:
447:
424:
423:
410:31.185.254.129
398:
397:
396:
380:
379:
368:
367:
366:
344:
301:
300:
192:
182:
181:
118:
65:Mohammed Ansar
59:
57:Mohammed Ansar
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1942:
1930:
1928:
1924:
1919:
1913:
1912:
1909:
1905:
1900:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1871:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1850:
1849:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1808:
1804:
1800:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1767:
1766:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:duffbeerforme
1751:
1746:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1715:
1711:
1704:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1677:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1638:
1635:
1634:
1628:
1627:
1621:
1620:
1614:
1608:
1603:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1568:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1515:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1496:
1489:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1458:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1375:
1374:
1372:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1207:Please note -
1198:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
988:
984:
981:
980:
973:
969:
965:
960:
955:
952:
951:
949:
945:
940:
937:
936:
935:
934:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
911:
910:
909:
905:
901:
898:
891:
888:
885:
882:
881:
880:
879:
871:
867:
863:
862:89.242.18.206
859:
852:
851:
846:
845:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
692:
691:
688:
684:
680:
675:
671:
670:Do not delete
668:
667:
661:
657:
653:
649:
641:
640:
637:
633:
629:
624:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
596:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
571:
567:
563:
559:
552:
549:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
501:
500:
495:
491:
487:
483:
478:
477:
476:
475:
469:
465:
461:
460:62.50.199.254
457:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
426:
425:
419:
415:
411:
407:
400:
399:
394:
390:
386:
381:
377:
375:
370:
369:
364:
360:
356:
350:
345:
342:
338:
334:
328:
323:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
295:
291:
283:
279:
273:
267:
263:
257:
251:
247:
241:
237:
233:
231:
227:
221:
217:
216:
211:
207:
203:
202:
197:
193:
190:
186:
185:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
119:
115:
110:
104:
100:
96:
92:
87:
83:
78:
74:
70:
66:
62:
61:
58:
55:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1917:
1914:
1872:
1851:
1768:
1744:
1729:
1718:
1713:
1706:
1682:— Preceding
1671:
1639:
1636:
1629:
1622:
1615:
1612:
1575:— Preceding
1570:
1553:
1552:
1513:
1512:
1494:
1493:
1478:
1477:
1462:
1461:
1456:
1455:
1446:
1445:
1439:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1424:
1419:
1406:
1333:
1311:— Preceding
1306:
1289:
1284:
1275:
1258:
1253:
1247:
1242:
1217:
1212:
1206:
1205:
1160:
1159:
1148:NOT RELEVANT
1147:
1142:
1136:
1131:
1125:
1120:
1114:
1109:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1090:
1070:
1041:— Preceding
1037:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1021:
992:— Preceding
982:
938:
913:
896:
895:
877:
876:
856:— Preceding
824:
718:— Preceding
701:92.24.112.26
695:— Preceding
669:
646:— Preceding
606:95.10.145.72
600:— Preceding
578:
577:
556:— Preceding
550:
535:95.9.113.196
529:— Preceding
511:95.9.113.196
505:— Preceding
454:— Preceding
436:78.146.3.238
430:— Preceding
404:— Preceding
385:SarahStierch
372:
304:
293:
281:
272:sockpuppetry
265:
254:; suspected
249:
235:
223:
219:
213:
205:
199:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1071:prejudicial
987:Usama Hasan
598:criteria?
148:free images
1881:WP:TOOSOON
1799:Avenger786
1782:Avenger786
1721:Avenger786
1710:Avenger786
1659:Avenger786
1558:Avenger786
1338:Avenger786
1294:Avenger786
1281:conceived.
1263:Avenger786
1230:Avenger786
1222:notability
1189:Avenger786
1169:Avenger786
1076:Avenger786
964:Avenger786
918:notability
900:Avenger786
829:Avenger786
795:Avenger786
773:Avenger786
743:Avenger786
679:Avenger786
652:Avenger786
562:Avenger786
206:discussion
1923:talk page
1833:kencf0618
1803:kencf0618
1773:kencf0618
1676:kencf0618
1607:kencf0618
1334:INCORRECT
1290:INCORRECT
1259:INCORRECT
1218:INCORRECT
1137:INCORRECT
1126:INCORRECT
1115:INCORRECT
998:Asifkhanj
944:kencf0618
793:PS, Dear
486:kencf0618
355:• Gene93k
333:• Gene93k
262:canvassed
256:canvassed
215:consensus
37:talk page
1925:or in a
1893:userfied
1877:WP:BASIC
1769:Response
1696:contribs
1684:unsigned
1589:contribs
1577:unsigned
1325:contribs
1313:unsigned
1055:contribs
1043:unsigned
1006:contribs
994:unsigned
858:unsigned
720:unsigned
697:unsigned
660:contribs
648:unsigned
602:unsigned
570:contribs
558:unsigned
531:unsigned
507:unsigned
468:contribs
456:unsigned
432:unsigned
418:contribs
406:unsigned
374:Relisted
294:username
288:{{subst:
282:username
276:{{subst:
266:username
260:{{subst:
250:username
244:{{subst:
109:View log
39:or in a
1714:opinion
1600:Please
1514:SUMMARY
1248:CORRECT
959:WP:NPOV
674:WP:NPOV
258:users:
154:WP refs
142:scholar
82:protect
77:history
1873:Delete
1860:VQuakr
1852:Delete
1750:WP:ENT
1745:Delete
1555:status
1094:delete
623:WP:BLP
579:Delete
307:WP:GNG
126:Google
86:delete
1899:Trevj
1885:TL;DR
1810:Q1445
1731:Q1445
1643:Q1445
1408:Q1445
1383:Q1445
1357:Q1445
1317:Q1445
1174:Q1445
819:Dear
767:Dear
741:Dear
311:Q1445
236:Note:
169:JSTOR
130:books
114:Stats
103:views
95:watch
91:links
16:<
1904:talk
1875:per
1864:talk
1837:talk
1814:talk
1786:talk
1758:talk
1735:talk
1692:talk
1663:talk
1647:talk
1585:talk
1562:talk
1412:talk
1401:here
1387:talk
1361:talk
1342:talk
1321:talk
1298:talk
1267:talk
1234:talk
1193:talk
1178:talk
1080:talk
1074:for.
1051:talk
1002:talk
983:Keep
968:talk
948:talk
926:talk
904:talk
866:talk
833:talk
803:talk
777:talk
751:talk
728:talk
705:talk
683:talk
656:talk
632:talk
610:talk
588:talk
566:talk
539:talk
515:talk
490:talk
464:talk
440:talk
414:talk
389:talk
359:talk
337:talk
315:talk
162:FENS
136:news
99:logs
73:talk
69:edit
1897:--
1440:any
290:csp
286:or
278:csm
246:spa
220:not
176:TWL
111:•
107:– (
1906:)
1879:,
1866:)
1839:)
1816:)
1788:)
1760:)
1752:.
1737:)
1698:)
1694:•
1665:)
1649:)
1591:)
1587:•
1564:)
1457:C.
1453:.
1447:B.
1436:A.
1414:)
1389:)
1363:)
1344:)
1327:)
1323:•
1300:)
1269:)
1236:)
1226:WP
1195:)
1180:)
1172:--
1096::
1082:)
1057:)
1053:•
1008:)
1004:•
970:)
950:)
928:)
906:)
868:)
835:)
805:)
779:)
753:)
730:)
707:)
685:)
658:•
634:)
612:)
590:)
568:•
541:)
517:)
492:)
466:•
442:)
416:•
391:)
361:)
351:.
339:)
329:.
317:)
296:}}
284:}}
274::
268:}}
252:}}
242::
156:)
101:|
97:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
75:|
71:|
1902:(
1862:(
1835:(
1812:(
1784:(
1756:(
1733:(
1690:(
1661:(
1645:(
1583:(
1560:(
1410:(
1385:(
1359:(
1340:(
1319:(
1296:(
1265:(
1232:(
1191:(
1176:(
1078:(
1049:(
1000:(
966:(
946:(
924:(
902:(
864:(
831:(
801:(
775:(
749:(
726:(
703:(
681:(
654:(
630:(
608:(
586:(
564:(
537:(
513:(
488:(
462:(
438:(
412:(
387:(
357:(
335:(
313:(
298:.
292:|
280:|
264:|
248:|
180:)
172:·
166:·
158:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
128:(
120:(
117:)
105:)
67:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
