602:
not itself notable is not, I think, an issue, as we do not require that sources themselves be notable--there are literally millions of books, articles and journals used as sources on WP that are not themselves notable, but in any case, appearing in WP or IMDB would not establish the documentary's notability because WP consider neither itself nor IMDB reliable sources. Nor do I think the relationship between the subject and the director is an issue, since SBS would be considered the publisher of the information. thinkBIG may not be a major magazine--perhaps I am missing something, but I am unaware of any policy that says that a magazine has to be major to count as a reliable source.
500:, can you point to any policy that suggests that the subject of an article must compare favorably to other subjects of articles? Or a policy asserting that a subject's notability hinges upon the notability of a film festival at which a documentary about them appeared? A policy that suggests that a documentary about them must have an entry in IMDB (which is not a reliable source and thus does not confer notability), or that deletion of an article related to the subject diminished their notability? WP:GNG points to significant coverage in reliable sources, are you arguing that the coverage is not significant or the sources not reliable?
522:
contestants; I'm trying to show the level of coverage required for someone to be notable just *as* a quiz show contestant. Almost every significant film has an entry in IMDB, so the fact that his documentary does not have one is a major concern to me. It seems that the documentary is used to bolster his notability, to show that he did something more interesting than just appear on a quiz show ... and I'm trying to show why the documentary shouldn't necessarily be used for that purpose. Since the article
961:, and I believe that both the ANI and SPI have been closed acknowledging both the missteps by the subject and the subject's good faith. Since I work with some folks with mild Asperger's, I'm familiar with the problems they face in social interactions, and I'm not surprised at how things unspooled. That being said, I'm not sure any of this is relevant to the discussion here at this point--could you clarify why you believe his situation as a WP editor is relevant here and now?
800:
pretty unique talent, and both have been covered in the press. Many people are notable for overcoming obstacles in their lives. Also, I'll point out that we already have articles on people with similar coverage, and articles on people with less coverage, even articles on people with no coverage in reliable sources, and that flow is pretty much going to be unaffected by whatever we do here. GNG is pretty straight forward and clear, as is
902:
well known person, the achievements as well as controversies but should never be a story." Can you point to support for that statement in WP policies or guidelines? I agree that the documentary is minor, and I'm willing to concede that SBS is a minor national network, but where in policies or guidelines does it say that such are not reliable sources, not verifiable, or fail to establish notability?
31:
804:. Of course you don't have to agree with me, but I think the subject meets both with coverage spanning a number of years from a variety of reliable sources. Also, if you feel that the article should be trimmed back more to "just the facts", I agree with that--my usual approach is to add material and then come back and trim out the excess, but AFD is not cleanup.
615:. None of the sources are connected to the subject as far as I can tell and there are lots of them, and all of the ones used in the article appear to be reliable. So from my point of view, there's enough evidence that the sufficient sources can be found, if they have not already, to establish notability under GNG, and I'll shut up now and go do some work.
1125:. Maybe he's just a die-hard Mark Boerebach fan who was angered by the lack of Knowledge (XXG) coverage of his favorite 70's-80's pop music internet radio disc jockey? Perhaps Saltless-ocean should be added to the sock investigation just to be safe, since I don't see them at the SPI or ANI discussion. The relevance of the topic is evident at
219:. Wording like this "Bullies tormented Boerebach throughout his school years, which were followed by several years of unemployment. Despite his difficulties, a positive and inquisitive attitude has led to his successful completion of several TAFE Certificate courses, and A Grade passes in work experience projects" is really not relevant.
291:, I've added some references--looks like a local did a documentary on him that has received attention. Coverage in magazines in addition to his TV and radio appearances. Try a search on Google web for his name and also for ""Rainman Goes to RocKwiz" to find additional sources. The article is rough, but AFD is not cleanup.
1173:
not notable, but I suggest that coverage for starting an internet based station in ZDNet and a newspaper are. And the coverage regarding the game was somewhat brief, but SBS is a national broadcaster, and was covered by major newspapers in Sydney and
Melbourne, and not confined to local news outlets as you contend.
601:
is apparently a national broadcasting service, and they aired the documentary. I think they count as a reliable source. I readily acknowledge that if the documentary had never aired, or was only shown at film festivals, it would be a different matter, but that is not the case. That the documentary is
901:
I believe that according to WP policies, general notability is established when reliable sources provide significant coverage. Bidgee, I'll ask again--you've said "BIO's on
Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be a brief life story since that is what books are for, BIO's should be detailed description on the a
1172:
related issues can be cleansed, and I think they have been. If you think there are still NPOV issues, we can certainly address them. The interview about the job was local, but a plea for employers to consider people with disabilities, a human interested piece. Purchasing software to stream audio is
956:
Yes, I've been following that discussion. In the interest of full disclosure, if you check his talk pages, you'll note that I've offered to help him, and I found this article the same way as you did. I think it's unfortunate that he's received some fairly brusque handling, but that's understandable
840:
The whole point is that starting and running a online station (whether it is radio or TV) doesn't add to the notability nor does the amount
Australian music chart he remembers. Having a few news stories (most local newspapers) and a minor documentary (had it been a doco done by the ABC or SBS then
799:
I respect your opinion, and understand where you are coming from, but can you point to policy supporting your assertions about what biographies here should be? My feeling is that it is a significant achievement for someone with his challenges to start a web based "radio" station, and he does have a
780:
BIO's on
Knowledge (XXG) shouldn't be a brief life story since that is what books are for, BIO's should be detailed description on the a well known person, the achievements as well as controversies but should never be a story. Mark Boerebach is just not notable for Knowledge (XXG), if we allowed to
1091:
Snottywong, yes, regarding the subject, we've covered that ground, and Mr. Boerebach has been anointed in the blood of the lamb and absolved, let us pray he sins no more against the church of Jimbo. More to the point, do you see any evidence that he's had any influence on this article? And if not,
580:
First of all, I'm not suggesting that the subject is notable because of his appearance on a quiz show. The subject is a disabled person with an unusual ability, a savant, and that is, I think, why he has attracted attention in the press, and I think that coverage is significant enough to meet the
521:
The coverage is not significant enough and many of the cited sources are too close to the subject or are of local interest. Basically there aren't enough high-quality sources for this person. As for comparisons: I don't mean that the subject's achievements must match those of other quiz show
821:
Indeed I don't think that notability is directly related to number of times having been in the media. Surely Bidgee's notability (or lack thereof) should have no influence upon this subject's notability. We cannot complain about lack of sources, and I just think that this item happens to be
606:
is a broadsheet, seems to be reliable enough for this subject. The St George & Sutherland Shire Leader looks to be very local, but I think that's counterbalanced somewhat by the degree of coverage he's received, four articles over 4 years. He's also apparently been interviewed on
1137:, I'm referring to his appearance on the game show, which received some brief local coverage. As far as I can tell, having a desire to get a job is not notable, and purchasing some software to stream music over the internet is not notable (as evidenced by the previous AfD on
350:, so with the current sources, you're arguing the subject fails GNG? Seems like he meets the bar to me between articles in magazines and newspapers and an admittedly short documentary covering him. The sources are clearly reliable, and coverage seems pretty significant to me.
438:
only comes up with two results, one of which is a local newspaper. This is an extraordinarily low level of media coverage, considering that both the quiz show appearance and the documentary were broadcast in 2008. I'm aware that the above search misses some pages, such as
455:
Knowledge (XXG) does not have an article about the
Anchorage International Film Festival, despite the fact that film is generally one of the encyclopedia's strongest areas. Therefore, his documentary's appearance probably does not confer much notability. Additionally,
414:, i.e. has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. What more do you want? Also half the nom appears to be about the wording. If you think the wording is bad or a section is not relevant, remove or refactor it, don't just send the whole article to AfD.
217:
1163:
Yes, you have a right to your opinion. But I will point out that the SPA last edited in 2008, and the article has been substantially retooled since then. You could add
Saltless-ocean to the now closed SPI, but I would wonder what the purpose would be, since
935:
781:
keep the Mark
Boerebach article, we could have people who have similar type of coverage have an article. I've been in the media a few times in my life, I've been on TV just to name a few but it doesn't make me notable.
185:
319:. There really isn't anything here besides he got bullied and later went on a public-TV game show, neither of which is something one might reasonably expect an encyclopedia to cover. Possible
216:
I believe he fails WP:BIO. yes he's made a TV appearance for his ability to remember music but I don't see substantial coverage. the 4th link supplied is dead, and he only gets 2 gnews hits
597:
does not apply here. The number of google news hits is, as far as I know, not a criterion for notability under WP policy. Yes, I think the documentary counts for establishing notability--
457:
367:
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. The primary issue isn't the sources (although they aren't as strong as you seem to think, see below) but notability. A very, very,
612:
645:
146:
1194:
I certainly won't make a request to add
Saltless-ocean to the SPI case, as I agree it would be pointless. However, we'll have to agree to disagree about the notability issue.
608:
179:
239:
1096:
do you mean, the founding of the internet station, the initial coverage in the local press about his desire for a job, or the documentary and appearance on RocKwiz?
267:
40:
648:, despite the fact that it has archived almost every story it has broadcast for at least the last decade. Two articles in Australian statewide newspapers (
1070:
472:
1122:
1036:
641:
431:. While I admire the subject's achievements, especially since I am totally blind and am also autistic, the following facts are telling:
119:
114:
440:
17:
1265:
123:
106:
1065:
situation. Also, it appears that someone has been attempting to boost their coverage on
Knowledge (XXG) recently. Note that
845:. Most radio presenters who should be far more notable don't have articles since they don't have enough notability except for
586:
850:
435:
200:
957:
given that it took some time to sort out what was happening and what his circumstances are. I have also been following the
167:
869:
I think that the notabily of the subject is —de facto— going to be decided on this page. I think that the subject passes
446:
article and the SBS page (but the latter source doesn't count in my book since it have a connection to the documentary).
598:
1247:
65:
46:
709:
555:, just because he may have Asperger syndrome and runs a internet radio station doesn't make him notable. RockWiz is a
656:- are not enough for me; ZDNet confers a bit of notability, but I don't think it's enough to get him over the line.
1117:
I don't have any hard evidence that he has had an influence on this article, however the article was created by a
1092:
what relevance does his situation as an editor here have to do with the notability issues here at AFD? And which
278:
161:
1246:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
958:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
741:
636:
It's true that SBS is a national TV station in
Australia, but it's quite a minor one. Also, they broadcasted
1224:
1203:
1185:
1154:
1108:
1082:
1069:(the internet radio station that this person is associated with) has been deleted 4 times so far, with the
1048:
1014:
989:
973:
949:
914:
896:
882:
862:
831:
816:
790:
771:
753:
732:
715:
686:
667:
627:
593:
had a brief articles about him in 2000-2007, before his appearance on the show. For those reasons, I think
572:
537:
512:
486:
423:
398:
362:
342:
303:
282:
256:
228:
157:
88:
1141:). I'm not saying that the argument about his notability is black and white, but I happen to fall on the
1196:
1147:
1075:
1041:
934:: The subject of this article has edited Knowledge (XXG) under several accounts in the past. Please see
379:
are the only two that spring to mind, but there are a few others). This guy isn't even remotely close.
1134:
1093:
1062:
699:
594:
556:
207:
1029:
274:
695:
1010:
193:
110:
759:
560:
984:
944:
683:
662:
532:
481:
801:
1219:
1180:
1103:
968:
909:
811:
749:
622:
507:
419:
376:
357:
298:
224:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1169:
1130:
463:
In short, this person's notability as a quiz contestant does not even compare to people like
1138:
1066:
892:
858:
786:
581:
general notability guidelines. Please note, if we can trust the WebCite entries, apparently
568:
523:
173:
1165:
1126:
1118:
1002:
870:
552:
411:
320:
1195:
1146:
1074:
1040:
887:
No I don't, otherwise I would have said keep and not have stated what I have said above.
1006:
878:
827:
767:
728:
468:
380:
324:
252:
102:
94:
84:
1058:
978:
I just thought it was worth noting that discussion here for the sake of transparency.
842:
316:
312:
1259:
980:
940:
680:
658:
528:
477:
1215:
1176:
1099:
964:
905:
807:
745:
618:
503:
464:
415:
372:
353:
294:
220:
473:
article about his Internet radio station was recently deleted in an AFD discussion
140:
1057:- The coverage provided is not convincing me that this individual is notable per
723:
interesting story, sufficient sources, thanks to the work of Nuujinn. Good job.
448:
888:
854:
782:
564:
526:
was deleted, that Internet radio station cannot be used to indicate notability.
822:
sufficiently notable — I guess that's what this inquiry is bound to be about.
705:
410:. After the references that Nuujinn has added, the article clearly passes the
874:
846:
823:
763:
724:
247:
79:
640:, so naturally they had an insentive to broadcast the documentary. The
603:
590:
582:
938:, which is how I found Mark Boerebach's article in the first place.
1240:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
25:
371:
small number of people are notable for being on game shows (
1025:: The article under discussion here has been flagged for
1001:. Multiple sources in significant media outlets, passes
873:, and you don't. Not much to discuss, really... Cheers -
136:
132:
128:
762:
into this. Please stick with guidelines and policies.
192:
458:
the documentary does not even have an entry on IMDB
206:
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1250:). No further edits should be made to this page.
436:Gpoogle News Archive search for "Mark Boerebach"
646:he is not mentioned anywhere on the ABC website
8:
240:list of People-related deletion discussions
1021:
268:list of Radio-related deletion discussions
262:
234:
266:: This debate has been included in the
238:: This debate has been included in the
587:St George & Sutherland Shire Leader
45:For an explanation of the process, see
702:, so little in the way of notability.
644:has far more clout in Australia, but
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1123:Special:Contributions/Saltless-ocean
24:
29:
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
41:deletion review on 2011 March 3
841:maybe) also doesn't at to the
1:
1225:01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1204:00:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1186:22:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1155:22:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1109:23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
1083:19:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
1073:ending just a few days ago.
1049:19:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
1015:01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
990:02:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
974:01:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
950:01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
915:17:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
897:12:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
883:12:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
863:11:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
832:10:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
817:23:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
791:23:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
772:15:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
754:13:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
733:23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
716:07:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
687:03:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
668:03:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
628:01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
573:12:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
538:13:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
513:12:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
487:08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
424:07:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
399:15:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
363:02:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
343:02:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
89:05:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
694:only a smattering of fairly
304:23:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
283:17:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
257:06:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
229:05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
853:who are undoubted notable.
1282:
1266:Pages at deletion review
1243:Please do not modify it.
1061:. This appears to be a
452:is not a major magazine.
61:Please do not modify it.
1212:Certainly fair enough,
1145:side of the argument.
1037:Article Rescue Squadron
744:is not a valid reason.
551:Unfortunately he isn't
698:local coverage around
758:No nead to drag some
936:this ANI discussion
73:The result was
1051:
377:Charles Van Doren
285:
271:
259:
243:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1273:
1245:
1223:
1201:
1200:
1184:
1152:
1151:
1107:
1080:
1079:
1046:
1045:
1034:
1028:
987:
972:
947:
913:
815:
714:
665:
654:The Courier-Mail
626:
535:
511:
484:
396:
393:
390:
387:
361:
340:
337:
334:
331:
323:issues as well.
302:
272:
244:
211:
210:
196:
144:
126:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1248:deletion review
1241:
1213:
1198:
1174:
1149:
1097:
1077:
1071:most recent AfD
1043:
1032:
1026:
985:
962:
945:
903:
805:
712:
703:
663:
616:
533:
501:
482:
394:
391:
388:
385:
351:
338:
335:
332:
329:
292:
275:Jclemens-public
153:
117:
101:
98:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1279:
1277:
1269:
1268:
1258:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1207:
1206:
1189:
1188:
1158:
1157:
1112:
1111:
1086:
1085:
1052:
1018:
1017:
995:
994:
993:
992:
953:
952:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
866:
865:
835:
834:
819:
794:
793:
777:
776:
775:
774:
742:WP:INTERESTING
736:
735:
718:
708:
689:
673:
672:
671:
670:
631:
630:
575:
559:and is rather
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
516:
515:
492:
491:
490:
489:
469:Michael Larson
461:
453:
426:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
381:Andrew Lenahan
325:Andrew Lenahan
306:
286:
260:
214:
213:
150:
103:Mark Boerebach
97:
95:Mark Boerebach
92:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1278:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1251:
1249:
1244:
1238:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1110:
1105:
1101:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1038:
1031:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
991:
988:
983:
982:
977:
976:
975:
970:
966:
960:
955:
954:
951:
948:
943:
942:
937:
933:
930:
929:
916:
911:
907:
900:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
885:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
839:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
820:
818:
813:
809:
803:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
784:
779:
778:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
738:
737:
734:
730:
726:
722:
719:
717:
713:
711:
707:
701:
697:
693:
690:
688:
685:
682:
679:per bidgee -
678:
675:
674:
669:
666:
661:
660:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
629:
624:
620:
614:
610:
605:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
579:
576:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
539:
536:
531:
530:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
509:
505:
499:
496:
495:
494:
493:
488:
485:
480:
479:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
454:
451:
450:
445:
444:
437:
433:
432:
430:
427:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
400:
397:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
359:
355:
349:
346:
345:
344:
341:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
305:
300:
296:
290:
287:
284:
280:
276:
269:
265:
261:
258:
254:
250:
249:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
155:Find sources:
151:
148:
142:
138:
134:
130:
125:
121:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
99:
96:
93:
91:
90:
86:
82:
81:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1242:
1239:
1142:
1054:
1022:
998:
979:
939:
931:
720:
704:
691:
676:
657:
653:
649:
637:
577:
548:
527:
497:
476:
465:Ken Jennings
447:
443:Courier Mail
442:
428:
407:
384:
373:Ken Jennings
368:
347:
328:
308:
288:
263:
246:
235:
215:
203:
197:
189:
182:
176:
170:
164:
154:
78:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1143:not notable
1135:WP:ONEEVENT
1094:WP:ONEEVENT
1063:WP:ONEEVENT
700:WP:ONEEVENT
595:WP:ONEEVENT
557:WP:ONEEVENT
180:free images
1133:. As for
851:Alan Jones
843:notability
696:WP:TABLOID
609:television
471:, and the
1007:Arxiloxos
847:John Laws
760:WP:ESSAYS
1260:Category
959:SPI case
802:WP:BASIC
449:ThinkBig
348:Question
147:View log
1216:Nuujinn
1177:Nuujinn
1170:WP:AUTO
1131:WP:AUTO
1121:. See
1100:Nuujinn
1035:by the
965:Nuujinn
932:Comment
906:Nuujinn
808:Nuujinn
746:LibStar
692:Delete:
650:The Age
638:RocKwiz
619:Nuujinn
604:The Age
591:Penrith
578:Comment
561:trivial
553:notable
504:Nuujinn
498:Comment
416:Jenks24
354:Nuujinn
295:Nuujinn
221:LibStar
186:WP refs
174:scholar
120:protect
115:history
1197:Snotty
1166:WP:COI
1148:Snotty
1139:2PR FM
1127:WP:COI
1119:WP:SPA
1076:Snotty
1067:2PR FM
1055:Delete
1042:Snotty
1030:rescue
1003:WP:GNG
981:Graham
941:Graham
889:Bidgee
871:wp:GNG
855:Bidgee
783:Bidgee
677:Delete
659:Graham
565:Bidgee
549:Delete
529:Graham
524:2PR FM
478:Graham
429:Delete
412:WP:GNG
321:WP:COI
309:Delete
245:-- --
158:Google
124:delete
75:delete
721:Keep:
710:Stalk
706:Hrafn
613:radio
583:ZDNet
441:this
201:JSTOR
162:books
141:views
133:watch
129:links
77:. --
16:<
1220:talk
1199:Wong
1181:talk
1168:and
1150:Wong
1129:and
1104:talk
1078:Wong
1059:WP:N
1044:Wong
1023:Note
1011:talk
999:Keep
969:talk
910:talk
893:talk
879:talk
875:DVdm
859:talk
849:and
828:talk
824:DVdm
812:talk
787:talk
768:talk
764:DVdm
750:talk
729:talk
725:DVdm
684:Suro
681:Satu
652:and
623:talk
611:and
589:and
569:talk
508:talk
467:and
420:talk
408:Keep
375:and
369:very
358:talk
317:WP:V
313:WP:N
311:per
299:talk
289:Keep
279:talk
264:Note
253:talk
248:Cirt
236:Note
225:talk
194:FENS
168:news
137:logs
111:talk
107:edit
85:talk
80:Cirt
1039:.
1005:.--
642:ABC
599:SBS
392:bli
336:bli
273:--
208:TWL
145:– (
1262::
1214:--
1175:--
1098:--
1033:}}
1027:{{
1013:)
986:87
963:--
946:87
904:--
895:)
881:)
861:)
830:)
806:--
789:)
770:)
752:)
731:)
664:87
617:--
585:,
571:)
563:.
534:87
502:--
483:87
475:.
434:A
422:)
395:nd
389:ar
386:St
383:-
352:--
339:nd
333:ar
330:St
327:-
315:,
293:--
281:)
270:.
255:)
242:.
227:)
188:)
139:|
135:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
113:|
109:|
87:)
43:.
1222:)
1218:(
1183:)
1179:(
1106:)
1102:(
1009:(
971:)
967:(
912:)
908:(
891:(
877:(
857:(
826:(
814:)
810:(
785:(
766:(
748:(
727:(
625:)
621:(
567:(
510:)
506:(
460:.
439:"
418:(
360:)
356:(
301:)
297:(
277:(
251:(
223:(
212:)
204:·
198:·
190:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
160:(
152:(
149:)
143:)
105:(
83:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.