780:, both of which are well-established academically. (If you doubt the second claim, consider that numerous institutions have established departments of indigenous studies and there are numerous dedicated journals on the topic.) It is true that these are not highly-cited areas (having commensurately higher inclusion bars) like applied physics or molecular biology, but Tarpent's research impact (record available in GS) is very mediocre, even by the lowest of standards. A paper from 1983 has 17 citations and one from 1997 has 23. The rest are single digits. The article is mostly sourced with Tarpent's own works, her CV, a grant application (for which she was
1037:: As a linguist, after looking carefully into some of Tarpent's published works, I believe she has made significant contributions to the analysis of the Nishka and Gitskan languages which cannot be found in other studies. Even if these languages are not considered to be on the same level as those covered by Chomsky, her biography therefore deserves to be included in the encyclopaedia.--
784:
the PI), an unrefereed report, etc. General web searching turns up nothing more than facebooky-type hits, faculty pages, etc., but no general coverage (like in newspapers) that would qualify her under GNG. Finally, WorldCat shows holdings of her print books to be in the single digits. So, you might
771:
applied to theoretical physics would be called a "physicist" and would likely be found in a department of physics. We could, for almost any intellectual, commit the fallacy of continuing to sub-divide a field of study in order to drill down to a sufficiently specialized area to be able to then claim
521:
I mostly agree with Andrew D.'s assessment above. She seems to be notable in her narrow field of linguistics. I concur with
Uanfala that citation metrics are not the best criteria to be used in this case. From WP:Academic "Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in
772:
that "she is an actual leader in her extremely narrow field". By definition, most academics do indeed "specialize" in this context, and would therefore be notable using your (fallacious) argument. This particular person has worked on a specific indigenous language, which is certainly a part of both
457:
To a point, but the smaller the pond one considers the bigger the fish would have to be to be considered notable. Otherwise anyone could be considered notable, by being the authority in the specific subject of their own research. And
Tsimshianic linguistics seems like a pretty small pond to me. I'd
936:
Yes, I count maybe ~40 individual citations and acknowledgements (the latter which don't count). This is very mediocre and pushing to classify her area as "very narrow" and therefore a low-enough-citation-area that we should exempt this case from standards is basically special pleading. Citations,
892:
Chomsky is widely regarded as the most influential living intellectual in any field and is explicitly described in our article as "one of the most cited scholars in history". He's probably not the most useful point of comparison. Also, the subject of this AfD is a 76-year-old retired professor, so
709:
per Thsmi002. Agricola44 is being obtuse in response: she is an actual leader in her extremely narrow field for the purposes of that guideline. I find it a bit ludicrous to try to claim that a linguist specialising in very specific languages is really specialising in "indigenous studies" (er, no)
1000:
before deciding whether they are notable, we also can't just say "it's a small field" and ignore their publication record. Are there any independent secondary sources that actually discuss
Tarpent and her impact on her field in any depth? And we have to be careful here, if we define an academic's
52:. Opinions are divided about whether the subject is notable, with some turning to standard metrics and others highlighting what they consider her significant contributions to linguistics. These are all valid arguments, and therefore the article is kept by default for lack of consensus to delete.
200:
Non-notable academic. Clearly does not meet WP:PROF. <100 Google hits. Scopus lists a total of one academic article to her name (published in 1997 and has only six citations). According to the talk page, the article was pure COI. It was created by one of her friends and has been extensively
1134:, it's an informative biography of a scholar who made significant contributions to linguistics, primary sources are used appropriately, and it violates none of our core content policies. Deleting it would be a detriment to the encyclopaedia, so why delete it? –
1070:
I offered my "opinion" after adding to the article. The article and its references have developed considerably since it was tagged. In any case, I still maintain the main role of an encyclopaedia is to be informative, in line with the views of
591:. The last 3 "keeps" have been tendered on the basis of a standard academic flourish ("contributed significantly") in an unpublished report by someone whose affiliation I cannot find. This is far short of what we typically accept for PROF c1.
573:
is a guideline and it should be weighed with common sense. There's really exception here. A person described as authority in a particular discipline by reliable sources such is enough to o merit an article in a truly educational encyclopedia.
489:
Marie-Lucie
Tarpent, a linguist who works with the southern Tsimshian at Kitasoo and with the Nisga’a, has contributed significantly to the understanding of the language and the importance of morphemes (the component words that make up most
1019:
Linguistics is not that small a field, that there wouldn't be some coverage, re: trade magazines, awards and honours (medals), professional qualifications, professional bodies, institutes, academies, associations etc, paper's and so on.
1089:
The references are still mostly her own works and websites and such. Equally problematic, none of the usual indicators for passing PROF are there, as explained above. Your justification seems to boil down to, as you said, "I believe..."
1175:
states plainly at the outset that it should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I reckon that the subject passes criterion #1 but this might otherwise reasonably be considered one of those exceptions.
1198:. But we're not here to apply rote rules, we're here to write an encyclopaedia, and against the odds this has been turned into a decent encyclopaedia article. Put another way, can the delete !voters point to anything that is actually
857:
The subject's entries in Google books are of material written by the subject, not about her by others and the link you give are just of people acknowleging help. They don't count as citations. Citations are not necessarily small in
656:-like delete argument. Academic like this will not get scooped by journalist for every immense underground work they do for human literature like how they'll do when really amateur musician posts "hi" on Twitter. That's why
500:". When athletes are routinely permitted pages just for showing up on the sport field, we should not set the bar higher for respectable scholars. The page should be permitted to remain for further development per our
169:
1121:
or any other SNG. But the purpose of notability guidelines are to help us decide which topics we can write good encyclopaedia articles about. And looking it this page, I see a good encyclopaedia article. Thanks to
447:
I don't think an area like
Tsimshianic linguistics is wont to generate citation counts of the magnitude usually seen in more popular fields. Notability of academics is evaluated relative to their field, right? –
238:
382:, she had published more academic papers than the subject here, and had also authored multiple books, but that article was deleted, and it took her adding more to her publication record for it to return.
937:
whether in books, journals, or conf papers are counted individually and equally...and low double-digits over a many-decades career simply does not disntinguish
Tarpent from the "average professor".
638:
So, you maintain that the opinion of an apparently amateur historian expressed in a single, unpublished work, with no other corroborating RS is enough to convince you that this person is notable?
836:
378:
I have to admit that I also used to think that people not much more accomplished than the subject here were notable, but I have come to see they are not. When I first created the article on
1243:
458:
rather compare her to linguists considered more broadly. And given how easy it is in linguistics to find papers that individually have thousands of citations, hers just don't stack up. —
682:
material vouching for the reliability of this document. If you have more info, please share. Otherwise, you and the other "keeps" are basing your !votes on a single, unreliable source.
723:
338:
122:
163:
298:
278:
318:
218:
660:
is guideline and common sense will tell us not stick to array of sources but the quality of their content, the impact and academic authority the subjects enjoys. –
258:
129:
794:
747:
95:
90:
835:-- linguistics is a low-cited field, but Google books bring up enough mentions to indicate that the subject is considered an expert in the field
1245:, but nonetheless in this case supports maintaining the article. She was chair of the department of languages at Mount Saint Vincent University.
99:
1239:, which is a flawed guideline when it comes to fields other than hard sciences and fails to take into account citation and publishing biases,
82:
544:
Indigenous studies (like AA studies, women's studies, etc.) have been growing rapidly in the last several decades. It is most certainly
484:
17:
184:
151:
1055:
The personal opinions of editors count for little unless supported by independent sources and there are too few of them here.
1246:
957:
719:
1324:
396:
Scopus is of no use in this subject area. Tarpent has quite a few publications coming up on a google scholar search. –
40:
1249:
1240:
145:
1303:
1272:
1221:
1185:
1167:
1145:
1099:
1084:
1064:
1046:
1029:
1011:
978:
946:
926:
908:
879:
848:
826:
691:
669:
647:
629:
600:
583:
557:
535:
513:
467:
452:
442:
421:
400:
391:
370:
350:
330:
310:
290:
270:
250:
230:
210:
64:
1181:
625:
509:
387:
141:
463:
438:
86:
1288:
Getting a bit off topic, but I think it would be a good idea to incorporate those biases into the guideline.
1252:
715:
777:
764:
specialties, which have numerous sub-specialities, and so on down the line. For example a person working on
738:. The editor has a long record at academic Afds and knows policy in that area probably as well as anybody.
191:
417:
1002:
989:
501:
493:
1320:
1154:
You answered your own question with your observation "there's no way this can be stretched to a pass of
1123:
1025:
844:
206:
36:
914:
867:
1177:
1163:
1095:
1072:
1060:
942:
922:
875:
822:
790:
743:
687:
643:
621:
596:
553:
505:
383:
366:
894:
498:
The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed
459:
434:
379:
177:
78:
70:
665:
579:
531:
157:
479:
Browsing the sources out there, it seems clear that the page is reasonably accurate. I found a
1158:
or any other SNG". I would submit that all the recent keeps are nothing more than editor POVs.
1298:
1263:
are works not by the author, which discuss her work and could be used to improve the article.
1216:
1140:
1080:
1042:
903:
449:
413:
397:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1319:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1289:
1236:
1203:
1172:
1155:
1118:
807:
711:
657:
613:
609:
570:
480:
430:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1268:
1191:
1021:
840:
765:
202:
1114:
993:
653:
409:
1260:
1256:
1159:
1091:
1056:
938:
918:
887:
871:
818:
786:
739:
683:
639:
592:
549:
362:
361:. Additionally, the article is circularly sourced all with subject's own papers/chapters.
1292:
does make reference to disciplinary differences but it's rather vague and out of date. –
996:. While we have to be very careful not to just look at an academic's citation count and
969:
345:
325:
305:
285:
265:
245:
225:
55:
1001:"field" narrowly enough then nearly all academic researchers would pass criteria 1 of
1127:
661:
575:
527:
678:
appeared as a peer-reviewed publication? After looking a fair bit, I could not find
1293:
1211:
1135:
1131:
1076:
1038:
1005:. One sentence in one report doesn't meet a reasonable threshold in my opinion. --
898:
863:
674:
I find your argument to be inscrutable. Are you saying that the report by
Marsden
116:
1283:
1264:
1006:
859:
773:
866:
has over 100,000 GS citations, the subject has less than 100. Looks like a
342:
322:
302:
282:
262:
242:
222:
734:
Please do not be rude to a respected and experienced editor by calling her
618:
it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply
814:
is 6, which is inadequate even for an obscure field. Thanks to Andrew D
652:" Amateur historian"?! this is not surprising for someone who expressed
1190:
Yes I do agree that notability is a valid concern and I understand why
997:
811:
1202:
with the article, other than the fact it doesn't meet the letter of
522:
and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy
Criterion 1,
1313:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
487:
and so was being consulted as an authority. This states that "
988:
Largely per the comments of
Agricola44. Looks like she fails
960:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
239:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
483:
written by Susan Marsden, who seems to be a curator at the
1117:. Yes, there's no way this can be stretched to a pass of
526:" She may fall under that last portion of criterion 1.
1195:
815:
785:
comment on which of these aspects renders her notable.
112:
108:
104:
176:
429:. Citation counts in Google Scholar are too low for
966:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
190:
810:. Unfortunately the farthest I can stretch the GS
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1327:). No further edits should be made to this page.
524:except for the actual leaders in those subjects.
339:list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions
616:; it's a guideline and states explicitly that "
299:list of Education-related deletion discussions
433:and no other form of notability is evident. —
279:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
492:" I consider that this is adequate to pass
337:Note: This debate has been included in the
317:Note: This debate has been included in the
297:Note: This debate has been included in the
277:Note: This debate has been included in the
257:Note: This debate has been included in the
237:Note: This debate has been included in the
217:Note: This debate has been included in the
913:I was trying to be charitable, but I guess
319:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
219:list of People-related deletion discussions
336:
316:
296:
276:
259:list of Women-related deletion discussions
256:
236:
216:
710:for the purposes of trying to end-run
893:I'm not sure when you'd be expecting
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
817:for drawing attention to this AfD.
485:Museum of Northern British Columbia
760:Each broad intellectual topic has
24:
992:and she definitely looks to fail
1206:? Which, let's remember, is a
1:
827:23:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
795:19:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
724:10:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
692:03:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
670:03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
648:23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
630:21:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
601:21:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
584:14:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
558:23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
536:13:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
514:10:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
468:22:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
453:13:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
443:08:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
422:08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
401:13:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
392:05:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
371:16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
351:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
331:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
311:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
291:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
271:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
251:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
231:14:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
211:13:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
1304:17:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1273:16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1222:16:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1186:16:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1168:16:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1146:16:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1100:14:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1085:11:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
65:18:03, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
1065:21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
1047:12:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
1030:12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
1012:09:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
979:15:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
947:04:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
927:21:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
909:11:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
880:02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
849:01:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
748:07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
201:edited by Tarpent herself.
1344:
1316:Please do not modify it.
1290:WP:PROF#Citation metrics
548:a narrow area of study.
32:Please do not modify it.
1194:nominated the article
917:has expired already.
380:Camille Fronk Olson
79:Marie-Lucie Tarpent
71:Marie-Lucie Tarpent
778:indigenous studies
758:I beg your pardon.
1302:
1220:
1144:
981:
977:
907:
716:The Drover's Wife
569:it is noteworthy
384:John Pack Lambert
353:
348:
333:
328:
313:
308:
293:
288:
273:
268:
253:
248:
233:
228:
63:
1335:
1318:
1296:
1287:
1214:
1138:
1124:Queen-washington
1009:
976:
974:
967:
965:
963:
961:
901:
891:
496:, which states "
346:
326:
306:
286:
266:
246:
226:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1325:deletion review
1314:
1281:
1073:Andrew Davidson
1007:
982:
970:
968:
956:
954:
885:
769:
408:per nom. Fails
347:(distænt write)
327:(distænt write)
307:(distænt write)
287:(distænt write)
267:(distænt write)
247:(distænt write)
227:(distænt write)
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1341:
1339:
1330:
1329:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1276:
1275:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1196:as he found it
1188:
1149:
1148:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1068:
1050:
1049:
1032:
1014:
964:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
852:
851:
830:
800:
799:
798:
797:
767:
754:
753:
752:
751:
727:
726:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
633:
632:
604:
603:
586:
563:
562:
561:
560:
539:
538:
516:
502:editing policy
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
460:David Eppstein
450:Uanfala (talk)
435:David Eppstein
424:
403:
398:Uanfala (talk)
394:
373:
355:
354:
334:
314:
294:
274:
254:
234:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1340:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1300:
1295:
1291:
1285:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1018:
1015:
1013:
1010:
1004:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
983:
980:
975:
973:
962:
959:
948:
944:
940:
935:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
905:
900:
897:to expire? –
896:
889:
884:
883:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
831:
828:
824:
820:
816:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
796:
792:
788:
783:
779:
775:
770:
763:
759:
756:
755:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
725:
721:
717:
713:
708:
705:
704:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
594:
590:
587:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
517:
515:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
486:
482:
478:
475:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
454:
451:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
402:
399:
395:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
372:
368:
364:
360:
357:
356:
352:
349:
344:
340:
335:
332:
329:
324:
320:
315:
312:
309:
304:
300:
295:
292:
289:
284:
280:
275:
272:
269:
264:
260:
255:
252:
249:
244:
240:
235:
232:
229:
224:
220:
215:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
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:
1315:
1312:
1232:
1207:
1199:
1110:
1034:
1016:
1003:WP:NACADEMIC
990:WP:NACADEMIC
985:
971:
955:
864:Noam Chomsky
832:
803:
781:
761:
757:
735:
706:
679:
675:
617:
588:
566:
545:
523:
518:
497:
494:WP:NACADEMIC
488:
476:
426:
414:AuthorAuthor
405:
375:
358:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1192:Bueller 007
1022:scope_creep
915:WP:Too soon
868:WP:Too soon
860:linguistics
841:K.e.coffman
774:linguistics
203:Bueller 007
164:free images
1160:Agricola44
1092:Agricola44
1057:Xxanthippe
972:Sandstein
939:Agricola44
919:Xxanthippe
895:WP:TOOSOON
888:Xxanthippe
872:Xxanthippe
819:Xxanthippe
787:Agricola44
740:Xxanthippe
684:Agricola44
640:Agricola44
614:rigid rule
593:Agricola44
550:Agricola44
431:WP:PROF#C1
363:Agricola44
58:Sandstein
1321:talk page
1208:guideline
1178:Andrew D.
622:Andrew D.
612:is not a
506:Andrew D.
37:talk page
1323:or in a
1128:Thsmi002
958:Relisted
806:. Fails
762:numerous
662:Ammarpad
576:Ammarpad
528:Thsmi002
123:View log
39:or in a
1237:WP:PROF
1204:WP:PROF
1173:WP:PROF
1156:WP:PROF
1132:Ipigott
1119:WP:PROF
1077:Ipigott
1039:Ipigott
1017:Comment
998:H-index
812:h-index
808:WP:Prof
712:WP:PROF
658:WP:PROF
610:WP:PROF
589:Comment
571:WP:PROF
490:words).
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1284:SusunW
1265:SusunW
1130:, and
1115:WP:IAR
1008:Shudde
994:WP:GNG
986:Delete
804:Delete
736:obtuse
654:WP:JNN
481:report
427:Delete
410:WP:BIO
406:Delete
376:Delete
359:Delete
142:Google
100:delete
1200:wrong
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1299:talk
1269:talk
1261:this
1259:and
1257:this
1253:This
1235:per
1233:Keep
1217:talk
1210:. –
1182:talk
1164:talk
1141:talk
1113:per
1111:Keep
1096:talk
1081:talk
1061:talk
1043:talk
1035:Keep
1026:talk
943:talk
923:talk
904:talk
876:talk
845:talk
837:link
833:Keep
823:talk
791:talk
776:and
744:talk
720:talk
707:Keep
688:talk
666:talk
644:talk
626:talk
597:talk
580:talk
567:Keep
554:talk
532:talk
519:Keep
510:talk
477:Keep
464:talk
439:talk
418:talk
388:talk
367:talk
343:L3X1
323:L3X1
303:L3X1
283:L3X1
263:L3X1
243:L3X1
223:L3X1
207:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1294:Joe
1212:Joe
1136:Joe
1075:.--
899:Joe
782:not
680:any
676:has
620:".
546:not
192:TWL
121:– (
1271:)
1255:,
1251:.
1248:,
1242:,
1184:)
1166:)
1126:,
1098:)
1083:)
1063:)
1045:)
1028:)
945:)
925:)
882:.
878:)
870:.
862:,
847:)
839:.
825:)
793:)
746:)
722:)
714:.
690:)
668:)
646:)
628:)
599:)
582:)
556:)
534:)
512:)
504:.
466:)
441:)
420:)
412:.
390:)
369:)
341:.
321:.
301:.
281:.
261:.
241:.
221:.
209:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1301:)
1297:(
1286::
1282:@
1267:(
1219:)
1215:(
1180:(
1162:(
1143:)
1139:(
1094:(
1079:(
1067:.
1059:(
1041:(
1024:(
941:(
929:.
921:(
906:)
902:(
890::
886:@
874:(
843:(
829:.
821:(
789:(
768:8
766:E
750:.
742:(
718:(
686:(
664:(
642:(
624:(
595:(
578:(
552:(
530:(
508:(
462:(
437:(
416:(
386:(
365:(
205:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.