1609:(which is an essay, not policy or even a guideline); the articles published on February 15th from five different sources (CNN, NYTimes, USA Today, Columbia Spectator, and NBC) are substantially identical coverage of the same event in this case (the arrest of a suspect.) That is not surprising, if something is in the news, then most newspapers will carry an article about it, either from the wires or having a staff writer work on it. That doesn't confer inherent notability.
1428:
2451:. Now what enduring significance does this murder have? Any laws enacted? Anything changed in the future due to this murder? Of course, it is tragic, but it is just routine coverage of a murder. Knowledge (XXG) does not cover every murder, wikinews does. There were multiple suspects, so it is routine for newspapers to cover each suspects arrest, which were weeks apart. Hence, the 12 week coverage.
642:, I have been in deletion discussions a lot. Many events get attention from the media when they occur or during the trials. However, wikipedia is not a newspaper, we dont create articles for such events. Only events that will likely be notable even after 10 years from the end of the event. There is nothing that shows why this article will be notable after lets say 5 years after the trials end.-
1547:
1521:
1504:
1487:
1470:
1453:
890:. Statements like "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year" and "there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday" erode deletion discussions and wastes everybody's time, because they comment on the topic,
2228:
a stranger). The fact the victim was also a teenager, and that she was murdered in a public park on a weekday afternoon (5:30pm), also contributed to the significant interest. It does seem like race & class were factors, but neither of those things are usually enough to garner this kind of coverage. In my opinion, the case is clearly notable.
1817:
considerations should be issued a warning. It is not the job of WP editors to offer their own analysis of events, and especially not in an AfD discussion. The keep votes have clearly and definitively established that the GNG criteria have been met. The discussion should end there, before this further devolves into a socio-political debate.
2102:. This murder, while clearly tragic and RIP to her, is not an encyclopedic event or of any particular noteworthiness compared to similar events, nor is it of any lasting significance. The links provided above, by those attempting to keep the article, show that the event is notable more in the context of violent crime in NYC generally, so
2227:
One of the reasons it received such widespread coverage was the suspects are just 13-14 years old. Only about 0.5% of people arrested for murder each year are aged 15 & under, and only a tiny fraction of those are accused of a violent, intentional homicide of this nature (the repeated stabbing of
971:
neighborhood. This case involves class, race: allegedly, a group of poor black boys (teenagers) killed a rich white girl (18-year-old college student) while trying to rob her of her phone. It's a "hot button" story, and well-covered by national media, at least for now. I'm not sure if it'll pass the
2171:
per arguments by
Levivich and Wikieditor19920. I acknowledge Bus stop's point that part of the added shock in this case is the perception that a new era of high-crime rates in the city has now begun. I would add that the suspects being of such young ages (13,14) brings a highly irregular element to
1816:
I can only presume what's being suggested here. Any editor who openly disregards the guidelines on AfD discussions, which relate to sourcing and notability, and instead chooses to make wildly inappropriate suggestions about the race of the victim/accusers being relevant or other similarly off-topic
1327:
doesn't apply to all breaking news stories; it specifically calls out a case just like this one (a crime/death that has been widely reported on.) What I don't see is: what about this case is giving it the "enduring significance" to pass the bar? The news articles have a burst of coverage around the
1579:
case is especially notable because the teenagers originally charged did not commit the crime; it was committed by someone else, the convictions vacated and the teenagers sued, rightfully so. In the case we are discussing, there hasn't even been a conviction yet; in fact much of yesterday was spent
2303:
has already clearly articulated why the subject meets each of those criteria above. A qualitative assessment that goes outside of source coverage, which is highly subjective and vulnerable to NPOV problems (such as the suggestions here that the crime is only notable because of the victim's race),
2484:
You may not be appreciating the full enormity of the incident. Tessa Majors is no longer alive but the 3 young suspects are facing the possibility of tragic lives if they are found culpable for the death of the victim. At the risk of sounding melodramatic there may be 4 "victims" in the incident
2448:
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something
1342:
Your argument gets to "making the news" and stops there, as if that's a reason for exclusion. This falls far short of the careful consideration required in deletion discussions. Mere recitations of buzzwords like "breaking news" and "bursts of coverage" without reference to facts are not proper
1614:
Duration: There was heavy coverage when the crime happened in
December. There has been heavy coverage in the past few days due to arrests. Coverage in January appears to be light, due an arrest early in the month. Again, not surprising if you look at this as a news story; there was not much to
1537:
announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism ... Planned coverage of scheduled events ... Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs ... sports matches, film premieres, press conferences ... Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand
933:
or not. I think the nom has a pretty good argument, and I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, coverage did not remain SUSTAINED, and I might find myself a delete !voter. But if a three-month window is all there is to judge, while I didn't find any international coverage, the national news
1366:
and is several pages long, far more than any routine announcement. There was no "two-month gap" in press coverage. Stories and developments were periodically reported on (heavily) throughout
January.It has been covered in local and national outlets from the Daily News to the New York Times to
1241:
makes the cut, not just because of who was kidnapped and the amount of books and material written about the case, but because the results of the act caused kidnapping to become a
Federal offense. The disappearance and murder of Amber Hagerman, which was a motivation behind the creation of the
721:
Looking at the article's lead I don't see why we have a standalone article about this. A random student killed by random people and the alleged motivation is robbery, tragic, but happens all the time in the U.S., this is why I said
Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper, we don't write standalone
958:
every day that a white college student gets stabbed to death in a park a few blocks from a private women's liberal arts college, at 7:00 p.m., allegedly by a group of black teenagers in a robbery gone wrong. That really does not happen every day in the US. The killing happened in the
1268:
By no stretch is the coverage that this story has received "routine" as if it were only published in a crime blotter. To dismiss the degree of coverage this crime has received in national outlets over a sustained period is to ignore all relevant guidelines on deletion discussions.
60:
clearly is). However, those who believe this should be kept dispute the idea that this article and the sourcing available fails NOTNEWS and do so from some basis in policy and practice. As such there is not a weighting argument to be made to override the apparent keep consensus.
934:
outlets like Time, People, LATimes, WaPo, USAToday, Fox, and NBC have covered this in
December and in February, and some ran stories in January, some have run 4+ stories. I'm counting NYT as local media; the local media have been running regular updates. So it's not
1287:
explicitly state that it applies even if the event was widely reported at the time. That the topic of the article has made the news is not being contested; however it is not relevant for the AfD by itself. What is the enduring significance of this specific event?
1307:
and all that). It took years after the murder of
Hagerman ffor Amber Alert to become a law. If you think we are still "at the time" in February, and apply a rule that it must have demonstrable enduring significance, we could never cover breaking news stories.
1302:
Depends on what you mean by "at the time". December was the time of the event, but national news outlets are still reporting on it months later. Unfortunately, that's all the time we have... we can't judge whether or not this will have enduring significance
2286:
that a topic has received coverage in the news to indicate that it is notable. This most clearly applies to routine coverage, such as a tabloid or crimeblotter. That's simply the first step in the inquiry, not the last. What a user should then look to are
1619:
to know if we have the duration of coverage beyond the initial attack and news developments as they come out. That doesn't sound like duration; that sounds like what you'd expect from the news cycle from most stories, such as routine crime stories per
2333:. It's not our place to judge whether a particular event deserves media attention or not, we can only report on what has been published by reliable sources, and reliable sources have deemed this case notable enough to give it significant coverage.
1237:.' There is nothing currently about this story that gives it enduring significance. That it's been widely reported on is not relevant; a crime making the news does not confer inherent notability. There has to be something more. Something like the
755:
This is a really big case that has been followed by tens of millions of people all over the country and heavily reported on. Also, I find that it is having an impact on society. It is a socially significant case and the page on it should stay.
2510:
per
Levivich. This is also notable because there is now in the news a what some would say an increase in crime in the NYC area and this is an example of that and this is in the news for that reason, a poster child news story.
246:
Obviously a tragic event, but if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year. There were 562 murders in New York in 2019. What makes this one unusual?
1246:, doesn't even have her own article; it's a subsection of the Amber alert article. Currently there's nothing to indicate that this specific death even rises to the level of Hagerman's death. It's making the news cycle but
1657:
is an input here. She is getting significant coverage because she's a young attractive white woman. I've linked to other pages about crime victims and events, both here and in the main article's talk page; those all have
215:
444:"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)."
2523:: Lots of reliable sources. Maybe the article was created a bit prematurely, but this seems to be high-profile. I would suggest leaving the article as is, then considering deletion (if appropriate) at a later time.
1102:
This is simply wrong: GNG is a guideline, NOTNEWS is a policy. An enormous number of things generate brief bouts of news coverage that could satisfy GNG but fail to be appropriate topics for an encyclopedia.
1403:
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described
681:
My point stands, there is absolutely nothing that shows why this murder is different from the murder that happened yesterday or before yesterday in the U.S. and why it should have its standalone article
617:
before participating in deletion discussions. The only relevant criteria here for notability is attention in reliable sources. Trying to turn this into a debate about whether or not notability is
1936:
It's an attractive, young, college girl, in her freshman year, who's band just had its first gig, cut down at the start of her adult life. Now, how long is this badgering going to continue?
1433:
It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
1362:, which compared it to the Central Park Five case. The coverage in national, reliable outlets has been sustained since the crime first occurred in December (the most recent Times piece was
1446:
is not a problem. There are feature stories in national outlets like Time magazine, USA Today, LATimes, WaPo, CNN, Fox News, all three networks (CBS, NBC, ABC)... no major news outlet has
535:
168:
209:
824:
Notability is established and one of the suspects is 14 and will be tried as an adult for 2 counts of murder. A rare occurrence that a teenager will face life in prison in NYS
1890:
coverage. It is borderline tendentious to suggest that the level of coverage this subject's received is routine, as if all we were relying on here were a local crimeblotter.
1588:) brought against an editor. The similarities boil down to a young white woman attacked in New York City, and teenagers were charged. Even if they were closer in other ways,
279:
588:
There is nothing in the sources that suggest that this is any different from any "murder" or "killing" that happens in the U.S. in daily basis. This is why wikipedia is
431:, point #2. If you were correct, every single murder in any Western (i.e. Internet-rich) country would pass the requirements for an article. Why is this one important?
318:
1125:
guideline tells us that some topics which pass the notability criteria don't merit a standalone article. This would be such a case - it could usefully form part of
299:
259:
901:
954:
in New York City, but really throughout the US. RSes have noted that connection, as does our article. Murders do happen every day in the US, it's true, but it's
776:
This case is different than other because of the reasons I described above. It has been heavily publicized and closely followed by tens of millions of
Americans.
100:
1853:
Wikieditor19920, I said absolutely nothing about race and said nothing about a past consensus and sure as Hell am not FORUMSHOPPING. I made a !vote based on
1328:
time of the death in
December, and around the time of the recent arrests. It's hardly enduring when there was a two month gap with no real press coverage. --
115:
175:
141:
136:
1633:
in the future. I don't see anything about this case given what we know that indicates that this will change, and since notability is not temporary per
1042:
145:
440:
Some murder victims get more coverage. "Tessa Majors" has over 8 million hits on Google. This has also drawn comparisons to the Central Park 5. Per
2482:"There were multiple suspects, so it is routine for newspapers to cover each suspects arrest, which were weeks apart. Hence, the 12 week coverage."
1235:
whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance
570:. A deletion discussion would likely have failed when the story broke in December, based on how it was seized on by reliable sources at that time.
538:. Agree with Black Kite, "if we had an article on every murder that occurred in the USA, we would have around 10,000 extra articles every year."--
488:
128:
485:
481:
356:
So Tessa's case got attention because she's white? Sure. And not because she was an eighteen-year-old who was brutally stabbed and murdered.
791:
371:
842:
How does a story about random person who got killed by random people and the alleged motivation was robbery deserve a standalone article?--
559:. Tessa Majors murder has made national news since it occurred several months ago and developments on the case continue to make headlines.
1666:
takes on a life of its own. I think those cases easily meet the bar of lasting significance. Note what I am not saying is that this case
1372:
479:
1791:. Unfortunately, killings are not uncommon, and newspapers pick up on stories that shock. We know why this one killing shocks. Also,
1501:
Every major national news outlet, plus every local outlet, has covered this story; it's not just one newspaper or one media company.
230:
95:
88:
17:
1410:
the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine
483:
197:
2077:
This AfD is near-disruptive, the media coverage is off the charts and yes, Knowledge (XXG) has articles on notable murder cases.--
1878:? What do we "know?" And you are referencing a topic, the use of murder in the title, which a) we have already had a consensus on
1592:. I'm not making the "all or nothing" argument here, we should consider things on a case by case basis. But this argument is just
1233:, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) –
2253:
is a valid thing, and editors should be able to weigh sources that are simply piling upon one another in sensationalist fashion.
2100:"While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion"
1540:. This is none of these (see my !vote above for the unique aspects of the facts of this case, in particular it's similarity to
1250:. If that changes, the article can be restored, with proper emphasis on what about this event gave it enduring significance --
497:
1464:
1351:
109:
105:
2365:
1049:
387:
along with her being pretty, young, and well-off. If she were of another race, there wouldn't be this kind of coverage. --
2330:
564:
2326:
2250:
2012:. I think the level of coverage in good quality sources suggests this should be considered a significant current event.
1712:
Mr. Vernon—the phenomenon of "missing white woman syndrome" doesn't have bearing on which articles are kept or deleted.
1654:
943:
338:
191:
2549:
908:
talking about it. This is not debatable; the subject ENTIRELY MEETS notability guidelines and has surpassed being just
405:
I believe you'll find this one has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, thus clearing the GNG.
56:
grounds. As a policy this deserves additional weighting in a discussion over a guideline (which the General Notability
40:
2532:
2515:
2494:
2460:
2429:
2411:
2386:
2369:
2342:
2313:
2262:
2237:
2219:
2202:
2185:
2159:
2137:
2115:
2086:
2069:
2052:
2021:
1980:
1959:
1945:
1931:
1913:
1899:
1869:
1848:
1830:
1804:
1779:
1757:
1721:
1679:
1646:
1629:
Again, this is an AfD; it does not mean that there cannot be an article on this case if it does meet the criteria for
1565:
1384:
1337:
1319:
1297:
1278:
1259:
1217:
1200:
1183:
1156:
1138:
1112:
1091:
1054:
1022:
1005:
987:
921:
876:
851:
833:
815:
765:
731:
716:
695:
676:
651:
634:
601:
579:
547:
516:
471:
453:
435:
418:
396:
375:
350:
329:
310:
291:
271:
251:
132:
70:
1075:
2394:
Crimes like this are bound to get a lot of coverage for a couple of weeks. This should not be used as a bypass for
2215:
187:
1836:
1484:: Time, USA Today, CNN, etc., are national. LATimes and WaPo also shows national interest. Wide geographic scope.
441:
2456:
2407:
2309:
2133:
1976:
1895:
1882:
and b) the title of an article has nothing to do with whether it should be considered for deletion. And finally,
1844:
1826:
1753:
1380:
1274:
1087:
787:
761:
712:
672:
630:
575:
555:
The difference between this and any other murder, as is key with any event, is notability. Subject clearly meets
367:
1580:
removing the names of suspects from the article to the point where multiple editors intervened and two actions (
2420:
be deleted simply for lack of long lasting coverage. Do you think this article meets the other parts of EVENT?
2005:
1425:
This is the "enduring significance" part. It's true that it's too soon to judge whether this event is LASTING.
1363:
1359:
1035:
562:
560:
477:
1616:
1368:
1304:
1067:
1013:
easily meets GNG. The nominator makes no policy based reason for deletion. I do agree this is a tragic event.
973:
664:
568:
491:
237:
2416:”A couple of weeks”?? You mean 12 weeks (Dec-Feb)? And EVENT specifically says an article on a current event
898:
2350:
as an ongoing event with continued coverage in the media. There was a story just this week in major papers.
1941:
1909:
1865:
1800:
1179:
1108:
872:
811:
566:
2353:
2211:
1593:
1589:
779:
614:
359:
2103:
2048:
1126:
917:
124:
76:
2322:
2296:
1606:
1398:
1394:
1071:
930:
803:
2545:
847:
727:
691:
647:
597:
543:
467:
36:
1950:
I was asking for clarification. Thank you for the clarification. I did not think that was "badgering".
1904:
If you want to have me "warned" because you don't like my !vote, take me to AN/I. Meanwhile, be CIVIL.
1818:
1481:
909:
2477:
2452:
2403:
2305:
2233:
2229:
2181:
2129:
1972:
1891:
1840:
1822:
1749:
1675:
1642:
1376:
1333:
1293:
1270:
1255:
1238:
1083:
929:– The event occurred less than three months ago, so it's very difficult to judge whether coverage is
783:
757:
708:
668:
639:
626:
571:
432:
392:
363:
346:
248:
2288:
2279:
2271:
2246:
2095:
2009:
1883:
1857:, which, AFAIK, I'm allowed to do. And no, discussion should not be halted after you are satisfied.
1854:
1788:
1602:
1532:
1498:
1422:
1355:
1247:
1171:
1031:
860:
700:
683:
589:
531:
428:
203:
53:
2380:
2258:
1196:
1078:
arguments need to make reference to sources. The sole question is whether or not the subject meets
960:
829:
287:
267:
223:
66:
1122:
556:
2490:
2425:
2338:
2155:
2065:
2030:
2017:
1955:
1937:
1927:
1905:
1861:
1796:
1717:
1560:
1314:
1213:
1175:
1152:
1104:
1018:
982:
868:
807:
2402:
clarifies that in order to satisfy GNG requirements an event should have long lasting coverage.
2399:
2292:
1770:
and a high profile murder case. The article is well supported with reliable sufficient sources.
1634:
1630:
1621:
1443:
1347:
1346:
In addition to mischaracterizing the coverage as "routine," you are glossing over key criteria:
1324:
1284:
1226:
935:
656:
1408:
In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage:
2485:
reported about in this article. And the impact on the lives of the 3 suspects may be ongoing.
2361:
2198:
2111:
2044:
1637:, we should take an approach to determine whether the notability of this case is permanent. --
1576:
1541:
1134:
947:
913:
322:
303:
84:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2544:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2173:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2528:
2034:
2006:"Ms. Majors’s killing shocked the city, given that violent crime had fallen in recent years"
1775:
856:
843:
723:
687:
643:
606:
593:
539:
512:
463:
449:
414:
2395:
1858:
1767:
1585:
1581:
1118:
1098:
1079:
864:
660:
610:
2512:
2177:
2082:
1671:
1638:
1329:
1289:
1251:
996:
964:
622:
494:
388:
342:
1515:
2210:
per Wikieditor19920. This has made news in Europe and created discussion here, as well.
2029:: This is why Knowledge (XXG) articles are made. These types of articles are important.
950:
case, and that is a defining case in US cultural history (specifically race relations),
2254:
1835:
Further, this is not the appropriate forum to dispute past consensus on article moves.
1358:
sources. The murder has been the subject of multiple in-depth pieces, including in the
1192:
825:
534:
applies here. We have deleted many articles with more much covarge from the media like
283:
263:
62:
2128:
What distinguishes this crime is national and sustained coverage in reliable sources.
609:, it might be appropriate for you to familiarize yourself with the policies regarding
2486:
2443:
2421:
2334:
2300:
2151:
2126:
Most murders are not notable. This is a murder. Therefore, it's probably not notable.
2061:
2013:
1951:
1923:
1743:
1713:
1556:
1310:
1209:
1148:
1014:
978:
1518:: Wall Street Journal, New York Times, WaPo, NBC... these are all reliable sources.
1129:, since many media sources frame its significance in terms of that parent topic. —
2357:
2249:, which other have noted is an actual policy, as opposed to notability guidelines.
2194:
2107:
1663:
1662:; the reasons are different for each. Sometimes even a missing person's story like
1130:
2193:, obviously notable. National coverage persisting in the months since the event.--
1427:
1229:, specifically clause 4 (emphasis mine): 'Routine kinds of news events (including
162:
2270:
This will be my last comment on the matter. A number of users have asserted that
2099:
2524:
1771:
1243:
895:
508:
445:
410:
1546:
1520:
1503:
1486:
1469:
1452:
2078:
995:. Meets GNG. I agree it may be recentism, so re-evaluation should come later.
773:
707:
coverage or 2) original reporting. The provided sources on this are neither.
2299:. I won't reiterate the arguments for those aspects of notability, because
2060:
sustained and non-local coverage distinguish this event from most murders.
1615:
discuss. It's barely been two months since the attack and we don't have a
946:
is one explanation. Another is that this case is very reminiscent of the
2325:. As for the delete !votes that are directly or indirectly alluding to
2297:
the period over which the incident continued to receive coverage in RS
1792:
1389:
OK Vern let's look at EVENT real closely. "Enduring significance" is
968:
1748:
Well done. This is proper analysis w/ the relevant policy applied.
1968:
this has been treated as significant are not relevant, only that
462:
Hits in google might not be reliable. like from reddit etc etc.--
2540:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1467:: We have coverage throughout December, January, and February.
967:
neighborhood, and the very much less affluent, very less white
963:
neighborhood, which is the border between the affluent, white
863:. Other editors have explained why this article is covered by
52:. Those who believe this should be deleted do so largely on
1880:
which you are aware of because of your participation there,
938:, and it's about as SUSTAINED as it can be. The reason why
1601:
Depth, diversity, (national) scope, reliability: Besides
659:
This article clearly meets the sourcing requirements for
1066:
related to whether or not the event deserved attention.
976:, it's just too soon to judge, so I say keep for now. –
806:. This has been receiving ongoing, widespread coverage.
1208:
Notable murder case, with plenty of available sources.
158:
154:
150:
1450:
run in-depth (feature-length) coverage of this story.
1097:
The sole question is whether or not the subject meets
222:
2449:
further gives them additional enduring significance.
1670:
have lasting significance. It's too soon to tell. --
667:
are not grist for a legitimate deletion discussion.
2304:should only ever make a difference at the margins.
530:"murder"/"killing" happens in daily basis, clearly
236:
904:gets covered on Knowledge (XXG) because there are
1795:is a legal term and no court has called it such.
1596:which is not a good argument to be making in AfD.
1062:This thread is not the appropriate place to make
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2552:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2274:unequivocally requires deletion because if it's
2106:would be the encyclopedic topic here if any. —
317:Note: This discussion has been included in the
298:Note: This discussion has been included in the
278:Note: This discussion has been included in the
258:Note: This discussion has been included in the
2245:At some point, some teeth have to be put into
888:Ultimate, Delete-argument-death-punching Keep
280:list of New York-related deletion discussions
8:
116:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
319:list of Events-related deletion discussions
2351:
777:
357:
337:"What makes this one unusual?" Please see
316:
300:list of Women-related deletion discussions
297:
277:
260:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
257:
2008:. WP:NOTNEWS allows for the coverage of
1874:Really? What did you mean to suggest by
2329:, keep in mind that we are not here to
1918:O3000—what are you saying when you say
1145:"appropriate topic for an encyclopedia"
2481:
2147:
2143:
1920:"We know why this one killing shocks."
1919:
1875:
1813:
1536:
1432:
1407:
1402:
1144:
1096:
2148:nor is it of any lasting significance
2124:The logic here is hopelessly flawed.
1393:a requirement under EVENT. It's just
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1876:We know why this one killing shocks.
1814:We know why this one killing shocks.
1412:. These factors are described below.
2289:diversity and prominence of sources
1970:it has been treated as significant.
476:How about from the New York Times
24:
2321:per Levivich's comment regarding
505:widely covered in diverse sources
2446:The EVENT guideline states that
1545:
1519:
1502:
1485:
1468:
1451:
1426:
101:Introduction to deletion process
2037:) 19:07, 18 Febuary 2020 (UTC)
942:particular killing is notable,
722:articles for stuff like this.--
625:are getting at, is disruptive.
1406:EVENTCRIT also guides us that
1231:most crimes, accidents, deaths
1:
2533:08:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
2516:03:57, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
2495:10:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
2461:18:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2430:03:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2412:03:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
2387:20:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
2370:17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
2343:05:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
2314:17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2263:12:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2238:03:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
2220:16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
2203:07:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
2186:04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
2160:15:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
2138:15:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
2116:15:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
2087:08:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
2070:23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
2053:20:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
2022:15:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
2004:. A good quality source says
1981:19:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1960:19:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1946:19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1932:19:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1914:18:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1900:18:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1870:18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1849:17:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1831:17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1805:12:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1780:05:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
1758:19:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1722:05:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
1680:14:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
1647:21:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1566:19:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1385:19:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1338:19:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1320:19:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1298:18:29, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1279:18:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1260:18:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1218:16:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1201:16:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1184:13:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1157:15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1139:15:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1113:19:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1092:13:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1055:13:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1023:11:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1006:09:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
988:08:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
922:03:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
877:03:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
852:03:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
834:02:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
816:02:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
766:00:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
732:02:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
717:01:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
696:01:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
677:01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
665:Speculations about the future
652:01:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
635:01:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
602:01:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
580:00:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
548:00:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
517:03:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
472:00:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
454:00:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
436:00:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
419:00:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
397:15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
376:00:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
351:00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
330:00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
311:00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
292:00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
272:00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
252:00:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
71:02:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
2327:Missing white woman syndrome
2293:the level of coverage given,
2251:Missing white woman syndrome
2010:"significant current events"
1655:Missing white woman syndrome
944:Missing white woman syndrome
657:Notability is not temporary.
339:Missing white woman syndrome
91:(AfD)? Read these primers!
2569:
2278:it's somehow not notable.
2144:compared to similar events
1117:Quite so, and even within
894:its notability. Literally
501:widespread national impact
2043:Re: the above arguments.
2542:Please do not modify it.
2282:simply means that it is
1143:Why wouldn't this be an
32:Please do not modify it.
2094:per nom. Clear case of
1785:Delete and not "murder"
1570:OK, let's go over this.
1554:This passes EVENTCRIT.
2378:per GNG + coverage. --
2146:... can you name one?
2104:Crime in New York City
1964:Editors beliefs about
1431:However, LASTING says
1127:Crime in New York City
507:per WP:EVENTCRITERIA.
125:Murder of Tessa Majors
77:Murder of Tessa Majors
2150:... how do you know?
1375:, among many others.
1191:per Wikieditor19920.
703:relates to either 1)
89:Articles for deletion
1660:lasting significance
1465:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
1352:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
1239:Lindbergh kidnapping
906:professional sources
621:or whatever you and
499:...This clearly has
961:Morningside Heights
2331:right great wrongs
1535:is things such as
1478:Geographical scope
1283:The guidelines in
496:, Washington Post
2372:
2356:comment added by
2142:Pile on Amakuru!
1577:Central Park Five
1542:Central Park Five
1397:#1, there's also
1369:CNN International
1076:WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE
948:Central Park Five
795:
782:comment added by
433:Black Kite (talk)
378:
362:comment added by
332:
313:
294:
274:
249:Black Kite (talk)
106:Guide to deletion
96:How to contribute
2560:
2480:—you are saying
2383:
2212:Almost Anonymous
2101:
1837:WP:FORUMSHOPPING
1747:
1564:
1563:
1549:
1523:
1506:
1489:
1472:
1455:
1430:
1411:
1318:
1317:
1052:
1047:
1040:
986:
985:
442:WP:EVENTCRITERIA
327:
308:
241:
240:
226:
178:
166:
148:
86:
34:
2568:
2567:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2559:
2558:
2557:
2556:
2550:deletion review
2478:MistyGraceWhite
2453:MistyGraceWhite
2404:MistyGraceWhite
2381:
2306:Wikieditor19920
2172:this case (see
2130:Wikieditor19920
1973:Wikieditor19920
1892:Wikieditor19920
1841:Wikieditor19920
1823:Wikieditor19920
1750:Wikieditor19920
1741:
1559:
1555:
1409:
1377:Wikieditor19920
1313:
1309:
1271:Wikieditor19920
1084:Wikieditor19920
1064:value judgments
1050:
1043:
1036:
981:
977:
965:Upper West Side
784:LaraGingerbread
768:LaraGingerbread
758:LaraGingerbread
709:Wikieditor19920
669:Wikieditor19920
640:Wikieditor19920
627:Wikieditor19920
623:User:Black Kite
572:Wikieditor19920
427:Yes. However,
364:LaraGingerbread
323:
304:
183:
174:
139:
123:
120:
83:
80:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2566:
2564:
2555:
2554:
2536:
2535:
2518:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2389:
2373:
2345:
2316:
2284:not sufficient
2265:
2240:
2222:
2205:
2188:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2140:
2119:
2118:
2089:
2072:
2055:
2038:
2024:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1962:
1833:
1808:
1807:
1782:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1649:
1627:
1625:
1617:WP:CRYSTALBALL
1612:
1610:
1599:
1597:
1573:
1571:
1552:
1550:
1526:
1524:
1509:
1507:
1492:
1490:
1475:
1473:
1458:
1456:
1437:
1435:
1416:
1414:
1387:
1344:
1305:WP:CRYSTALBALL
1263:
1262:
1220:
1203:
1186:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1068:WP:INTERESTING
1057:
1025:
1008:
990:
974:WP:TENYEARTEST
924:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
837:
836:
797:
796:
770:
769:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
583:
582:
550:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
459:
458:
457:
456:
422:
421:
402:
401:
400:
399:
354:
353:
334:
333:
314:
295:
275:
244:
243:
180:
119:
118:
113:
103:
98:
81:
79:
74:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2565:
2553:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2538:
2537:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2519:
2517:
2514:
2509:
2506:
2505:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2483:
2479:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2445:
2444:User:Levivich
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2393:
2390:
2388:
2385:
2384:
2377:
2374:
2371:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2349:
2346:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2317:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2302:
2301:User:Levivich
2298:
2294:
2290:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2266:
2264:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2226:
2223:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2206:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2189:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2170:
2167:
2166:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2097:
2093:
2090:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2076:
2073:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2056:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2039:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2019:
2015:
2011:
2007:
2003:
2000:
1999:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1886:, applies to
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1745:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1653:
1650:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1618:
1613:
1611:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1598:
1595:
1594:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1591:
1590:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1587:
1583:
1578:
1574:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1543:
1539:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1525:
1522:
1517:
1513:
1510:
1508:
1505:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1483:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1466:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1434:
1429:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1413:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1316:
1312:
1306:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:per SN54129 (
1169:
1166:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1039:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
994:
991:
989:
984:
980:
975:
970:
966:
962:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
937:
932:
928:
925:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
900:
897:
893:
889:
886:
885:
878:
874:
870:
869:BonkHindrance
866:
862:
858:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
844:SharʿabSalam▼
841:
840:
839:
838:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
808:BonkHindrance
805:
801:
793:
789:
785:
781:
775:
772:
771:
767:
763:
759:
754:
751:
750:
733:
729:
725:
724:SharʿabSalam▼
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
688:SharʿabSalam▼
685:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
644:SharʿabSalam▼
641:
638:
637:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:WP:NOTABILITY
612:
608:
605:
604:
603:
599:
595:
594:SharʿabSalam▼
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
567:
565:
563:
561:
558:
554:
551:
549:
545:
541:
540:SharʿabSalam▼
537:
533:
529:
526:
525:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
484:
482:
480:
478:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
464:SharʿabSalam▼
461:
460:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
434:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
331:
328:
326:
320:
315:
312:
309:
307:
301:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
239:
235:
232:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
185:Find sources:
181:
177:
173:
170:
164:
160:
156:
152:
147:
143:
138:
134:
130:
126:
122:
121:
117:
114:
111:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
93:
92:
90:
85:
78:
75:
73:
72:
68:
64:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2541:
2539:
2520:
2507:
2447:
2417:
2391:
2379:
2375:
2352:— Preceding
2347:
2323:WP:EVENTCRIT
2318:
2283:
2276:in the news,
2275:
2267:
2242:
2224:
2207:
2190:
2168:
2125:
2091:
2074:
2057:
2045:IphisOfCrete
2040:
2026:
2001:
1969:
1965:
1887:
1879:
1784:
1763:
1740:
1667:
1664:Maura Murray
1659:
1651:
1607:WP:109PAPERS
1528:
1511:
1494:
1477:
1460:
1447:
1439:
1418:
1399:WP:EVENTCRIT
1395:WP:EVENTCRIT
1390:
1364:two days ago
1234:
1230:
1222:
1205:
1188:
1167:
1072:WP:IDONTCARE
1063:
1059:
1044:
1037:
1027:
1010:
999:
997:
992:
955:
951:
939:
931:WP:SUSTAINED
927:Keep for now
926:
914:HumanxAnthro
905:
891:
887:
821:
804:WP:SUSTAINED
799:
798:
778:— Preceding
752:
704:
618:
552:
527:
504:
500:
406:
384:
358:— Preceding
355:
325:CAPTAIN RAJU
324:
306:CAPTAIN RAJU
305:
245:
233:
227:
219:
212:
206:
200:
194:
184:
171:
82:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2191:Speedy Keep
2169:Speedy Keep
2075:Speedy keep
1819:WP:NOTFORUM
1766:This meets
1652:Furthermore
1512:Reliability
1482:WP:GEOSCOPE
1244:Amber alert
1189:Speedy keep
910:WP:ONEEVENT
902:of nonsense
857:SharabSalam
607:SharabSalam
553:Speedy Keep
210:free images
2513:Sir Joseph
2280:WP:NOTNEWS
2272:WP:NOTNEWS
2247:WP:NOTNEWS
2230:Chrisz2264
2178:StonyBrook
2096:WP:NOTNEWS
1884:WP:NOTNEWS
1855:WP:NOTNEWS
1789:WP:NOTNEWS
1672:Mr. Vernon
1639:Mr. Vernon
1603:WP:NOTNEWS
1533:WP:ROUTINE
1499:WP:DIVERSE
1423:WP:LASTING
1356:WP:DIVERSE
1343:arguments.
1330:Mr. Vernon
1290:Mr. Vernon
1252:Mr. Vernon
1248:WP:NOTNEWS
1172:WP:NOTNEWS
952:especially
861:WP:EXHAUST
774:Black Kite
701:WP:NOTNEWS
684:WP:NOTNEWS
590:WP:NOTNEWS
532:WP:NOTNEWS
429:WP:NOTNEWS
389:Mr. Vernon
343:Mr. Vernon
54:WP:NOTNEWS
2546:talk page
2418:shouldn't
2398:, rather
2382:Jezebelle
2255:ValarianB
1495:Diversity
1193:Loksmythe
1123:WP:NOPAGE
826:Slywriter
619:deserved,
557:WP:NCRIME
284:Shellwood
264:Shellwood
63:Barkeep49
58:Guideline
37:talk page
2548:or in a
2487:Bus stop
2422:Levivich
2400:WP:EVENT
2366:contribs
2354:unsigned
2335:Surachit
2152:Levivich
2062:Jweiss11
2014:Bus stop
1952:Bus stop
1924:Bus stop
1744:Levivich
1714:Bus stop
1635:WP:NTEMP
1631:WP:EVENT
1622:WP:EVENT
1461:Duration
1444:WP:DEPTH
1348:WP:DEPTH
1325:WP:EVENT
1285:WP:EVENT
1227:WP:EVENT
1210:Dimadick
1149:Bus stop
1060:Reminder
1015:Mr Ernie
1000:Мандичка
936:WP:LOCAL
792:contribs
780:unsigned
372:contribs
360:unsigned
169:View log
110:glossary
39:or in a
2358:Bearian
2268:Comment
2195:Eostrix
2174:WP:MILL
2108:Amakuru
1888:routine
1529:Routine
1404:below).
1131:Amakuru
705:routine
503:and is
493:, Time
216:WP refs
204:scholar
142:protect
137:history
87:New to
2525:Dflaw4
2396:WP:GNG
2392:Delete
2243:Delete
2092:Delete
2031:11S117
1859:WP:CIV
1793:murder
1772:Abishe
1768:WP:GNG
1605:, see
1586:WP:ANI
1582:WP:EWN
1419:Impact
1354:, and
1223:Delete
1174:). --
1168:Delete
1121:, the
1119:WP:GNG
1099:WP:GNG
1080:WP:GNG
1032:policy
1028:Delete
969:Harlem
865:WP:GNG
661:WP:GNG
611:WP:GNG
528:Delete
509:Enwebb
490:, CNN
487:, NBC
446:Enwebb
411:Enwebb
188:Google
146:delete
2079:Pudeo
1938:O3000
1906:O3000
1862:O3000
1797:O3000
1668:won't
1557:Leviv
1516:WP:RS
1440:Depth
1311:Leviv
1051:54129
979:Leviv
899:sorts
231:JSTOR
192:books
176:Stats
163:views
155:watch
151:links
16:<
2529:talk
2521:Keep
2508:Keep
2491:talk
2457:talk
2426:Talk
2408:talk
2376:Keep
2362:talk
2348:Keep
2339:talk
2319:Keep
2310:talk
2295:and
2259:talk
2234:talk
2225:Keep
2216:talk
2208:Keep
2199:talk
2182:talk
2156:lulz
2134:talk
2112:talk
2083:talk
2066:talk
2058:Keep
2049:talk
2041:Keep
2035:talk
2027:Keep
2018:talk
2002:Keep
1977:talk
1956:talk
1942:talk
1928:talk
1910:talk
1896:talk
1866:talk
1845:talk
1827:talk
1801:talk
1776:talk
1764:Keep
1754:talk
1718:talk
1676:talk
1643:talk
1584:and
1575:The
1401:#2:
1381:talk
1371:and
1334:talk
1294:talk
1275:talk
1256:talk
1225:per
1214:talk
1206:Keep
1197:talk
1180:talk
1153:talk
1135:talk
1109:talk
1088:talk
1030:per
1019:talk
1011:Keep
993:Keep
940:this
918:talk
873:talk
859:see
848:talk
830:talk
822:Keep
812:talk
802:per
800:Keep
788:talk
762:talk
753:Keep
728:talk
713:talk
692:talk
673:talk
648:talk
631:talk
613:and
598:talk
576:talk
544:talk
536:here
513:talk
468:talk
450:talk
415:talk
407:Keep
393:talk
368:talk
347:talk
341:. --
288:talk
268:talk
224:FENS
198:news
159:logs
133:talk
129:edit
67:talk
50:keep
2176:).
1966:why
1561:ich
1544:).
1538:out
1448:not
1391:not
1373:CBS
1360:NYT
1315:ich
1176:JBL
1105:JBL
1004:😜
983:ich
956:not
896:all
892:not
686:.--
592:.--
385:Yes
238:TWL
167:– (
2531:)
2493:)
2459:)
2428:)
2410:)
2368:)
2364:•
2341:)
2312:)
2291:,
2261:)
2236:)
2218:)
2201:)
2184:)
2158:)
2136:)
2114:)
2098:-
2085:)
2068:)
2051:)
2020:)
1979:)
1958:)
1944:)
1930:)
1922:?
1912:)
1898:)
1868:)
1847:)
1839:.
1829:)
1821:.
1803:)
1787:-
1778:)
1756:)
1720:)
1678:)
1645:)
1531::
1514::
1497::
1480::
1463::
1442::
1421::
1383:)
1350:,
1336:)
1296:)
1288:--
1277:)
1258:)
1216:)
1199:)
1182:)
1155:)
1147:?
1137:)
1111:)
1103:--
1090:)
1082:.
1074:.
1045:SN
1038:——
1034:.
1021:)
920:)
912:.
875:)
867:--
850:)
832:)
814:)
794:)
790:•
764:)
730:)
715:)
694:)
675:)
663:.
650:)
633:)
600:)
578:)
546:)
515:)
470:)
452:)
417:)
409:.
395:)
374:)
370:•
349:)
321:.
302:.
290:)
282:.
270:)
262:.
218:)
161:|
157:|
153:|
149:|
144:|
140:|
135:|
131:|
69:)
2527:(
2489:(
2455:(
2442:@
2424:(
2406:(
2360:(
2337:(
2308:(
2257:(
2232:(
2214:(
2197:(
2180:(
2154:(
2132:(
2110:(
2081:(
2064:(
2047:(
2033:(
2016:(
1975:(
1954:(
1940:(
1926:(
1908:(
1894:(
1864:(
1843:(
1825:(
1799:(
1774:(
1752:(
1746::
1742:@
1716:(
1674:(
1641:(
1624:.
1379:(
1332:(
1303:(
1292:(
1273:(
1254:(
1212:(
1195:(
1178:(
1151:(
1133:(
1107:(
1086:(
1070:/
1017:(
998:—
916:(
871:(
846:(
828:(
810:(
786:(
760:(
726:(
711:(
690:(
671:(
646:(
629:(
596:(
574:(
542:(
511:(
466:(
448:(
413:(
391:(
366:(
345:(
286:(
266:(
242:)
234:·
228:·
220:·
213:·
207:·
201:·
195:·
190:(
182:(
179:)
172:·
165:)
127:(
112:)
108:(
65:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.