232:, not the national side, and even if it were, a national show such as TODAY, or anything of them would still be only trivial and casual news stories, as is this article here; looking at 10 pages of News all found both blatant and casual advertising, regardless of publication, because that's what the contents exactly were. The 1st AfD had several noticeable troubles about it, not only is that no one ever acknowledged the advertising concerns, but that we're quite obviously aware of such concerns now, and we easily have both policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT to delete it.
532:- Regardless, none of this is satisfying policy WP:NOT as (1) the ABC News links are in fact local news stations, not at all an independent source as it's only localized information and naturally to advertise locally and it shows "The company offers, the company days today, etc.), and the other links repeat this also L, showing only one person would've authored it, the company itself, even worse so, because it's only advertising localized services. The TC is literally labeled "information by the company" so yet another non-independent source.
550:
free service can not only tell you which is the cheapest supplier overall for your entire selection of products, but can also suggest ways of reducing your bill at your chosen supermarket by substituting other goods to get a better deal....Unlike the supermarkets' own websites, mySupermarket.co.uk also lets you adapt shelves to shop by brand or type.....it's cheaper per 100g to buy a pack of 12 Golden Vale
Cheestrings Twisters at £2.98 or a pack of 16 at £3.78 (the latter is cheaper by 5p).....potentially save up to £28 more....
702:, which explicitly allows removal of this. The only changes being made here are cosmetics and not actually fixing the concerns, therefore we cannot fix a blatant advertisement by simply rewording a few things (essentially confirming no meaninnggul improvements) since the concept is still advertising, regardless. There is no different path to word their "services and clients" section without it dtill beg advertising. When we willingly start to accept advertising, we're damned.
1177:, what policy is higher than the one serious important one we have WP:NOT which explicitly states we are not a business webhost and can remove it. The sources themselves have been shown to be nothing but republished words and company notices, if that's all we have, why damn ourselves as a PR webhost? Supposed improvements are not relevant if policy states against it.
783:. Considering that nobody in this AFD has bothered to clean it up, I suggest we go with a delete. (As a matter of fact, I have seen a recent influx of editors using these trashy articles as models and then trying to emulate these, leading to a host of bad content.) The other reason for deleting is that the sources are not good enough to satisfy
698:- As simply a note, no one at all has actually made substantial improvements to this, showing no one has actually cared to make them, and it cannot be confused they will even happen later if not now. Also, the Keep votes are still either saying "It needs improvements only" or stating general notability, instead of
1200:
WP:NOT doesn't trump GNG, GNG is the most important policy and well respected policy we have and IMHO GNG trumps NOT, You may believe it's a business webhost however I believe it's an artcle that meets CORDEPTH and GNG and IMHO is worth saving, I believe the sources are fine however there's tons more
235:
All of these sources only covey what the company would advertise about itself, not what a genuine news article would say, and hence we have churnalism. As it is, the history shows nothing but advertising-only accounts showing how the company was quite likely aware of this article since it bears such
1008:
To state the obvious, this AfD has been going for nearly a month now and all any Keep people have suggested is "Let's improve it" yet no one has, even while this AfD is happening and hence is instead quickly becoming Delete. WP:NOT policy is not negotiable with such company advertising, as we know,
1100:
Even if we consider 2 years ago, that itself is not an explanation for not deleting now, especially since we're harder with spam now. That said, this current article has absolutely no criticism at all, only company financials, activities and itshows company plans. That violates WP:NOT's "Knowledge
549:
Either way, if you do a regular supermarket shop - particularly if you shop online - mySupermarket.co.uk, which claims to save users up to 20% on their weekly shop, is at least worth a look....By accessing data that is updated daily from each of the supermarkets' own websites, this independent and
543:
Another is the fact all of this are actually specialized local PR trade publications, including Daily Mail which is notorious for any local for republishing whatever it pleases. Basically the only genuinely major source is the
Guardian but even that one, regardless of it being national, is still
268:
per the general national news sources, published over a period of 9 years, already cited in the article. Though I agree most of the article is made up of cherry-picked information from the news articles. It's not unsalvagable, though I see the article has had some input from the MySupermarket PR
536:
All of this violates WP:NOT because it clearly states "Knowledge (XXG) is not a sales catalogue or web host of business services" and that's exactly what it is. Especially since TC is notorious for republishing company information, especially the fact it's caring to focus only "company-supplied
1268:
GNG is still the most respected policy here and trumps NOT, Also NOT is irrelevant here because the article isn't a blatant promotion - It's a notable topic and the sources prove that, Also being promotional isn't a valid reason for deletion because promo text can be copy-edited and immensely
974:) that it is absolutely common practice to cleanup an article mid-AfD in the interest of saving it. I've seen it done many times and done so at least once myself. Even if the article is deleted anyway, the rewrite can be the basis for a future article if more sources become available.
875:, and this one is about a non-notable company. An AFD remains open for like 7 days and is usually relisted once or twice (making it 14-21 days). That provides sufficient time to demonstrate notability and improve the article. Btw, there was a previous AFD (See
557:
None of the keep votes have acknowledged WP:NOT, instead going with general guidelines, and they are simply not the same. When we start ignoring policy, we're damned. Now, given this, not a single one of those sources is genuinely national or international,
227:
Blatant advertisement even if it's not as severe as others because not only are the casually tossed sources here all trivial and unconvincing, some are obvious press releases while others are comparably covert about it, and the ABC News themselves are
1082:. To be honest I'd challenge any of the 'delete'ers to actually point to which parts of this article are irrepairable. It's plainly not irrepairable. In fact the article is quite a standard, acceptable format of description, timeline and criticism.
994:. I find it difficult to understand how different experienced editors can draw such diverse conclusions. The article is easily salvageable, but I've no connection or particular affection for mySupermarket so if it gets removed then so be it.
296:,. In my view the article now conforms to the acceptable standards of similar, reasonably written articles on Knowledge (XXG). The claims below that on-one will improve the article were untrue at the time and continue to be untrue.
729:
Mind you, this is an 'Articles for deletion' discussion, not an 'Articles for clean-up' discussion. There are some fairly simple steps to take to remove PUFF wording and add a bit of balance. I've already done some of that myself.
240:
as an advertisement and it was noticeably removed and then the advertising would be added again, showing the sheer motivations and how we knew in 2014, but no one gave a damn to delete it before it caused worse damages.
552:
Later this same paragraph goes to "The company businessman says...." and finishes with "I'll be using their services again!" (how could that never be PR if it's not only closing with it, but also closing with a company
539:"Company wants to revolutionize it", no one gives a damn about that than the company itself. The next ones literally say "You need to try MySupermarket and it's services" and "Listen what the company says about itself".
893:
The 'Keep' voters each argue (with evidence) that notability is demonstrated and I, for one, started to improve the article. We'll have to agree to disagree, rather than throwing polarised opinions at one another.
1240:
whereas GNG is a suggested guideline, as GNG itself states that it is not the foremost. NOT is still the first policy we ever started actually using because it formed what was explicitly unsuitable for WP itself.
196:
562:
company quotes and company-supplied information, because there are none. When we literally start citing local TV station news articles, it shows no one actually cares but the company's own advertising agents!
1036:, which is Knowledge (XXG)'s major tenet. There's no requirement or obligation for people who 'vote' keep to clean up the article immediately (or at all). Otherwise there would be hardly any progress at AfD.
94:
89:
816:
491:
334:
674:
149:
779:(unlike the essays people are citing). The article consists of a massive amount of promo content (sourced to a bunch of redressed PR material) and a link dump which is contrary to
1358:
I disagree there's nothing spammy in the article, It simply needs tidying which if kept I would happily try and fix (I'm not going to improve it now incase it does get deleted. –
612:
511:
it probably is notable, but its an advertisement. If anyone thingks it salvagable, I challenge them to salvage it. Icna't--there isn't enough of substance to write about.
314:
190:
876:
857:
No one will attempt to clean the article up until this AfD is concluded. So to delete it because it hasn't been clean up is getting the argument a bit back to front.
84:
357:- I agree with Sionk's assessment. Article needs a big cleanup, and there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources for Wikipedians to do just that. --
828:
446:
156:
1101:(XXG) is not a place for YellowPages-esque company information such as its own company specifics" hence policy. As for the article issues, they've been listed.
1344:
It appears this article is though spam, therefore according to
Knowledge (XXG) policies should not be retained considering theres no good revision without spam.
484:
367:
236:
similarity to their own advertisements, that they would naturally enjoy this hosted advertising. Another note is the sheer blatancy of this existing since
636:
1128:
of course). I've no idea what financials are. There's only a small paragraph about investments. How a company is financed is pretty standard info.
453:
650:
358:
800:
477:
460:
17:
122:
117:
804:
126:
1371:
1353:
1337:
1311:
1286:
1259:
1214:
1195:
1164:
1137:
1119:
1091:
1071:
1045:
1027:
1003:
981:
946:
935:
903:
888:
866:
848:
758:
739:
720:
690:
624:
603:
581:
522:
415:
395:
371:
346:
326:
305:
278:
259:
67:
812:
439:
1151:
per Sionk and NA1k - Article needs alot of improving however notability is certainly there, I see no valid reason to delete. –
109:
211:
178:
918:
594:
service; I don't see notability or significance here. Receiving $ 13M in investment is chump change as these things go.
472:
1394:
745:
40:
971:
342:
322:
678:
269:
dept. No-one would deny (apart from MySupermarket staff) that the article is currently badly written and unbalanced.
820:
644:
432:
665:. MySupermarket, which is based in the United Kingdom, also received detailed articles in the American TV station
537:
finance goals and plans", yet another sign it is not independent. Even take one of the links that literally says
1254:
1190:
1114:
1022:
715:
576:
254:
172:
991:
808:
1124:
We're evidently looking at different articles. It has criticism (add more if you can find it, without being
831:
is a tangential mention in the context of another company. Sorry, but these sources are not good enough for
884:
844:
338:
318:
168:
65:
836:
382:
1390:
1067:
754:
640:
620:
599:
391:
36:
957:
872:
772:
749:
386:
218:
832:
792:
784:
1242:
1178:
1102:
1010:
978:
703:
564:
242:
204:
56:) to continue their work in improving the article to avoid it being renominated in the future. –
682:
113:
1125:
776:
679:
Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy#Knowledge (XXG) is a work in progress: perfection is not required
880:
840:
58:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1389:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1299:
796:
780:
591:
287:
Subsequent to my comment I have corrected the percentage claims, added a "Reception" section
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1063:
686:
616:
595:
52:. No consensus for deletion has been formed, though I'd strongly advise editors (especially
1233:
1229:
1079:
1059:
1051:
1033:
184:
1348:
1306:
1133:
1087:
1041:
999:
965:
899:
862:
735:
301:
274:
1270:
1359:
1325:
1274:
1202:
1152:
975:
1032:
With all respect that's plainly not true. The 'keepers' have said the subject passes
681:, that the article has some surmountable defects does not mean it should be deleted.
518:
411:
105:
73:
655:
389:
the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to, those listed below.
143:
942:
931:
675:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems
467:
1345:
1303:
1129:
1083:
1078:
The major consideration at AfD for as long as I've been active here, has been
1037:
995:
961:
895:
858:
731:
670:
661:
496:
297:
270:
53:
879:) and it seems like no one bothered to clean this up that time as well. --
929:
This discussion could benefit from a re-list to generate further debate.
513:
406:
544:
vulnerable to PR and it has in fact published it before. An example is:
666:
824:
788:
1009:
and the fact apparent improvements aren't helping, emphasizes it.
673:, which demonstrates it has received international coverage. Per
1383:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
871:
We simply can't have promotional content on
Knowledge (XXG) per
921:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1269:
improved, Sources have been presented which are all notable
293:
and removed the minor, unsourced events from the timeline
960:
controls here and this article fails it. I would note to
775:
is a good reason for deleting the article and hey, it is
1273:
and are in-depth coverage so therefore should be kept. –
1173:
This is not showing how the relevant Delete votes have
294:
291:
288:
139:
135:
131:
203:
290:
to the article, removed a clear marketing statement
95:
Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (3rd nomination)
90:
Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination)
940:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
877:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/MySupermarket
335:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
217:
653:). MySupermarket received a substantial review in
404:OK, if you think so, edit it and then we can see.
1201:on Google News as well as Google Books, Thanks. –
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1397:). No further edits should be made to this page.
990:This is all very Kafka-esque and smacks more of
827:is again an employee talking about the company,
811:reliable source, but again, an initial review,
807:is an initial review by an university student,
799:. The other sources are also not good enough -
613:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
823:is a trivial news about a merger/aquisition,
315:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
637:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources
611:Note: This debate has been included in the
333:Note: This debate has been included in the
313:Note: This debate has been included in the
1062:is a policy. The latter trump the former.
815:again employee talking about the company,
803:is an employee talking about the company,
610:
332:
312:
787:. You gotta be kidding me if you believe
385:. Promotional tone can be addressed by
82:
548:
538:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1320:Exactly! - One could use a mop and
85:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket
80:
24:
1298:Just grab a bucket and mop this
635:per the significant coverage in
829:ThisIsMoney (part of DailyMail)
669:and the American news website
1:
1372:23:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1354:23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1338:22:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1312:21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1287:01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1260:01:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1215:01:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1196:00:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1165:00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1138:21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1120:08:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
1092:21:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
1072:01:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
1046:22:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
1028:21:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
1004:21:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
982:02:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
947:01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
936:01:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
372:16:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
347:21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
327:21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
306:07:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
279:19:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
260:18:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
230:in fact local TV news stories
68:01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
904:00:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
889:19:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
867:19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
849:05:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
759:19:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
740:18:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
721:18:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
691:07:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
659:and significant articles in
625:06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
604:06:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
582:02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
523:04:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
416:04:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
396:01:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
364:...........................
1414:
819:is again the CEO talking,
1386:Please do not modify it.
590:as corporate spam on an
32:Please do not modify it.
956:per Lemongirl and DGG.
79:AfDs for this article:
1236:, WP:NOT is still
927:Relisting comment:
746:WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP
560:explicitly without
381:. Notable. Passes
1226:Comment to closer
949:
696:Comment to closer
627:
455:Good Housekeeping
349:
339:Shawn in Montreal
329:
319:Shawn in Montreal
1405:
1388:
1369:
1364:
1335:
1330:
1284:
1279:
1271:reliable sources
1257:
1252:
1212:
1207:
1193:
1188:
1162:
1157:
1117:
1112:
1025:
1020:
939:
924:
922:
805:Goodhousekeeping
777:part of a policy
757:
718:
713:
641:Northamerica1000
579:
574:
394:
363:
257:
252:
222:
221:
207:
159:
147:
129:
61:
34:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1395:deletion review
1384:
1365:
1360:
1351:
1331:
1326:
1309:
1280:
1275:
1255:
1243:
1208:
1203:
1191:
1179:
1158:
1153:
1115:
1103:
1050:Clarification:
1023:
1011:
950:
917:
915:
753:
716:
704:
592:run-of-the-mill
577:
565:
505:
390:
359:
255:
243:
164:
155:
120:
104:
101:
99:
77:
59:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1411:
1409:
1400:
1399:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1349:
1341:
1340:
1324:the article. –
1315:
1314:
1307:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1263:
1262:
1228:- As shown at
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1168:
1167:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1075:
1074:
1006:
992:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
985:
984:
938:
925:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
852:
851:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
724:
723:
693:
629:
628:
607:
606:
555:
554:
534:
533:
526:
525:
504:
503:
502:
501:
494:
489:
482:
475:
470:
465:
462:Marketing Week
458:
451:
444:
437:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
399:
398:
375:
374:
351:
350:
330:
310:
309:
308:
282:
281:
225:
224:
161:
100:
98:
97:
92:
87:
81:
78:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1410:
1398:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1381:
1380:
1373:
1370:
1368:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1334:
1329:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1313:
1310:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1278:
1272:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1206:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1189:
1186:
1182:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1156:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1118:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1099:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1007:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
980:
977:
973:
970:
967:
963:
959:
955:
952:
951:
948:
945:
944:
937:
934:
933:
928:
923:
920:
905:
901:
897:
892:
891:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
813:Marketingweek
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
771:
768:
767:
760:
756:
755:North America
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
728:
727:
726:
725:
722:
719:
714:
711:
707:
701:
700:actual policy
697:
694:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
658:
657:
652:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
608:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
585:
584:
583:
580:
575:
572:
568:
561:
551:
547:
546:
545:
541:
540:
531:
528:
527:
524:
520:
516:
515:
510:
507:
506:
500:
499:
495:
493:
490:
488:
487:
483:
481:
480:
476:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
463:
459:
457:
456:
452:
450:
449:
445:
443:
442:
438:
436:
435:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
417:
413:
409:
408:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
392:North America
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
362:
356:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
292:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
276:
272:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
258:
253:
250:
246:
239:
233:
231:
220:
216:
213:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
170:
167:
166:Find sources:
162:
158:
154:
151:
145:
141:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
115:
111:
107:
106:MySupermarket
103:
102:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
75:
74:MySupermarket
72:
70:
69:
66:
63:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1385:
1382:
1366:
1361:
1332:
1327:
1321:
1295:
1281:
1276:
1248:
1244:
1237:
1225:
1209:
1204:
1184:
1180:
1175:cited policy
1174:
1159:
1154:
1148:
1108:
1104:
1055:
1016:
1012:
968:
953:
941:
930:
926:
916:
881:Lemongirl942
841:Lemongirl942
837:WP:CORPDEPTH
821:Campaignlive
809:The Guardian
769:
709:
705:
699:
695:
660:
656:The Guardian
654:
647:
639:provided by
632:
587:
570:
566:
559:
556:
542:
535:
529:
512:
508:
497:
485:
478:
461:
454:
447:
440:
434:The Guardian
433:
424:
423:
405:
387:copy editing
383:WP:CORPDEPTH
378:
360:
354:
265:
248:
244:
237:
234:
229:
226:
214:
208:
200:
193:
187:
181:
175:
165:
152:
60:Juliancolton
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1064:K.e.coffman
958:WP:NOTPROMO
873:WP:NOTPROMO
773:WP:NOTPROMO
750:WP:NOEFFORT
617:K.e.coffman
596:K.e.coffman
492:Tech Crunch
191:free images
833:WP:CORPIND
817:Techcrunch
801:The Grocer
793:WP:CORPIND
791:satisfies
785:WP:CORPIND
671:TechCrunch
662:The Grocer
486:The Grocer
479:The Grocer
448:Daily Mail
441:Daily Mail
425:References
1391:talk page
1056:guideline
976:Mackensen
744:See also
37:talk page
1393:or in a
1126:WP:UNDUE
972:contribs
919:Relisted
651:contribs
498:Campaign
473:ABC News
468:ABC News
150:View log
39:or in a
1322:improve
797:WP:SPIP
781:WP:ELNO
667:KABC-TV
553:quote!)
530:Comment
509:Delete.
197:WP refs
185:scholar
123:protect
118:history
1296:Delete
1251:wister
1247:wister
1238:policy
1234:WP:GNG
1230:WP:NOT
1187:wister
1183:wister
1111:wister
1107:wister
1080:WP:GNG
1060:WP:NOT
1058:while
1052:WP:GNG
1034:WP:GNG
1019:wister
1015:wister
979:(talk)
954:Delete
943:st170e
932:st170e
770:Delete
712:wister
708:wister
683:Cunard
588:Delete
573:wister
569:wister
361:1Wiki8
251:wister
247:wister
169:Google
127:delete
1362:Davey
1346:Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
1328:Davey
1304:Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
1302:up.
1277:Davey
1205:Davey
1155:Davey
1130:Sionk
1084:Sionk
1054:is a
1038:Sionk
996:Sionk
962:Sionk
896:Sionk
859:Sionk
825:ABC 2
732:Sionk
519:talk
412:talk
298:Sionk
271:Sionk
212:JSTOR
173:books
157:Stats
144:views
136:watch
132:links
54:Sionk
16:<
1367:2010
1350:Talk
1333:2010
1308:Talk
1300:SPAM
1282:2010
1256:talk
1232:and
1210:2010
1192:talk
1160:2010
1149:Keep
1134:talk
1116:talk
1088:talk
1068:talk
1042:talk
1024:talk
1000:talk
966:talk
900:talk
885:talk
863:talk
845:talk
839:. --
835:and
795:and
789:this
748:and
736:talk
717:talk
687:talk
677:and
645:talk
633:Keep
621:talk
600:talk
578:talk
379:Keep
368:talk
355:Keep
343:talk
323:talk
302:talk
275:talk
266:Keep
256:talk
238:2009
205:FENS
179:news
140:logs
114:talk
110:edit
514:DGG
407:DGG
219:TWL
148:– (
1136:)
1090:)
1070:)
1044:)
1002:)
902:)
887:)
865:)
847:)
752:.
738:)
689:)
623:)
615:.
602:)
521:)
414:)
370:)
345:)
337:.
325:)
317:.
304:)
277:)
199:)
142:|
138:|
134:|
130:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
64:|
1249:T
1245:S
1185:T
1181:S
1132:(
1109:T
1105:S
1086:(
1066:(
1040:(
1017:T
1013:S
998:(
969:·
964:(
898:(
883:(
861:(
843:(
734:(
710:T
706:S
685:(
648:·
643:(
619:(
598:(
571:T
567:S
517:(
410:(
366:(
341:(
321:(
300:(
273:(
249:T
245:S
223:)
215:·
209:·
201:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
171:(
163:(
160:)
153:·
146:)
108:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.