1301:. As a writer, I think the argument that all reliable sources will be backed up on microfilm or paper hilarious. Sadly, neither of those things last forever (just like web links) and they get lost (!) so it seems ridiculous to require these. Sometimes digitized copies are all you can find. I actually write for wholly digital publications that are nonetheless published by editorial teams, backed up by trustworthy sources, and considered reliable by universities and other institutions. It's not RGW to follow Knowledge's guidelines, rather than go off on a tangent pursuing vague notions of a complete, easily navigable physical library for all sources, that will be magically accessible to all of Knowledge's present and future contributors.
1179:
completely ignoring the threat climate change and war pose to the viability or archived records of value stored blow current sea levels or in vulnerable geographic locations. This discussion has descended into philosophical navel gazing and is taking away from the issue at hand. Nana aba Duncan is notable regardless of whether or not you like how it's been supported. If I'm going to have RGW thrown at me for pointing out the obvious, I'd like the record to show you're doing the same with your black and white approach to notability and long-term verifiability. We'd all like the blue sky scenario, the reality is we don't have it.--
1335:
the same thing as "glancingly mentioning her in the process of being fundamentally about something else") β but journalists don't get into
Knowledge on the basis of content self-conferred by the issuer of their own paycheques, either: they get into Knowledge when they've been the subject of coverage
1032:
databases that their old print editions are archived in. Magazines, by definition, have or had print editions that can be found in libraries. Books, by definition, have paper copies that can be found in libraries. Television network newscasts, by definition, have video archives and paper transcripts
782:
have editorial chains of command, but that doesn't inherently prove that they're "trustworthy" or notability-supporting sources. The definition of a "reliable source" is not just the ability to locate the real names of one or more people who are associated with it β it is a question of whether the
1178:
with its reliable sources" is not universal or achievable. It's also patently false. We're losing born digital resources at an incalculable rate not because they aren't reliable, but because the resources and infrastructure don't exist to maintain them or recreate them in hard copy. And that's
401:
Everything outlined above is a case study in the structural and systemic issues that prevent equitable representation of BIPOC on
Knowledge. Nominating the page for deletion based a black and white interpretation of a guideline - during Black History Month, no less - is a misguided and overly
601:
than their own employer. Matt
Galloway has independent coverage, Anna Maria Tremonti has independent coverage, Carol Off has independent coverage, Ian Hanomansing has independent coverage, Rosemary Barton has independent coverage, and on and so forth. But a broadcaster who
868:
are archived by the
Internet Archive. In fact, there's a bot running on English Knowledge that automatically notifies the Internet Archive when a new external link is added, so the Wayback Machine can make sure to crawl and save it. So that's okay about the
251:
as passing our notability criteria for radio broadcasters. As always, every radio personality is not automatically entitled to have a
Knowledge article just because she exists -- notability for radio broadcasters requires things like winning significant
691:
coverage in real media outlets. And furthermore, if you have to rely on the
Festival of Authors' own self-published website for the claim that she hosted an event, then that automatically isn't an article-clinching notability claim either β
606:
show independent coverage is not deemed notable just because their own employer "covered" them internally β if content self-published by a person's own employer were all it took to establish their encyclopedic notability, then we would
292:
heard of her -- in fact, I live in
Toronto and listen almost exclusively to CBC radio, so I literally wake up to her every weekend -- but the notability test for people is the quality and depth and range and independence of the
281:
of "independent of her", "genuinely about her" and "from a real notability-assisting media outlet", is still just a 76-word blurb -- so that source isn't substantive enough to get her over GNG all by itself either, if it's the
213:
903:
as readily as reliable ones, so it proves nothing about a source's reliability at all. Allow me to rephrase myself: there's no such thing as any reliable source that doesn't have some form of publicly accessible
1024:". Newspapers, by definition, have or had print editions β even the relatively few newspapers that have recently gone fully web-only, if they have any accepted status as real or trustworthy newspapers at all,
1126:, says that editors should avoid using personal blogs, because they're self-published; it doesn't say anything about digital media being inherently invalid. Your assertions are not backed up by policy. --
521:
As important as it is to improve our coverage of people of colour and women, we do not do so by waiving our notability and reliable sourcing rules so that members of minority groups get into
Knowledge on
264:. But none of the seven footnotes here represent what's required: two are from her own employer, and thus aren't independent of her for the purposes of establishing her notability; two are from WordPress
272:
press release from a directly affiliated organization; one briefly mentions her name as having modelled for a photograph in a community art show, in a source that's otherwise about that art show and not
670:
And blogs are not accorded special status as "reliable sources" just because they got a government publishing grant β the definition of a reliable source is not where the money came from, it's how much
1020:
It's not a question of "policy", it's a question of "anything that meets all of our requirements to be considered a reliable source will, by definition, always automatically have that by virtue of
443:
If we're going to link to things to justify overly rigid interpretations of guidelines for someone who hosts a province wide radio show, let's at least try to balance things out by including
708:
of the claim being made. If you have to cite a directly affiliated organization or company's own self-published content to support the claim, because independent coverage of the claim in
774:
that blogs do not count as reliable sources for establishing notability. A blog is not automatically "reputable" just because it has "editorial oversight" β even garbage sources like
563:: Saying that the CBC article isn't a notability-supporting source because she works for the CBC seems a bit unfair, essentially penalizing her for working for a broadcaster. Both
166:
593:
Broadcasters who work for the CBC are not "penalized" by the fact that self-published content from their own employer is not clinching of notability β many CBC employees have
679:. And hosting an event at a local festival doesn't establish notability either β the notability test for broadcasters is not "well-known in her own city", but requires a
207:
338:
378:
926:
Is that written down anywhere? The
Internet Archive is pretty stable, and I'm pretty sure nobody's backing up every article on CNN.com on microfilm. I looked at
1072:. If it were a valuable or reliable source, there would be a paper copy somewhere, because ever since humans learned the hard way that reliable sources can be
627:, then we would always have to keep an article about every single person who has a social media profile on Facebook or Instagram or LinkedIn. Notability for
358:
318:
489:
show, heard literally coast to coast from
Vancouver to St. John's, before she had a chance to be considered "inherently" notable β and even then, she would
113:
1340:
than their own employer, so her own employer can't magically GNG her all by itself if there are no other GNG-worthy sources anywhere else in the article.
1041:
happens to any source that is actually reliable. It may sound a bit tautological, but it's actually the truth: making backup copies is a thing the world
98:
799:
the source, from library microfilms or an archiving database like ProQuest or newspapers.com, if the existing weblink ever dies. If you cannot be
1068:
on the web whether it's a reliable source or not, so a blog doesn't magically turn into a reliable source just because you can retrieve it from
568:
173:
1053:, so anything that meets our conditions to be considered a reliable source will have backups because backing up reliable sources is just an
571:
are blogs, but they both have editorial teams, and byblacks is funded by a grant from the government of Canada. Hosting an event at the
139:
134:
448:
143:
712:
sources does not exist, then by definition it's not an article-clinching notability claim β nothing is ever a notability claim until
530:
white men have to actually meet any of our stated notability standards. We do so by identifying the women and people of colour who
1152:. Nothing that is a reliable source ever lacks hard copy backup, because hard copy backup is what the world automatically always
126:
93:
86:
17:
228:
1084:
physical form, and backing them up in multiple places so that if one copy does get lost or destroyed others still exist, is
195:
572:
757:
Not the first time Bearcat wouldn't count a reputable blog with editorial oversight as GNG support just for being a blog.
815:, then it is automatically not a notability-making source in and of itself β the very definition of a reliable source
611:
have to keep an article about every single person who ever worked for any radio or television station at all, because
564:
107:
103:
1174:
As a digital archivist I'm going to tap in here and say, "hard copy backup is what the world automatically always
1037:
have a policy demanding archiving as a condition of being a reliable source β it's that archiving is a thing that
619:
has a staff profile on their own employer's self-published website. And if that were how notability worked in any
1390:
968:
in the news archiving databases I use when I need to locate deadlinked, paywalled or pregooglable news coverage:
501:, not just on stating that she has a job and sourcing the fact to her own employer's own self-published website.
469:
Hosting a provincewide radio show is not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have
189:
40:
268:
that aren't reliable or notability-supporting sources at all; one is a glancing namecheck of her existence in a
1119:
1006:
Again: Where is the policy that says that all sources must be backed up in a way that's accessible off-web? --
444:
269:
704:
of their occupation, ever constitutes a valid notability claim until you can reference it to sources that are
1373:
1349:
1310:
1289:
1271:
1242:
1228:
1188:
1169:
1135:
1097:
1015:
1001:
943:
921:
882:
848:
765:
744:
584:
551:
510:
460:
434:
411:
390:
370:
350:
330:
310:
185:
68:
647:
content about the person's career accomplishments. It's the same way it works for newspaper journalists: a
1306:
1386:
1268:
1225:
762:
431:
36:
235:
1233:
You say that like I didn't know it. "Illeism is sometimes used in literature as a stylistic device."
130:
1365:
1122:. None of those policies mention hard-copy backups on paper or microfilm. The most relevant policy,
861:
1369:
1131:
1011:
939:
878:
727:, not just briefly mention her name one time in the process of being fundamentally about a subject
580:
221:
538:
notability standards and are getting overlooked, not by waiving the notability standards so that
791:
media outlet or not. And because websites sometimes can and do go out of business, and weblinks
1345:
1327:. There is not a single other source in the entire article that is both (a) reliable, and (b)
1302:
1238:
1165:
1093:
997:
917:
844:
740:
547:
506:
386:
366:
346:
326:
306:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1385:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
201:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1265:
1222:
1184:
759:
456:
428:
407:
1144:
it's not a policy question we're talking about β archiving of reliable sources is simply a
865:
1280:
1123:
1115:
265:
122:
74:
63:
497:
than her own employer β but anything less than that lives or dies on the quality of her
1261:
1127:
1007:
935:
874:
751:
576:
1362:
1298:
1111:
1103:
927:
795:, the definition of a reliable source also requires the permanent ongoing ability to
424:
261:
244:
1341:
1234:
1211:
1161:
1107:
1089:
993:
931:
913:
855:
840:
736:
688:
543:
502:
470:
382:
362:
342:
322:
302:
248:
160:
1180:
452:
420:
403:
301:
the article, and these just aren't the sources that would get her over the bar.
256:, or at least being the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources
53:
288:
To be clear, this is not an "I've never heard of her" argument, because I
575:
also suggests that Duncan is well-known as a broadcaster in Toronto. --
1216:
277:. And the only one that actually passes all of those tests, by being
639:
have a vested interest in the person's career have chosen to invest
651:
journalist is not notable on the basis of content published by the
827:
from the publication's current web presence, so that the content
839:
of what might happen to the publication's current web presence.
1381:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1323:
GNG-eligible sources present in the entire article come from
1076:
if we're not careful, trying to ensure that sources exist in
485:
her work as host of a radio show. She would have to host a
493:
have to show some evidence of media coverage from sources
895:
dies, and secondly, the Internet Archive also "archives"
891:β because firstly, what happens if the Internet Archive
756:
716:
media outlets have been motivated to write and publish
659:
notable if the same accomplishment leads to a story in
156:
152:
148:
1064:
The Internet Archive, on the other hand, just scrapes
934:
and they don't mention paper or microfilm backups. --
402:
pedantic interpretation of notability requirements. --
220:
819:
that there be some form of offsite paper or database
1088:with sources that are reliable enough to preserve.
803:certain that even if the website permanently died
643:editorial resources into creating and publishing
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1393:). No further edits should be made to this page.
972:. It's simple common sense: weblinks can and do
427:and remember to format your AFD votes properly.
377:Note: This discussion has been included in the
357:Note: This discussion has been included in the
337:Note: This discussion has been included in the
317:Note: This discussion has been included in the
635:determined by the extent to which sources that
339:list of Journalism-related deletion discussions
1033:that can be found in libraries. It's not that
597:problem showing outside coverage from sources
735:, before it helps to support her notability.
542:white men actually have to meet them at all.
234:
8:
1102:You cited five policies in your nomination:
379:list of Ontario-related deletion discussions
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
723:And also, a source has to have her as its
376:
359:list of Radio-related deletion discussions
356:
336:
319:list of Women-related deletion discussions
316:
573:Toronto International Festival of Authors
980:. So if we don't possess the ability to
7:
1264:, but my RGW argument still stands.
286:GNG-worthy source that can be shown.
970:transcripts of television newscasts
988:what it said, then the content is
449:Knowledge:WikiProject Women in Red
24:
615:radio and television personality
956:that can be accessed off-web in
952:channel, with content backup on
99:Introduction to deletion process
976:, and we run into that problem
675:the thing does or doesn't have
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1140:Nice strawman. I specifically
1:
1374:00:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
1350:19:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
1311:04:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
1290:11:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1272:02:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1243:06:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1229:05:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1189:14:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1170:06:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1136:06:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1098:06:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1016:05:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
1002:05:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
944:05:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
922:05:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
883:05:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
849:04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
766:02:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
745:04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
585:01:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
552:04:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
511:05:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
461:00:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
435:00:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
412:00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
391:23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
371:23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
351:23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
331:23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
311:23:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
69:15:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
908:backup that can be accessed
247:of a radio broadcaster, not
1049:genuinely reliable sources
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1410:
1156:with its reliable sources
960:libraries. And guess what
783:outlet in question has an
770:That's because Bearcat is
948:Funnily enough, CNN is a
1383:Please do not modify it.
526:quality sourcing, while
445:Gender bias on Knowledge
297:that can be provided to
32:Please do not modify it.
1022:the way the world works
481:than her own employer,
990:not referenced anymore
785:established reputation
1158:as a matter of course
1051:as a matter of course
823:that can be accessed
655:itself, but probably
260:of herself, to clear
87:Articles for deletion
1028:get archived in the
984:a dead reference to
887:Nope. Archived in a
807:, its content would
720:journalism about it.
1150:how the world works
1086:what the world does
1059:how the world works
249:properly referenced
906:paper or microfilm
696:you can say about
673:established status
661:The Globe and Mail
1120:WP:PRIMARYSOURCES
860:No problem! Both
706:fully independent
677:as a media outlet
393:
373:
353:
333:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
1401:
1325:her own employer
1215:
889:different format
859:
755:
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
66:
61:
34:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1391:deletion review
1209:
899:source webhits
853:
811:be recoverable
793:actually do die
749:
689:reliable source
471:reliable source
181:
172:
137:
123:Nana aba Duncan
121:
118:
81:
78:
75:Nana aba Duncan
64:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1407:
1405:
1396:
1395:
1377:
1376:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1331:her (which is
1314:
1313:
1292:
1274:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1062:
912:if necessary.
747:
721:
687:awards and/or
668:
665:Ottawa Citizen
588:
587:
557:
556:
555:
554:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
477:media outlets
464:
463:
438:
437:
415:
414:
395:
394:
374:
354:
334:
287:
270:primary source
242:
241:
178:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1406:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1279:. Meets GNG.
1278:
1275:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1219:
1213:
1208:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:basic feature
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:automatically
1040:
1039:automatically
1036:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
885:
884:
880:
876:
872:
871:in perpetuity
867:
863:
857:
852:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:in perpetuity
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
781:
777:
773:
769:
768:
767:
764:
761:
758:
753:
748:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
605:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
589:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
558:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
519:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:sourceability
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:coverage, in
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
436:
433:
430:
426:
422:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
405:
400:
397:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
332:
328:
324:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
291:
285:
280:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
246:
237:
233:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
184:
183:Find sources:
179:
175:
171:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
115:
112:
109:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
91:
90:
88:
83:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
62:
60:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1382:
1380:
1358:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1303:IphisOfCrete
1294:
1283:
1281:
1276:
1257:
1217:
1175:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1025:
1021:
989:
985:
981:
978:all the time
977:
973:
969:
966:all the time
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
909:
905:
900:
896:
892:
888:
870:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
801:100 per cent
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
779:
775:
771:
732:
728:
724:
717:
714:unaffiliated
713:
710:unaffiliated
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
684:
681:nationalized
680:
676:
672:
664:
660:
656:
653:Toronto Star
652:
649:Toronto Star
648:
645:unaffiliated
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
603:
598:
594:
560:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
475:unaffiliated
474:
398:
298:
294:
289:
283:
278:
274:
257:
253:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
57:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1336:in sources
1057:feature of
831:verifiable
789:trustworthy
718:independent
258:independent
208:free images
1066:everything
1045:does with
950:television
897:unreliable
873:thing. --
866:Local Love
837:regardless
825:separately
702:regardless
631:people is
1387:talk page
1366:Tealbrain
1262:Toughpigs
1128:Toughpigs
1055:automatic
1008:Toughpigs
936:Toughpigs
875:Toughpigs
780:The Blaze
776:Breitbart
752:Toughpigs
683:profile,
577:Toughpigs
565:LocalLove
534:meet our
275:about her
37:talk page
1389:or in a
1284:ΠΠ°Π½Π΄ΠΈΡΠΊΠ°
1220:Bearcat.
1124:WP:BLOGS
1116:WP:BLOGS
1080:digital
862:byblacks
817:requires
805:tomorrow
700:person,
685:national
569:byblacks
536:existing
487:national
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
1342:Bearcat
1235:Bearcat
1212:Bearcat
1162:Bearcat
1090:Bearcat
994:Bearcat
982:recover
914:Bearcat
910:off-web
856:Bearcat
841:Bearcat
829:remains
813:forever
797:recover
772:correct
737:Bearcat
725:subject
694:nothing
663:or the
544:Bearcat
503:Bearcat
383:Bearcat
363:Bearcat
343:Bearcat
323:Bearcat
303:Bearcat
299:support
295:sources
214:WPΒ refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
1363:WP:GNG
1361:meets
1299:WP:GNG
1218:You're
1181:Dnllnd
1112:WP:GNG
1104:WP:BLP
986:verify
964:I see
928:WP:GNG
821:backup
633:always
625:either
623:field
617:always
609:always
604:cannot
453:Dnllnd
425:WP:RGW
423:, see
421:Dnllnd
404:Dnllnd
262:WP:GNG
254:awards
245:WP:BLP
186:Google
144:delete
1338:other
1329:about
1108:WP:RS
1070:there
1026:still
958:video
954:video
932:WP:RS
809:still
787:as a
731:than
729:other
641:their
637:don't
621:other
613:every
599:other
495:other
491:still
483:about
479:other
399:KEEP:
266:blogs
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
1370:talk
1359:Keep
1346:talk
1321:only
1319:The
1307:talk
1297:per
1295:Keep
1277:Keep
1260:per
1258:Keep
1239:talk
1185:talk
1176:does
1166:talk
1154:does
1142:said
1132:talk
1118:and
1094:talk
1078:both
1074:lost
1030:same
1012:talk
998:talk
962:else
940:talk
930:and
918:talk
901:just
893:also
879:talk
864:and
845:talk
778:and
741:talk
581:talk
567:and
561:Keep
548:talk
540:only
528:only
524:weak
507:talk
457:talk
447:and
408:talk
387:talk
367:talk
347:talk
327:talk
307:talk
290:have
284:only
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
56:brad
52:. β
50:keep
1333:not
1288:π
1148:of
1082:and
1047:all
974:die
733:her
698:any
629:all
451:.--
279:all
236:TWL
165:β (
1372:)
1348:)
1309:)
1266:γγ©
1241:)
1223:γγ©
1187:)
1168:)
1160:.
1134:)
1114:,
1110:,
1106:,
1096:)
1035:we
1014:)
1000:)
992:.
942:)
920:)
881:)
847:)
835:,
760:γγ©
743:)
657:is
595:no
583:)
550:)
532:do
509:)
459:)
429:γγ©
410:)
389:)
381:.
369:)
361:.
349:)
341:.
329:)
321:.
309:)
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
65:π
1368:(
1344:(
1305:(
1282:β
1269:P
1237:(
1226:P
1214::
1210:@
1183:(
1164:(
1130:(
1092:(
1061:.
1010:(
996:(
938:(
916:(
877:(
858::
854:@
843:(
763:P
754::
750:@
739:(
667:.
579:(
546:(
505:(
455:(
432:P
406:(
385:(
365:(
345:(
325:(
305:(
240:)
232:Β·
226:Β·
218:Β·
211:Β·
205:Β·
199:Β·
193:Β·
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:Β·
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
58:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.