1123:
explored later in greater depth, the concept of a New Great Game has been used as shorthand for competition in influence, power, hegemony and profits, often referring to the oil and gas industries and reserves in
Central Asia and the Caucasus. It is not limited to these aspects, however, with references being made to religious, cultural and military competition in areas as far apart as Turkey and China, Iran and India, Georgia and Siberia with actors at state, multinational, transnational, local and regional levels. As ‘the romance of Caspian oil struck Western media, industry and government’ this concept of a ‘New Great Game’ became such an integral part of reporting on the region, whether implicitly or explicitly in academic journals, news bulletins, economic analysis or government reports that its use has gained a world-wide following, which has not decreased since the events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent US-led intervention in Afghanistan.
1045:
like "cold war" or "Finlandization," for example). If you are correct about what you say, it should be easy to prove it, rather than simply saying "trust me," which is what you appear to be doing here. While I applaud your bold move of deleting the OR and leaving a stub in its place, during AfD isn't the right time to do that (as I have been warned myself), and it still doesn't seem to answer the problem of this particular neologism's notability as a concept (even with five books with that phrase in their title, there is no evidence in the amended article that the term is used the same way or even talked about as a consistent object of academic study). A phrase used as a marketing gimmick doesn't count, I think.
1082:
concept that became popular was that of the “new great game,” to define the competition for influence, power, hegemony and profits that would now be played out over the “Heartland.” It was emphasized that while the original “Great Game” had been about territorial control, the new game was primarily about control over the resources of the
Heartland and only secondarily about the strategic geopolitical position of the region. This became an integral part of a vast literature and coincided with a revival of interest in and use of geopolitics as a tool for politico-security analysis.
278:. This is a catchphrase that, from what I can tell, is used by one author (Lutz Kleveman) and has been copied to a minor degree by a few other journalists. Other than the one book, there is nothing to substantiate the assertion that there really is an "Great Game" and even Kleveman's book uses the phrase more as a rhetorical device than as a historical concept. (The Rashid usage also seems to me to be a passing rhetorical device, not a definition of a core concept.) The synthesis here is just that, a
947:. Third, cleanup the moved article to get rid of original research. As OR goes, it is pretty good, which suggests to me that at least some things that can be properly sourced. If this program, or something similar, ultimately fails, then it can be validly reproposed for deletion under the theory that it will never conform to policy. If there is a proper article into which to merge the salvagable material, then that can also be done.
261:- I agree with Commodore Sloat that this article is an original synthesis of views. Moreover, I feel that there is a reasonable risk that the sources being included in the synthesis are themselves not necessarily notable, reliable, or balanced. If material on this topic needs to be included, it should be included in existing international relations pages, rather than having a separate, unverifiable abstraction defined for it.
1003:. I'm going to try to (hopefully) clear up a few things. It seems there were two original arguments for getting rid of this article. The first was that the term "New Great Game" is a "Non-notable neologism", and the second was that "This reads like a summary of someone's doctoral dissertation, not as an encyclopedia article".
1009:
USSR. I've seen it used in academic articles from the early/mid 1990s. Additionally, well-sourced material can be found illustrating both the term's uses, and criticism of the term. So, the first concern, that "New Great Game" is a "Non-notable neologism" used by only one or two authors, is decidedly incorrect.
1021:
be salvaged should be moved, as others have said, to a more appropriately-named article). That does not, NOT, mean this page should be renamed, merged, or deleted, because the term "New Great Game" is worthy and notable enough to have its own article, one distinct from the article's current contents.
717:
and made a major change to the article. As can be seen, the term is used as a title in at least five books, and it returns a lot of hits on internet searches, so we do need an article of some kind. I think a simple stub (as it is now), giving people a basic idea of what the term usually refers to, is
1020:
So, the point is, the 1) regional politics and the 2) term for a method of conceptualizing those politics are two separate subjects, warranting two different articles. The material about the politics itself, which is the OR and SYN that in part caused this AfD, should be removed (and what little can
1125:
The growing use of this concept has coincided with — or perhaps been caused by — a revival of the interest in and use of geopolitics as a tool for politicosecurity analysis. The linking of these two ideas has, in some cases, been explicit and the New Great Game concept can be used to illustrate the
1122:
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 one theme that has become fundamental part of the analysis of the politico-military and economic situations of the
Caucasus and Central Asia has been the question of a New Great Game within, though not limited to, these regions. Though the idea will be
1081:
When five independent states emerged in the
Central Asian region, in the immediate aftermath of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, what also emerged, more or less simultaneously, was a focus on certain geopolitical concepts and constructs that had become defunct in the immediate past. One such
1014:
However, the second issue (that the article is mostly SYN and OR) is quite valid. Nearly all of this article was written by a now dis-active user called KazakhPol who was very interested in the politics of the region, especially power politics and the War on Terror. Unfortunately, instead of making
1008:
First, about the term itself: as a student of
Central Asian studies, I'll vouch for the fact that "the New Great Game" is a common term in the literature. Also, Rashid did not come up with the term, he's just quite fond of (over)using it. The term has been around for some time since the fall of the
969:
on
Knowledge; there is no exception for OR that is "pretty good." Second, if we do your suggestions -- rename the article, get rid of OR, and "clean up," there is nothing left but a footnote to an article about state relations in central Asia -- which can be added to such an article whether or not
470:
The title is referring to the new Great Game and it was clearly talking about that new Great Game when it was mentioning all this other stuff. What the sources indicate is csloat's argument about it being non-notable and used by hardly any authors is complete nonsense because it's been used several
163:
of different ideas (many undocumented) that are loosely connected together by original research, and much of which doesn't even mention "the new great game." In fact, the body of the article mentions the phrase only once, and not as a quote but as an unsourced assertion that there are three phases
1193:
is all that is relevant. You have offered clear and compelling evidence from reliable sources specifically speaking to this concept. It's too bad that it took this late into an AfD to finally produce a single such citation; I hope you will take a lead role in rewriting this article with material
1039:
A Knowledge editor's "voucher" as a "student" really doesn't carry a lot of weight; if the term is common "in the literature," it should be easy to actually cite the literature establishing a consistent pattern of usage to refer to a particular phenomenon. That has not been done for this article;
1044:
of various uses of a phrase. Rather than "vouching" that you've seen the term used in academic articles, please cite the articles and preferably show where they talk about the phrase as a specific identifiable concept that forms part of an academic conversation (as one could easily do for a term
212:
I don't see why the relevant material couldn't be added to such an article right away without an official merge vote. It's no different from adding anything else to an article, methinks; in this case, there wouldn't be a lot to add - a paragraph on this theory would be plenty. I don't know what
282:
that does not belong in the encyclopedia. Note: This page was given the benefit of doubt in the last deletion discussion. The core problems identified during the last deletion discussion remain unresolved a year later. This is a strong indicator to me that they can not be resolved and weighs
363:
Csloat is trying to repeat the same arguments used against the New Cold War, but this falls flat because not only is this topic clearly defined by numerous reliable sources, it's even dated. Here's a nice little series of sources showing exactly how legitimate this subject is and how much it is
513:
already had a recognized meaning, they would use it. (One of them refers to the sides as the US and Europe, with Russia on the sidelines.) I regret that you appear to be insensitive to the difference, but you are unlikely to convince the rest of us that you are engaged in more than
Googling.
471:
times. These are not passing references either, most of the articles mention it several times and are written entirely about the subject. I don't see how you can just dismiss this. Did reliable sourcing, verifiability, and notability suddenly become secondary considerations for an article?--
419:
You apparently didn't read the article. It was referring to the modern era following the collapse of the Soviet Union and clearly referring to it as the New Great Game. It's completely relevant and shows the term was used, defined, and dated as early as 1996. Several more recent articles:
455:
article (and so is neither defined nor dated), this is irrelevant cruft. The possibility of a new Great Game, at some point, has been discussed since
Kipling was alive, in passing references like this (see Hopkirk's book on Central Asia, for example); none of that makes an article.
672:
Renaming and throwing the POV out of it would be one way to go. I don't expect it to work, however, and if the closer decides on it and it fails, we will be back here. But I would settle, in the interests of comity, for userifying this selective diatribe and quarrying
189:
is there no other article about great power politics in
Central Asia in the present day? I agree that this article is problematic, starting with the use of a neologism for the title. But I wonder if it could be merged, rewritten, renamed rather than deleted outright?
1015:
this "New Great Game" article about the uses and history of the term "New Great Game", the first writers, including KazakhPol, had the article about the "game" itself - that is, about power politics in
Central Asia. It is that "game" material which is SYN and OR.
657:
Now let's slow down a little before we start deleting established articles with 40 or so sources. As far as I can see 90% of deletion advocates simply can't stand the name New Great Game which can be easily solved by renaming or merging not deletion.
231:
d. It seems that WP's coverage is deficient in this area, but I don't see how that would be improved by an article like this, which is explicitly slanted starting with the title, and does seem to stitch together unrelated sources to make its point.
543:
valid political generalization. The material there can be supported. it is individually--it now needs to be supported as part of the broader concept. I don't want to quibble over the title, though I think this probably the best one.
944:. First, move this article to a less melodramatic name. That will get rid of the Neologism problem and lessen the undue weight given to certain opinions. Second, change the redirect to a permastub such as Otebig did here
914:
Exactly what are you referring to? There was plenty of discussion on New Cold War; there was even further discussion upon deletion review. In this case, what is there to discuss other than the implications of
396:
309:
480:
436:
82:
846:. If people keep putting articles up for deletion like this there won't be anything but user pages in a month. CSloat, maybe you need a break, but please consider improvement over annihilation.
159:(see below). Non-notable neologism; there are only a couple people actually using this phrase and one of them (Rashid) appears to use it practically in passing. Most of the article is a
300:
New Great Game is a clearly notable subject. If the nominating editor has a problem with the article he/she should consider editing it to fix the problem instead of using AfD.--
346:
as part of their theory should be removed. We have other articles (surely?) on the diplomatic relations of Central Asia, and we don't need one with a central thesis to push.
142:
970:
this one is deleted. The AfD allows the merits of this article to be discussed; I think those calling for merge or rename are really supporting the basis for deletion.
800:. I have no objections to merging but this title names a non-notable concept and sourcing it to five books that don't even reference each other is a clear violation.
523:
465:
414:
330:
77:
696:. Notable, sourced and very interesting subject. Once again, this article is about real phenomenon, not about a combination of words ("neologism", etc.).
342:(if not deleted, merge a severely restrained summary into Rashid's article; Kleverman credits him with the term.) Any statement which is not attributed
403:
This resulting rivalry in Central Asia, Kipling's Great Game, continued as a shadowy duel even after the Bolsheviks took over the czarist empire.
373:
718:
adequate. If warranted, the removed material can be retrieved and moved, as others were saying, to more appropriate articles (such as
109:
104:
381:
113:
1203:
1176:
1054:
1030:
995:
979:
956:
928:
909:
884:
855:
838:
809:
784:
753:
739:
705:
686:
667:
649:
632:
599:
576:
555:
355:
292:
270:
249:
222:
207:
181:
68:
593:
476:
432:
392:
305:
96:
17:
821:. Yes, there's vast room for improvement. But that's a call for authors, not a basis for deletion. Ultimately I agree with
1132:
1084:
245:
203:
1118:
1077:
905:
851:
723:
608:
727:
674:
719:
585:
164:
to the new great game. This reads like a summary of someone's doctoral dissertation, not as an encyclopedia article.
442:
472:
428:
388:
385:
301:
1141:
Edwards, Matthew (March 2003), "The New Great Game and the new great gamers: disciples of Kipling and Mackinder",
1218:
1199:
1164:
1050:
975:
924:
880:
805:
778:
326:
218:
177:
169:
36:
1217:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
572:
425:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
952:
901:
847:
401:
What the last article cited (from the NYTimes, in case DA finds some more stray kittens) actually says is:
375:
764:
266:
991:. A quick search with google turns up plenty of sources, plus of course the article itself. Looks good.
701:
1195:
1143:
1094:
1046:
971:
920:
876:
801:
772:
682:
663:
519:
461:
410:
351:
322:
214:
173:
165:
830:
749:
628:
568:
421:
213:
article to add it to though but maybe someone who worked on this article will have a suggestion...
100:
697:
1160:
948:
834:
645:
612:
379:
377:
371:
288:
262:
240:
198:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1172:
1167:, among others, about the "game". Can we now wrap this up and start writing a good article?
1026:
735:
62:
678:
659:
515:
457:
406:
347:
745:
714:
624:
616:
92:
45:
1190:
1182:
1041:
966:
916:
872:
868:
797:
641:
620:
551:
279:
160:
1129:
This paper therefore proposes to undertake a study of the New Great Game concept...
771:
is used as a title in at least five books, and the article can be further improved.
367:
897:
893:
826:
284:
233:
191:
965:
I don't see the difference. First, you seem to acknowledge this is OR; all OR is
423:
130:
1186:
1168:
1022:
992:
822:
731:
383:
365:
56:
405:
This is not germane. Please stop using raw google as though it were research.
369:
283:
heavily in my opinion that the benefit of doubt is no longer appropriate.
546:
451:
might be. But since the term doesn't occur anywhere in the text of the
829:. I found this page via Google search and imagine others would, too.
900:, which was not adhered to on New Cold War. Practice what you preach.
445:, which we badly need, that would be on point; even the comparison to
584:
and keep, and then work on improving. File an RFC for a new name?
1194:
like this rather than the original research that has been there.
1211:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1115:
1074:
447:
1067:
Wow, not even a little AFG here. Okay then, here you go...
767:, as it has notability to a real-world audience. The term
640:. OR and novel syn lead to a very misleading article. --
505:
One of those new ones doesn't load. The others both say
364:
clearly not a subject of non-notable original research:
945:
137:
126:
122:
118:
825:. We could use articles on politics and diplomacy in
613:
Petroleum politics#Pipeline diplomacy in Central Asia
83:
Articles for deletion/New Great Game (2nd nomination)
611:. Article name is too general/ambiguous. See also
1126:contemporary use of geopolitics in this region.
321:: in this case, AfD is the most appropriate fix.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1221:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1095:"9/11 and the Heartland Debate in Central Asia"
8:
55:(non-admin closure) - Nomination withdrawn.
509:, which is not the same thing; indeed, if
75:
607:to a specific and NPOV title, perhaps
7:
1185:has nothing at all to do with this;
78:Articles for deletion/New Great Game
74:
724:Petroleum politics in Central Asia
609:Petroleum politics in central Asia
24:
728:Foreign relations in Central Asia
675:Foreign relations in Central Asia
443:Foreign affairs of Central Asia
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
563:, all this article needs is a
227:Yeah, I think this has to be '
172:) 05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1:
1204:06:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1177:04:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1099:Central Asia and the Caucasus
1055:03:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
1031:00:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
996:09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
980:23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
957:06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
929:23:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
910:07:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
885:03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
856:15:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
810:03:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
754:22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
250:04:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
69:11:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
441:If this were the article on
1159:There are also articles by
1040:what we have instead is an
839:14:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
785:10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
740:06:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
720:Geopolitics in Central Asia
706:15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
687:16:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
668:14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
650:10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
633:08:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
600:08:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
577:07:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
556:06:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
524:22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
481:06:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
466:21:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
437:19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
415:19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
397:19:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
356:18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
331:08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
310:05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
293:18:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
271:16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
223:18:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
208:17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
182:05:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1238:
1137:
1089:
1214:Please do not modify it.
1093:Sengupta, Anita (2005),
942:Keep, rename and cleanup
898:the part on negotiations
730:). How does that sound?
32:Please do not modify it.
567:so people can find it.
1042:illegitimate synthesis
765:Knowledge:Five pillars
344:to Rashid or Kleverman
73:AfDs for this article:
1144:Central Asian Survey
473:The Devil's Advocate
429:The Devil's Advocate
389:The Devil's Advocate
302:The Devil's Advocate
280:prohibited synthesis
157:Withdraw nomination
1161:S. Frederick Starr
902:Whiskey in the Jar
848:Whiskey in the Jar
769:The New Great Game
51:The result was
1157:
1156:
1111:
1110:
711:Keep, see changes
685:
598:
522:
464:
413:
354:
291:
1229:
1216:
1153:
1152:
1116:
1107:
1106:
1075:
781:
775:
744:Sounds good. --
681:
615:. Then convert
596:
592:
590:
518:
507:new "Great Game"
460:
409:
350:
287:
140:
134:
116:
67:
65:
59:
34:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1219:deletion review
1212:
1140:
1138:
1092:
1090:
890:Counter Comment
779:
774:Masterpiece2000
773:
679:Septentrionalis
594:
586:
516:Septentrionalis
458:Septentrionalis
407:Septentrionalis
348:Septentrionalis
136:
107:
91:
88:
63:
61:
57:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1235:
1233:
1224:
1223:
1207:
1206:
1155:
1154:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1120:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1034:
1033:
1017:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1005:
1004:
998:
985:
984:
983:
982:
960:
959:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
859:
858:
841:
815:
814:
813:
812:
788:
787:
758:
757:
756:
708:
691:
690:
689:
652:
635:
617:New Great Game
602:
579:
569:Phlegm Rooster
558:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
511:New Great Game
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
358:
336:
335:
334:
333:
313:
312:
295:
273:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
184:
147:
146:
93:New Great Game
87:
86:
85:
80:
72:
48:
46:New Great Game
43:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1234:
1222:
1220:
1215:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:John Erickson
1163:and the late
1162:
1150:
1146:
1145:
1136:
1130:
1127:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1088:
1080:
1076:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
990:
987:
986:
981:
977:
973:
968:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
949:Robert A.West
946:
943:
940:
939:
930:
926:
922:
918:
913:
912:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:, especially
895:
891:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
863:
862:
861:
860:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
791:
790:
789:
786:
782:
776:
770:
766:
762:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
716:
712:
709:
707:
703:
699:
695:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
636:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
597:
591:
589:
583:
580:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:
557:
553:
549:
548:
542:
539:
538:
525:
521:
517:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
482:
478:
474:
469:
468:
467:
463:
459:
454:
450:
449:
444:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
426:
424:
422:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
384:
382:
380:
378:
376:
374:
372:
370:
368:
366:
362:
359:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:Strong Delete
338:
337:
332:
328:
324:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
251:
247:
244:
243:
238:
236:
230:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
211:
210:
209:
205:
202:
201:
196:
194:
188:
185:
183:
179:
175:
171:
167:
162:
158:
154:
153:
149:
148:
144:
139:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
71:
70:
66:
60:
54:
47:
44:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1213:
1210:
1158:
1148:
1142:
1128:
1124:
1112:
1102:
1098:
1000:
988:
941:
889:
864:
843:
827:Central Asia
818:
793:
768:
760:
710:
693:
654:
637:
604:
587:
581:
564:
560:
545:
540:
510:
506:
452:
446:
402:
360:
343:
339:
318:
297:
275:
263:AlexTiefling
258:
241:
234:
228:
199:
192:
186:
156:
151:
150:
52:
50:
31:
28:
1151:(1): 83–103
1105:(34): 37–45
677:out of it.
565:name change
967:prohibited
683:PMAnderson
660:Hobartimus
520:PMAnderson
462:PMAnderson
411:PMAnderson
352:PMAnderson
746:SmokeyJoe
726:, and/or
625:SmokeyJoe
623:page. --
161:synthesis
831:Chenx064
642:Procutus
143:View log
1001:Comment
867:: See
865:Comment
794:Comment
698:Biophys
361:Comment
319:Comment
285:Rossami
187:Comment
110:protect
105:history
1196:csloat
1191:WP:NOR
1183:WP:AGF
1169:Otebig
1047:csloat
1023:Otebig
993:Mathmo
972:csloat
921:csloat
917:WP:SYN
892:: See
877:csloat
873:WP:AGF
869:WP:CIV
823:Otebig
802:csloat
798:WP:SYN
796:: See
732:Otebig
713:I was
638:Delete
588:Verbal
582:Rename
323:csloat
289:(talk)
276:Delete
259:Delete
229:delete
215:csloat
174:csloat
166:csloat
152:Delete
138:delete
114:delete
58:Chenzw
894:WP:DR
619:to a
453:Times
248:: -->
246:edits
237:eland
206:: -->
204:edits
195:eland
141:) – (
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
1200:talk
1189:and
1187:WP:V
1173:talk
1051:talk
1027:talk
989:Keep
976:talk
953:Talk
925:talk
906:talk
881:talk
871:and
852:talk
844:Keep
835:talk
819:Keep
806:talk
780:talk
763:per
761:Keep
750:talk
736:talk
715:bold
702:talk
694:Keep
664:talk
655:Keep
646:talk
629:talk
605:Move
595:chat
573:talk
561:Keep
552:talk
541:Keep
477:talk
433:talk
393:talk
327:talk
306:talk
298:Keep
267:talk
242:talk
232:<
219:talk
200:talk
190:<
178:talk
170:talk
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
64:Talk
53:Keep
621:DAB
547:DGG
448:Kim
1202:)
1175:)
1149:22
1147:,
1139:—
1133:”
1119:“
1101:,
1097:,
1091:—
1085:”
1078:“
1053:)
1029:)
978:)
955:)
927:)
919:?
908:)
883:)
875:.
854:)
837:)
808:)
783:)
752:)
738:)
722:,
704:)
666:)
648:)
631:)
575:)
554:)
479:)
435:)
427:--
395:)
387:--
329:)
308:)
269:)
235:el
221:)
193:el
180:)
155:.
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
1198:(
1171:(
1103:4
1049:(
1025:(
974:(
951:(
923:(
904:(
879:(
850:(
833:(
804:(
777:(
748:(
734:(
700:(
662:(
644:(
627:(
571:(
550:(
475:(
431:(
391:(
325:(
304:(
265:(
239:/
217:(
197:/
176:(
168:(
145:)
135:(
133:)
95:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.