518:(i.e. the original reason for appearing in AfD). I initially thought the "'guardians' of Israeli academia" piece would clinch this for "keep", but when I checked the article, it only mentions him once, and rather trivially at that. Most of that article talks about other people and in more detail. The claim that he "has appeared on the BBC World Service" might also have tipped the scales, but there's no explanation of the context (i.e. was it a story about him, or was it just a short bit of him reporting something, was it multiple appearances or just one, etc.) and there's no accompanying source for this claim. The Jim Kolbe piece and its controversy strike me as a bit of a
654:, refs 10-15 are more of his book reviews, op-eds, blogs entries and such, ref 16 is terse response to ref 15, ref 17 makes no mention of him, ref 18 appears to be another op-ed of his, ref 19 is a blog that makes an oblique allusion to him (though does not evidently name him), ref 20 makes a trivial mention of him (as described above), and ref 21 is another of his pieces. The article further claims (in different sections) that he's written : -->
514:. Like profs, journalists write for a living, so their publications (often argued on the basis of their number) are not necessarily sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines. The main problem I see here is that, while the subject has written articles, blog entries, and op-eds, there don't seem to be multiple, significant, and independent sources that talk substantively about
1137:
particularly notable either, as it just lists some of the articles he wrote for the "vigilante group" Haaretz mentioned, in a pseudo-blog format. Basically, his notability comes down to a couple papers he's written (that I haven't seen anyone actually cite), a lot of book reviews (especially on Amazon; again, hardly notable), and a passing mention in CNS and
Haaretz. ←
706:- per Agricola44. Being quoted in reliable sources does not make somebody notable, being covered by reliable sources does. None of the sources makes anything more than a trivial mention of the person. If there are sources focusing on the person or on his work then there could be an article on him, but the article is currently a
807:
I agree - even if my suspicions that person created this article as an autobiography are correct, that wouldn't necessarily mean it should be deleted. My reasoning for my delete vote is based on a general lack of notability though. I skimmed through the Google
Scholar results, but I didn't really see
659:
is peer-reviewed starting only in winter 2009) or too obscure to be indexed. The truth seems to be that, with the exception of a single web-based piece from an obscure news organization (ref 7) that quotes him, this person's op-ed/blog/column work has gone basically unnoticed by the larger community.
964:
Well I guess you've really taught me a thing or two! I see now that you mistakenly equate citations to references with the references themselves. As I said a few items above, I did check GS and the results show nothing notable. What I really don't understand is your own contradictory position, which
886:
him. I think the elephant in the room remains: this person is a graduate student that has written lots of really really minor op-eds and blog pieces, but has not yet made the accomplishments associated with notability. I think what would have to be shown to legitimately pass here is that he won some
819:
I don't follow bloggers (except for Romero!) or academia that much anymore so still think "widely" could be argued depending on the interpretation. It appears sufficient when couplded with the sources that are available to me still but quality wise it is not very good. I made a mention on the talk
1136:
are hardly notable publications (neither has a
Knowledge (XXG) article, for instance). A Haaretz article does mention him as a possible member of some "vigilante group", but that's about it. Discover the Networks, a database dedicated to finding connections between people "leftwing agendas", isn't
343:
Numerous letters to the editor in the
Jerusalem Post mention him by name, both for praise and criticism. He is notable and it is probable that there are readers who would like to have more information about him and so this article would be important for those readers. Indeed the article could be
887:
major journalism award, or held a top or notable post in some organization (academia, news service, ed. of an academic journal, etc.), or broke a major story, or authored a body of work that is demonstrably notable by way of others having noticed it, cited it, written about it, etc. You mentioned
840:
commented here, and I think a lot of the information in it will need to come out, reducing what is there to a stub. If a tree falls in the woods, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? If a person is potentially notable, but nobody writes anything about them, are they notable? ←
839:
cited (or likely citable) to reliable sources, which will become a major problem. Even if he could, technically, have an article, where would we find reliable sources that discuss where and when he was born? ...his education? I can try to clean up the article, but I took a quick look before I
949:
Up above where there are links to " – news · books · scholar · images" If you don't know how to Google sources or click on links made availableyou should not participate in Afds. This guys GNG is poor and I don;t mind people saying no but disregaring sources because you simply fail to try is
637:
I don't think the article actually show that "he is quoted in numerous reliable sources". Checking the refs, I see that ref 1 is a dead link, refs 2-5 are articles written by him in his role as a columnist, ref 6 makes no mention of him, ref 7 is an article from some organization called the
259:'s "...is widely cited by their peers or successors" is close with several Google Scholar (remove the quotations since his middle name is not always used and minus the handful written by him, then there is another citation of him in Google Books) hits showing his work as citations. "Widely"
909:
Then you simply didn't look hard enough. There are independent papers citing him and secondary sources not by him provided up above. Agreed that he has not done much but one (all that is needed) of the aspects of WP:AUTHOR might be met and there is some (I doubt enough for GNG) independent
1091:
851:
We have enough secondary sources to summarize his views (especially the criticism). However, personal details for something like an infobox would have to be from a primary source. So keeping the balance needed to not let the article be based on the primary source would be a challenge but
413:
As for the "references offered" they seem to be a smattering of minor partisan websites, exactly where you'd expect a blogger to turn up. "Numerous letters to the editor in the
Jerusalem Post mention him by name, both for praise and criticism." LOL! Thanks for the laugh, I needed that!
271:
in response to the Saudi Arabia opinion. An official diplomatic response showed some notability and professionals discussing it shows even more. And although
Criticism sections are frowned upon, there appears to be even more peers and potential RS discussing the guy. See the
932:, but doesn't mean that person is notable. And, so far, this about what we have for Frantzman: really thin coverage by sources that are basically obscure. I'll gladly change my position if I see something substantive, but so far there's nothing. Respectfully,
834:
I think that's the crux of the problem for me. Even if this article is kept, where will we find reliable sources that discuss
Frantzman himself? I think Frantzman wrote parts of this article himself, meaning a lot of what is contained in the article is
1093:
is nothing to sneeze at. He has a regular column in
Jerusalem Post. He has been used as a reference for a historical work. He has been quoted in CNS a number of times, the Jewish Times, New Jersey Jewish News, Haaretz, been used as a source for
405:
As for your claim that my vote was "unaccompanied by any policy-based rationale", I clearly seconded
Jezhotwell's argument. Accusing me of not having a policy-based rationale when I clearly referenced Jezhotwell's policy-based argument
808:
anything more than what you'd find for the average graduate student - a couple of papers, and a handful of citations to those papers. If the article is kept, it will need some serious work to tone down the exaggerated claims though. ←
361:
per
Jezhotwells. A truly non-notable blogger. It seems that this article is receiving keep votes only because Frantzman's ideological views regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict are the same as certain Wikipedians.
160:
891:
above, but when you check, you find basically the same assessment of his work: h-index = 1. We can very safely conclude that there has not been any sort of substantial notice or uptake of his work. Respectfully,
1015:" of the subject of this article. The attempts above to pass off letters in newspapers and minor opinion peices in anewsppaer, along with co-authorships of some non peer reviewed articles. The subject fails
322:
439:
655:
50 op-eds and 8 articles in learned journals. One of these articles shows up in WoS, but has never been referenced (h-index = 0). The others seem to be in publications that are either too new (i.e.
263:
be questioned. There are also potential sources that are not currently shown in the article which contradicts the assertion that the available coverage is "by" and not "about". For example,
313:
and writes for numerous other venues. As well as the sources in the article, and the sources pointed out by Cptnono, I would add that the conservative biographical encyclopedia
924:"up above" where? Would you kindly relist those here so that all the panelists can easily examine them? You also seem to think that sources alone are sufficient – they're only
115:
280:
as an example. I also recommend combing through the Google News Archives a little closer. It will take awhile since so may hits are simply articles he wrote but not all are.
154:
773:
1065:
per Agricola44's careful analysis of the inadequacy of the sourcing of this article. As a blogger and a graduate student, the only reasonable notability guideline is
231:
965:
is to say on one hand that his "GNG is poor", but on the other hand to still advocate keep. Perhaps you should consider changing positions. Is there any credence to
1124:- someone who doesn't work for the newspaper, but sends them letters expressing their own opinion, some of which get printed as op-eds. He is cited by the
120:
88:
83:
750:
92:
761:
the same editor, and the editor was probably just creating the article as a vanity piece and didn't want their own name as the creator. ←
882:
from a student-run college newspaper has now been added, but again, this is a piece from an obscure source that does not substantively
616:
As attested by the sources in the article, he is quoted in numerous reliable sources, the clear mark of a notable writer/journalist. --
75:
1112:
It's probably worth reviewing the sources you listed. If you actually go through the Google Scholar results, you'll find that almost
292:
at least) appear to be met or at least close enough that focus and time might be better spent finding sources over debating deletion.
17:
522:(the top hit for the title is this very wp page) and not something that appreciably furthers a claim of notability. Respectfully,
623:
175:
733:, and writes op-eds in newspapers. He doesn't seem particularly notable, and the article itself has quite a bit of exaggerated
288:
has a right slant but it appears reliable in this context). The article needs improvement but the minimum requirements (for an
142:
1120:
peoples' books; two are papers he co-wrote, and one I can't access. He doesn't have a column in the Jerusalem Post, he's an
1210:
36:
402:
policy; an observation on why an article is receiving keep votes is not a personal attack against yourself. Chill out.
268:
969:'s speculation above that this article is getting some "keep" votes related to the subject's ideology? Respectfully,
136:
757:, where Frantzman is from and which Frantzman also edited in 2007, and which mentions the Frantzman family). It's
1073:
which he clearly fails) but we don't seem to have enough in-depth coverage about Frantzman in reliable sources. —
380:
Your !vote is unaccompanied by any policy-based rationale, nor did you comment on the references offered, merely
341:
1209:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1195:
1162:
1143:
1107:
1082:
1078:
1057:
1040:
978:
959:
941:
919:
901:
865:
846:
829:
814:
802:
782:
767:
754:
720:
692:
669:
632:
597:
583:
568:
555:
No, I'm afraid not because his work has evidently had little, if any impact (see below) and so he doesn't pass
550:
531:
503:
481:
454:
450:
423:
393:
371:
353:
301:
246:
220:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
132:
928:. The case where some local coverage (e.g. neighborhood newspaper) talks about someone probably qualifies as
79:
1125:
326:
285:
746:
289:
182:
1036:
656:
643:
419:
367:
314:
242:
216:
1020:
1016:
71:
63:
1103:
974:
937:
897:
665:
628:
593:
564:
527:
389:
349:
1049:
203:
the subject. On-line, one can find some blogs, twitter and facebook postings, some articles written
1074:
1053:
519:
446:
168:
1024:
556:
491:
463:
per those above - seems that enough sourcing exists to merit a very 'citeable' article. Regards,
256:
192:
713:
337:
870:
I disagree. As I observed above, almost every single source is an op-ed or some such written by
758:
318:
888:
729:- As far as I can tell, Frantzman is a rather prolific graduate student, who maintains his own
148:
955:
915:
861:
825:
798:
688:
579:
546:
464:
297:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1070:
734:
707:
1191:
1175:
1158:
1032:
966:
559:#1 (nor obviously any of the other criteria, which are fairly more specific). Respectfully,
415:
363:
277:
238:
212:
53:
1066:
1028:
399:
381:
1171:
1099:
1008:
970:
933:
893:
738:
661:
618:
589:
560:
523:
385:
345:
1012:
929:
875:
793:
COI is not a notability problem. Agreed with your reasoning that there is a COI though.
651:
310:
309:
Per Cptnono. Frantzman is highly prolific journalist who has a regular column in the
1179:
264:
195:, fails general notability guidelines. The article editors seem to confuse writings
951:
911:
857:
821:
794:
684:
575:
542:
500:
293:
273:
340:
and a further mention here in the New Jersey Jewish News by Andrew Silow-Carroll
109:
879:
1187:
1154:
1138:
841:
809:
777:
762:
49:
730:
329:
281:
1031:. There is no reason that has been produced for this article to exist. ––
639:
330:
Harassment, Islamic Radicalism Drive Flight of Palestinian Christians
1170:
per Agricola44 and George. (Full disclosure: My first contact with
820:
page about blowing out most of the current citations if it is kept.
494:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
541:
I agree that GNG is short but does it meet WP:AUTHOR in your view?
1203:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1116:
of them are worth "sneezing at". Eleven are reviews he wrote of
745:
as Sfrantzman, and probably created this article on himself as
683:
Google Scholar is linked at the top of the page with more hits.
588:
Yes, and I found h-index=1, as discussed below. Respectfully,
317:
uses several Sethman articles as a resource for their article
440:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
878:. Comprehending the difference is crucial. I see that an
207:
him, book reviews on Amazon, but no substantial coverage
323:"The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, by Craig S. Keener
1183:
742:
105:
101:
97:
167:
1182:. Well, the village is on the occupied West Bank (I
344:improved (like most) but it should not be deleted.
499:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
181:
1153:per Agricola44. No real evidence of notability. --
776:on Samsfranklin21, the creator of this article. ←
710:piece pretending to be an encyclopedia biography.
1048:per Jezhotwells and the lack of GS citations. --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1213:). No further edits should be made to this page.
191:Non notable doctoral student and blogger. Fails
749:. Samsfranklin21 was around for only two days,
1128:, though I've only seen one such article. The
1098:Can't understand why that wouldn't be enough.
874:– these are not secondary sources but rather
8:
650:quote him, ref 8 is his blog, ref 9 is his
232:list of People-related deletion discussions
434:
226:
1011:, there is no "substantial coverage" in "
438:: This debate has been included in the
230:: This debate has been included in the
199:the subject with "significant coverage"
574:Did you review the Google Scholar hits?
739:appears to be a Knowledge (XXG) editor
321:. His work is referenced in the book
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
737:. Also worth noting that Frantzman
398:You don't appear to understand the
24:
1174:was over the Palestinian village
338:The Real Story, by Stephen Kramer
319:"Israel's Academic Fifth Column"
646:, as the article claims) which
382:commented on the contributors.
1:
1130:Jewish Times of South Jersey
755:a tiny logging camp in Maine
410:a bad-faith personal attack.
1178:, which he started, ....as
1090:14 links in Google Scholar
1230:
1196:07:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
1163:07:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
1144:07:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1108:06:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1083:04:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
1058:23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
1041:16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
979:14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
960:08:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
942:15:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
920:15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
902:15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
866:03:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
847:02:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
830:02:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
815:02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
803:02:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
783:02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
768:01:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
721:16:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
693:23:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
670:15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
633:20:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
598:21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
584:23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
569:15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
551:18:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
532:18:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
504:05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
482:02:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
455:19:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
284:is a random one (I assume
58:13:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
774:sock puppet investigation
424:16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
394:16:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
372:14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
354:17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
302:11:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
247:10:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
221:10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
1206:Please do not modify it.
640:"Cybercast News Service"
325:. He is quoted here in
32:Please do not modify it.
1134:New Jersey Jewish News
1126:Cybercast News Service
1096:Discover the Networks.
753:and edited another on
743:edited his own article
286:Cybercast News Service
657:Middle East Quarterly
644:Catholic News Service
315:Discover the Networks
751:created this article
772:P.S. I've opened a
520:tempest in a teapot
652:amazon.com profile
44:The result was
1122:opinion columnist
723:
506:
457:
443:
249:
235:
72:Seth J. Frantzman
64:Seth J. Frantzman
1221:
1208:
1141:
1013:reliable sources
844:
812:
780:
765:
716:
711:
626:
621:
498:
496:
479:
444:
278:Benjamin Pogrund
236:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1211:deletion review
1204:
1172:User:Sfrantzman
1139:
856:not impossible.
842:
810:
778:
763:
714:
624:
619:
489:
475:
471:
465:
336:of South Jersey
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1227:
1225:
1216:
1215:
1199:
1198:
1165:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1085:
1075:David Eppstein
1060:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
788:
787:
786:
785:
747:Samsfranklin21
724:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
676:
675:
674:
673:
660:Respectfully,
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
536:
535:
508:
507:
497:
486:
485:
484:
473:
469:
458:
447:David Eppstein
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
411:
403:
375:
374:
356:
311:Jerusalem Post
304:
276:attributed to
255:It looks like
250:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1226:
1214:
1212:
1207:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:Artas, Israel
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
980:
976:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
948:
947:
946:
945:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
921:
917:
913:
908:
907:
906:
905:
903:
899:
895:
890:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
855:
850:
849:
848:
845:
838:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
813:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
789:
784:
781:
775:
771:
770:
769:
766:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
725:
722:
718:
717:
709:
705:
702:
701:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
671:
667:
663:
658:
653:
649:
645:
641:
636:
635:
634:
631:
630:
627:
622:
615:
612:
611:
599:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
548:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
509:
505:
502:
495:
493:
488:
487:
483:
480:
478:
477:
476:
462:
459:
456:
452:
448:
441:
437:
433:
432:
425:
421:
417:
412:
409:
404:
401:
397:
396:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
360:
357:
355:
351:
347:
342:
339:
335:
331:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
305:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
270:
266:
265:Sabria Jawhar
262:
258:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
233:
229:
225:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1205:
1202:
1167:
1150:
1133:
1129:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1095:
1087:
1062:
1045:
925:
883:
871:
853:
836:
726:
712:
703:
647:
629:(yada, yada)
617:
613:
515:
511:
490:
468:
467:
466:
460:
435:
407:
358:
334:Jewish Times
333:
306:
290:WP:IDEALSTUB
260:
252:
227:
208:
204:
200:
196:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1186:)) Cheers,
1033:Jezhotwells
1021:WP:CREATIVE
1017:WP:ACADEMIC
1007:Agree with
967:Factomancer
950:ridiculous.
416:Factomancer
364:Factomancer
307:Strong Keep
239:Jezhotwells
213:Jezhotwells
155:free images
1100:Stellarkid
1009:Agricola44
971:Agricola44
934:Agricola44
894:Agricola44
741:, who has
662:Agricola44
590:Agricola44
561:Agricola44
524:Agricola44
472:rbitrarily
386:Stellarkid
384:So noted.
346:Stellarkid
1184:moved it.
1050:Radagast3
1025:WP:AUTHOR
1023:(same as
926:necessary
910:coverage.
557:WP:AUTHOR
257:WP:AUTHOR
193:WP:ANYBIO
1132:and the
889:GS cites
715:nableezy
492:Relisted
332:and the
327:CNS news
211:him. ––
116:View log
1088:Comment
1071:WP:PROF
1027:), and
952:Cptnono
912:Cptnono
884:discuss
880:article
858:Cptnono
822:Cptnono
795:Cptnono
759:clearly
735:puffery
685:Cptnono
576:Cptnono
543:Cptnono
501:Spartaz
294:Cptnono
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
1188:Huldra
1168:Delete
1155:Crusio
1151:Delete
1140:George
1067:WP:GNG
1063:Delete
1046:Delete
1029:WP:BIO
843:George
811:George
779:George
764:George
727:Delete
704:Delete
625:crewer
512:Delete
400:WP:NPA
359:Delete
274:source
267:wrote
133:Google
93:delete
50:Stifle
46:delete
1176:Artas
1118:other
1069:(not
930:WP:RS
876:WP:OR
854:maybe
642:(not
614:Keep.
261:might
209:about
201:about
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1192:talk
1159:talk
1114:none
1104:talk
1079:talk
1054:talk
1037:talk
975:talk
956:talk
938:talk
916:talk
898:talk
862:talk
826:talk
799:talk
731:blog
708:puff
689:talk
666:talk
648:does
620:brew
594:talk
580:talk
565:talk
547:talk
528:talk
461:Keep
451:talk
436:Note
420:talk
390:talk
368:talk
350:talk
298:talk
282:Here
269:this
253:Keep
243:talk
237:—––
228:Note
217:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
872:him
837:not
516:him
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1194:)
1161:)
1106:)
1081:)
1056:)
1039:)
1019:,
977:)
958:)
944:.
940:)
918:)
904:.
900:)
864:)
828:)
801:)
719:-
691:)
668:)
596:)
582:)
571:.
567:)
549:)
530:)
453:)
442:.
422:)
408:is
392:)
370:)
352:)
300:)
245:)
234:.
219:)
205:by
197:by
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
1190:(
1157:(
1102:(
1077:(
1052:(
1035:(
973:(
954:(
936:(
914:(
896:(
860:(
824:(
797:(
687:(
672:.
664:(
600:.
592:(
578:(
563:(
545:(
534:.
526:(
474:0
470:A
449:(
445:—
418:(
388:(
366:(
348:(
296:(
241:(
215:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.