1105:, because they're referring to hammers, and not the word "hammer". By wasting my time, I mean that I am happy to evaluate sources, and happy to be proven wrong by them, but if you want to engage in serious discussion, I expect that you will at least do a cursory evaluation of the sources as an experienced contributor, to determine whether or not they are completely garbage.
1238:
359:
for starters. All the information that is actually directly about the "subject" of the article is from the last week. We've just packed in a lot of sources not directly about the subject, but instead about other subjects that are rumored to be whatever it is this is referring to. So we could probably
1013:
Sources that mention the subject not at all, or mention it in passing, do not contribute to notability. Sources that are mentioning the subject in scare quotes are using it "as a term" and not "as a subject", and none of those explore the term as a term in any depth. They explore what the term might
510:
In principle, I agree with this in the future and believe this is where the article is and should be headed. However, at the present time there has only been speculation the SDM is one and the same as the AGM-183A. Though, it's probably not a bad idea to rename the article AGM-183A and then create a
674:
and you don't know what that word means, and you write about that word in an absence of definite meaning, then you are merely writing about "a word", and thus are writing about a neologism. The "this word must stand for something surely" is exactly the same argument being put forth popularly by
766:
299:
We have numerous, valid articles about rumored or hypothesized weapons systems whose exact names are not known or existence has not been verified (as per nom, "not ... an actual thing yet"), or which are known only by informal or colloquial names. See, for example:
244:
Most of this article is about what this article might be about, because it's not about an actual thing yet, because we don't know what that thing is. Normally, we start with a topic, and then write an article, not start with an article trying to find a topic.
1065:
Correct! Fortunately, that's not the case with these (or, indeed, most of the sources in the article). Each of these is an article dedicated to the subject and that alone, or in which coverage of the subject constitutes at least 40-percent of the text of the
511:
section on the AGM-183A reportedly being the SDM, rather than having the article on the SDM with a section on it reportedly being the AGM-183A. Preserving the SDM as a redirect to AGM-183A would handle traffic from users searching that term.
968:"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (how it is used) and "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" (such as
452:
name, we can't enter blank spaces. Renaming the article "Purported Boost Glide
Vehicle with an Unknown Name" would be fine with me, though. I doubt anyone is going to search for it like that but I guess the redirect would handle it.
1072:
Respectfully, I think you're using "scare quotes" as a synonym for quotations rather fast and loosely. And you still haven't addressed how the presence or absence of certain punctuation marks constitutes a policy based argument for
651:
to articles; we can't simply enter blank spaces. Renaming the article "Purported Boost Glide
Vehicle with an Unknown Name" seems like a cumbersome solution, but I'd be fine with that I guess if this is what you seem to be arguing.
1241:
527:
If what we have right now is content on the AGM-138A as a thing that actually exists, and speculation that the "super-duper" is the AGM-138A, then we should have an article on the AGM-138A, and we should redirect super duper
375:
actually about the neologism that is the subject of the article, the
Pentagon will confirm only that they are developing a range of hypersonic missiles, not any individual missel officially or unofficial dubbed the "super
213:
297:'s !vote, I think it would also be appropriate to rename the article AGM-183A and then rewrite the lead appropriately, creating a section on the SDM comment and the theory that the two are the same.
842:, then go for it. It's currently a redirect. But "something Trump said one day" does not endow notability unless you actually have sources that treat that as a thing in-and-of-itself in detail.
531:
Other than that, the notion that SUSTAINED doesn't matter because it's breaking news is completely countered by NOTNEWS. If we haven't met SUSTAINED yet, then we can have an article when we do.
1034:
This is a garbage source. No I will not evaluate something that consists of barely three sentences and social media quotes. You are an administrator and you should not waste my time like this.
834:
So yeah. There's really nothing that treats "super duper" as something other than something Trump said one day. Fully half the sources don't even mention the subject, and should be removed as
593:
This isn't a "current event". This is a weapons platform that may or may not exist, and if it does exist, you don't know what it is, which is why you've written an article about what it
576:
629:
While I respect the confidence of citing your own essay as a reason for deletion, I think - as I previously said - you may be misunderstanding our policies, specifically as regards
1097:
By quotes I am invoking the
English language grammatical use of quotes, meaning they are using the term ironically, or they are using words as words. If you look up sources for
866:
I mean, if you want to take a run at this from a different angle that's fine, I suppose. But adding walls to existing walls of text makes this increasingly difficult to follow.
571:
I'm unaware of anyone making that argument. SUSTAINED and NOTNEWS always matter. And per, NOTNEWS, the mere fact that something is current is not a proscription on inclusion: "
207:
269:
166:
675:
proponents of
Obamagate. If you don't know enough about what it is that you're writing about that you can't write about it in any detail other than what you don't know
954:, which is how it's used. We have generally approach it in the same was as a press release; it does not contribute to notability but it has (very) limited citability
98:
573:
Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
113:
914:
mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
888:
mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
901:
mention the subject of the article. Not a policy-based deletion argument. In any case, this just seems to be a validation of the Rename !vote to AGM-183.
892:
772:
173:
927:
793:
422:
419:
332:. I'd also note that the article has received nearly 14,000 page views in three days; this is obviously a subject about which readers are searching.
808:
which is a
Russian news agency, and of unknown reliability. Also uses scare quotes and doesn't give a real indication of what we're talking about.
139:
134:
910:
WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of
897:
WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of
884:
WP articles frequently include background sections for context and those require referencing. None of the sources in the first two paragraphs of
715:
a neologism. This is an article about a purported vehicle with no known name. The technical limitations of
Knowledge (XXG) mean we must assign
143:
324:, etc. Since no valid, policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced, I can only observe — in my Keep !vote — that the article meets the
403:
Yes ... the subject first appeared in the news in the last week. That's like saying there was no coverage of Covid-19 prior to
November 2019.
936:
799:
642:
413:
126:
838:
on the part of
Knowledge (XXG) editors. The rest are speculation about what we might be talking about. If you want to write an article on
987:
606:
489:
93:
86:
17:
379:
Just because Donald Trump said something that got covered in the news for the next six days doesn't mean the neologism is notable.
984:
918:
784:
769:. The link is broken. From a local newspaper anyway, and is from 2011. So presumably doesn't mention the "subject" of the article.
602:
597:. It's not even clear that Trump is entirely aware of what exactly it was that he was referring to. It is a neologism because the
416:
228:
1015:
195:
820:
547:, because it's "something Trump said once", on the presumption that someone will eventually figure out what it actually means.
486:
992:. If you can do these, I'll post another batch after, but will limit posting them to groups of three for ease of readability.
645:
598:
428:
1030:
Scare quotes, almost entirely about hypersonic weapons. Good for notabiltiy about hypersonic weapons, not for sooper dooper.
107:
103:
1248:
879:
760:
1269:
796:
Also uses the term in scare quotes and quote the
Pentagon as saying they're developing a "range of hypersonic missiles"
40:
189:
1024:
Scare quotes, as a term for hypersonic weapons. Good for notabiltiy about hypersonic weapons, not for sooper dooper.
905:
778:
802:
Also uses scare quotes, and is mostly about hypersonic weapons, which may legitimately be a subject for an article.
372:
1252:
1221:
1188:
1167:
1138:
1121:
1092:
1080:
1055:
1007:
858:
728:
695:
661:
624:
601:
is a soundbite: "I call it the 'super-duper missile" and no one is using the term in any way other than to try to
588:
563:
520:
501:
483:
462:
448:
purported boost-glide vehicle with an unknown name. The simple, technical fact is articles in namespace must have
395:
341:
280:
261:
68:
317:
826:
425:
352:
185:
1244:
130:
1230:
1022:
President Donald Trump calls them “super-duper" missiles though they’re better known as hypersonic weapons.
965:
235:
1163:
1129:
I wish you the very best and look forward to future opportunities for collaboration on a different topic.
1119:
1053:
911:
898:
885:
856:
693:
622:
561:
401:"All the information that is actually directly about the "subject" of the article is from the last week. "
393:
301:
259:
536:
356:
1265:
1217:
1209:
1201:
316:, etc. We also have articles about non-military subjects that are "not ... an actual thing yet" such as
36:
1063:
Sources that mention the subject not at all, or mention it in passing, do not contribute to notability.
1079:
If you find this discussion a waste of your time I apologize. The only advice I could offer is that
990:
313:
870:
754:
676:
532:
490:
https://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-military-releases-first-images-of-agm-183a-hypersonic-missile.html
365:
361:
1184:
1134:
1088:
1003:
839:
724:
657:
584:
516:
458:
337:
221:
122:
74:
1158:
as above. This seems to be a more stable name until there is greater evidence for an alternative.
637:
neologism. This is an article about a purported vehicle with an unknown name that has crested the
541:
we do not generally host articles on topics with the presumption that they will one day be notable
201:
1159:
1106:
1040:
843:
757:
Not a reliable source, and doesn't mention the "subject" of the article and should be removed.
680:
609:
548:
380:
309:
273:
246:
82:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1264:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
641:
and been analytically covered; meaning beyond the mere routine of spots news reporting (e.g.
540:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1213:
1205:
1197:
962:
A twitter post? Not going there either. Any experienced editor should know better than this.
814:
A twitter post? Not going there either. Any experienced editor should know better than this.
487:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a32096936/b-1-bomber-hypersonic-missiles/
789:
It is unclear what specific weapon the president may have been referring to in his comments
704:
638:
630:
437:
325:
950:
State media is generally usable to cite unremarkable quotes attributed to state officials
497:
835:
647:, etc.). Unfortunately, the technical limitations of Knowledge (XXG) mean we must assign
329:
983:
Here's some more original (i.e. non-syndicated) RS from inside and outside the article:
1180:
1130:
1084:
999:
720:
653:
580:
512:
454:
333:
59:
1179:
we don't use colloquialisms for any other military technology and for good reason. --
969:
829:, passing mention in scare quotes. No indication what they're actually talking about.
479:
53:
321:
976:
China Times, in Chinese. So let me know who it is that can read and evaluate that.
817:
China Times, in Chinese. So let me know who it is that can read and evaluate that.
160:
1126:
1076:
1069:
1062:
995:
975:
961:
944:
935:
926:
917:
904:
891:
878:
869:
863:
700:
568:
433:
406:
400:
607:
Just because everything Trump does makes the news cycle doesn't make it notable.
305:
707:
indicates you may not understand this specific policy. NEO relates to articles
484:
https://www.airforcemag.com/arrw-beat-hcsw-because-its-smaller-better-for-usaf/
409:
Actually, there are nine (9) sources directly about the subject of the article
493:
294:
544:
781:
Doesn't mention the "subject" of the article at all and should be removed.
533:
Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Knowledge (XXG)
1083:
and one is free to engage in, or avoid, discussions at one's leisure.
1098:
569:"the notion that SUSTAINED doesn't matter because it's breaking news"
1077:
You are an administrator and you should not waste my time like this.
945:
805:
410:
407:"By one of the few sources that is actually directly about the ..."
666:
I understand policy. I've helped write some of it. I don't think
605:. It does not appear to at all be a term used in it's own right.
1260:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1018:
which explore the term as a term in depth. As to your sources:
996:
But "something Trump said one day" does not endow notability
703:
I congratulate you, however, the way you're trying to apply
775:
Doesn't mention the "subject" at all and should be removed.
763:
Doesn't mention the "subject" at all and should be removed.
575:
You can read expanded thoughts on this policy in the essay
941:
No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
932:
No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
923:
No, just quotes. And not a policy-based deletion argument.
577:
Knowledge (XXG):News coverage does not decrease notability
482:, which is a notable subject per the following articles:
156:
152:
148:
220:
537:
Knowledge (XXG) is a lagging indicator of notability
998:You keep saying that. Who exactly are you quoting?
234:
823:which doesn't mention the "subject" of the article
701:I understand policy. I've helped write some of it.
430:, etc. And I could add another dozen, if you like.
787:Uses the term in scare quotes. Specifically says
719:to articles; we can't simply enter blank spaces.
603:explain what it was Trump meant when he said that
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1272:). No further edits should be made to this page.
811:BulgarianMilitary.com? I'm not even going there.
268:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1233:. For better or worse, but this monster is now
1101:, you will not find people referring to it as
543:. We do not, for example, have an article on
270:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
964:Any experienced editor should know that per
956:"as sources of information about themselves"
114:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
436:I'm not sure you understand our policy on
267:
351:I mean, if you need explicit citation of
579:if this is a topic of interest to you.
1102:
1033:
1027:
1021:
788:
492:presently this redirects to this page
1014:mean, not as a source in the case of
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1028:“I call it the super duper missile."
711:neologisms. This is not an article
1010:; edited 20:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
930:Also uses the term in scare quotes
24:
1196:With the suggested rewriting, --
1081:Knowledge (XXG) is not compulsory
344:; edited 16:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
1016:The pot calling the kettle black
99:Introduction to deletion process
948:which is a Russian news agency
921:Uses the term in scare quotes.
864:Let's do this a different way:
747:Let's do this a different way:
444:neologism. This is an article
1:
908:Doesn't mention the "subject"
895:Doesn't mention the "subject"
882:Doesn't mention the "subject"
1212:) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)--
1204:) 21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)--
328:based on a preponderance of
1127:they are completely garbage
89:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1289:
289:or Rename to AGM-183A ARRW
893:National Defense Magazine
773:National Defense Magazine
670:reification. If you have
633:. This is not an article
440:. This is not an article
318:Technological singularity
1262:Please do not modify it.
1253:00:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
1222:21:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
1189:23:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
1168:15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
1139:03:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1122:00:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1093:00:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1056:23:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
1008:20:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
859:18:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
729:20:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
696:18:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
662:17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
625:17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
589:15:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
564:14:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
521:13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
502:13:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
463:14:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
396:13:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
342:03:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
281:01:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
262:01:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
69:07:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
293:After consideration of
1227:Keep and do not rename
939:Also uses scare quotes
912:Herman Vandenburg Ames
899:Herman Vandenburg Ames
886:Herman Vandenburg Ames
355:, then we can go with
873:Not a reliable source
677:then it isn't notable
87:Articles for deletion
952:of the sponsor state
1245:My very best wishes
840:Hypersonic Missiles
123:Super-Duper Missile
75:Super-Duper Missile
1237:as "super-duper":
599:origin of the term
371:By one of the few
821:Popular Mechanics
283:
104:Guide to deletion
94:How to contribute
67:
1280:
1128:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1078:
1071:
1064:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1044:
997:
977:
963:
949:
940:
931:
922:
909:
896:
883:
875:Agreed. Deleted.
874:
865:
854:
853:
850:
847:
767:whatever this is
702:
691:
690:
687:
684:
620:
619:
616:
613:
570:
559:
558:
555:
552:
435:
408:
402:
391:
390:
387:
384:
278:
257:
256:
253:
250:
239:
238:
224:
176:
164:
146:
84:
66:
64:
57:
52:. But rename to
34:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1270:deletion review
1114:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1041:
953:
871:Global Security
851:
848:
845:
844:
827:Times of Israel
755:Global Security
688:
685:
682:
681:
617:
614:
611:
610:
556:
553:
550:
549:
434:"the neologism"
388:
385:
382:
381:
353:WP:ALPHABETSOUP
298:
290:
274:
254:
251:
248:
247:
181:
172:
137:
121:
118:
81:
78:
60:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1286:
1284:
1275:
1274:
1256:
1255:
1235:commonly known
1231:WP:COMMON NAME
1224:
1191:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1074:
1067:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1031:
1025:
993:
981:
980:
979:
973:
959:
951:
942:
933:
924:
915:
902:
889:
876:
832:
831:
830:
824:
818:
815:
812:
809:
803:
797:
791:
782:
776:
770:
764:
758:
749:
748:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
668:you understand
529:
524:
523:
505:
504:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
431:
404:
377:
369:
346:
345:
292:
288:
242:
241:
178:
117:
116:
111:
101:
96:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1285:
1273:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1177:Speedy Rename
1175:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1075:
1068:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1054:
1052:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1019:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1009:
1005:
1001:
994:
991:
988:
985:
982:
974:
971:
970:Nick Schifrin
967:
966:WP:SELFSOURCE
960:
957:
947:
943:
938:
934:
929:
925:
920:
916:
913:
907:
903:
900:
894:
890:
887:
881:
877:
872:
868:
867:
862:
861:
860:
857:
855:
841:
837:
833:
828:
825:
822:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
798:
795:
792:
790:
786:
783:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
759:
756:
753:
752:
751:
750:
746:
745:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
699:
698:
697:
694:
692:
678:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
650:
646:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
623:
621:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
567:
566:
565:
562:
560:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
485:
481:
480:AGM-183A ARRW
477:
474:
473:
464:
460:
456:
451:
447:
443:
439:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
411:
405:
399:
398:
397:
394:
392:
378:
374:
370:
367:
363:
360:also go with
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
296:
291:
285:
284:
282:
279:
277:
271:
266:
265:
264:
263:
260:
258:
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:
65:
63:
55:
54:AGM-183A ARRW
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1261:
1259:
1234:
1226:
1193:
1176:
1160:StudiesWorld
1155:
1070:Scare quotes
955:
716:
712:
708:
671:
667:
648:
634:
594:
572:
475:
449:
445:
441:
357:WP:SUSTAINED
322:Dyson sphere
286:
276:CAPTAIN RAJU
275:
243:
231:
225:
217:
210:
204:
198:
192:
182:
169:
80:
61:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1214:Lineagegeek
1206:Lineagegeek
1198:Lineagegeek
880:Free Beacon
761:Free Beacon
306:2037 Bomber
208:free images
978:Me. I can.
535:, because
366:WP:NOTNEWS
362:WP:CRYSTAL
62:Sandstein
1266:talk page
1181:LaserLegs
1131:Chetsford
1085:Chetsford
1073:deletion.
1000:Chetsford
721:Chetsford
717:some name
654:Chetsford
649:some name
581:Chetsford
545:Obamagate
539:, and we
513:Chetsford
455:Chetsford
334:Chetsford
302:Blackstar
37:talk page
1268:or in a
1103:"hammer"
1066:article.
937:The Hill
928:The Hill
800:The Hill
794:The Hill
595:might be
314:Jumpseat
167:View log
108:glossary
39:or in a
1240:versus
635:about a
446:about a
442:about a
376:duper".
373:sources
214:WP refs
202:scholar
140:protect
135:history
85:New to
1194:Rename
1156:Rename
1099:Hammer
705:WP:NEO
672:a word
639:WP:GNG
631:WP:NEO
528:there.
476:Rename
438:WP:NEO
326:WP:GNG
310:Aurora
186:Google
144:delete
836:WP:OR
713:about
709:about
494:FOARP
330:WP:RS
295:FOARP
229:JSTOR
190:books
174:Stats
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
1249:talk
1229:per
1218:talk
1210:talk
1202:talk
1185:talk
1164:talk
1135:talk
1089:talk
1004:talk
946:Tass
806:Tass
725:talk
658:talk
585:talk
517:talk
498:talk
459:talk
450:some
364:and
338:talk
287:Keep
222:FENS
196:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
50:keep
906:NYT
779:NYT
478:to
236:TWL
165:– (
1251:)
1243:.
1220:)
1187:)
1166:)
1137:)
1091:)
1006:)
989:,
986:,
919:BI
785:BI
727:)
679:.
660:)
644:,
587:)
519:)
500:)
461:)
427:,
424:,
421:,
418:.
415:,
412:.
340:)
320:,
312:,
308:,
304:,
272:.
216:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
56:.
1247:(
1216:(
1208:(
1200:(
1183:(
1162:(
1133:(
1115:G
1112:M
1109:G
1087:(
1049:G
1046:M
1043:G
1002:(
972:)
958:.
852:G
849:M
846:G
723:(
689:G
686:M
683:G
656:(
618:G
615:M
612:G
583:(
557:G
554:M
551:G
515:(
496:(
457:(
389:G
386:M
383:G
368:.
336:(
255:G
252:M
249:G
240:)
232:·
226:·
218:·
211:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
188:(
180:(
177:)
170:·
163:)
125:(
110:)
106:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.