382:, basically the equivalent of a local city council, and it is a list of projects from the past two years recognized as being sustainable. While this would be noted in the article, it in no way establishes notability, as it is a minor recognition. 7 is the page for the project on the architect's website; I'm not sure why you linked that one, as it obviously doesn't count as outside coverage. 8 is better, but seems to be a page listing a photograph in the Conway Library at the Courtland Institute of Art. This is a collection of thousands of architectural photos, designs, and other works. While the collection as a whole is incredibly significant, the individual photos that comprise it do not automatically have subjects that are notable. I'd suggest reading up on the notability guideline for what types of coverage would be considered more acceptable. Once again, I apologize if I'm coming on too strongly, but I'm just trying to be clear.--
692:. Just to note that the article has been completely re-written from an architectural standpoint, so the "promo" and "only claim is that famous people stayed there" concerns appear to have been addressed. (I'm not familiar with the community's general feel on notability of buildings, and don't have any strong opinions myself either way, which is why this is only a Comment). --
916:'they don't provide significant secondary coverage of the building outside of the local level' - I've no idea what this means, none of the sources are from local media. There isn't currently an article on the architecture of UCL, if there were then I agree that this could perhaps be merged into it. Merging this into the main UCL article would be ridiculous.
277:
363:. It has undoubtedly been mentioned in other architeture books than the one linked above, but it is not easy to find these simply from google. However the reference in the above book is rather more than a footnote and demonstrates that the builiding is of architectual interest, beyond the interest which it has through its purposes and history.
286:
1048:
Let's be clear, I have never had any contact with
Jonathan before today and it was quite possible that he could have come here and voted to delete, or not come here at all. I had no real way of predicting. Or indeed he may well have come here anyway. It is a perfectly normal and appropriate thing to
710:
older even than that, a dorm built in the mid-1950s is of no particular historical value. Hell, the house I grew up in is older than that, as are dozens of others in the same neighbourhood. This is simply a random, unremarkable building that someone made an article on because they thought it would
789:
If you look at the article as rewritten since you made the deletion nomination then you will see that the building has won an award. However the criteria which you have given for yourself are not
Knowledge (XXG) criteria for notability. Notability is demonstrated by the citations now in the article
735:
The age of the building is irrelevant and has never been mentioned as a factor for its notability. And, to reply to your posting above, there is nothing in
Knowledge (XXG) policy stating a requirement for a builiding (or anything else) to be 'truly extraordinary' to merit an article. The motives of
804:
I was looking for something more than an award from the local council. And the
Knowledge (XXG) page on Notability says "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." and if this building is not on any Heritage or Important building list or not won any major design awards I don't
497:
Still not right, it is a magazine published by the LABC. The point does not stand, it is completely counter-factual and irrelevant. Travel books are absolutely acceptable as sources for demonstrating notability. Period. Unless you can tell me where it says here that travel books are different from
340:
The sources which I have provided above in my view more than demonstrate notability when taken together. Why are travel books not acceptable sources under WP policy? I never claimed that the articles in the
Guardian and Times Higher Education were solely or even mainly about Ramsay Hall, that does
300:
I should add, to follow up on the comments of Boing! said
Zebedee, that Mtking has over the last 24 hours shown a desperation to get this article deleted, repeatedly re-adding a speedy deletion tag and then immediately recommending for deletion. The 'promotional' comment is highly curious when one
289:
1035:
May I ask what notable history you're referring to? Being designed? Being constructed? As for the award, I really hope that it's triviality has already been addressed above. As nice as it was for
Rangoon to personally ask you to come here and argue for this to be kept, I would hope you'd be a bit
319:
that mention that the band met in the hall. 4 and 5 are travel guides, simply mentioning that the hall is a good place to stay for cheap. These are all unacceptable as sources to assert notability. The first link is certainly much more usable; however, it seems to simply mention the building on a
377:
I never said all of these sources could not be used; rather, I said that they could not be used to assert notability. Travel guides can be fine sources, but "this is a good cheap place to stay" is not an assertion of notability. Likewise, multiple sources with incredible trivial mentions do not
1049:
let an editor know about a concurrent deletion discussion on a very similar subject, particularly when the editor who commenced the AfD was the same in both cases, and there are similar concerns in each as to process followed. And I didn't actually ask him to vote one way or another, anyhow.
410:
Correction reference 6 is from SiteLines, a magazine published by the LABC, not by Camden
Council. And coverage in travel guides is perfectly acceptable as reliable third-party coverge. 7 was more for interest but the architects' practice is independent of the subject and would be perfectly
320:
list as an example of a type of architecture. It looks like it's just a mention in a footnote, not coverage in the main text. I apologize if I'm being too frank, and I'm not trying to say you're wrong in your claims, but you're going to need much stronger links to prove them. Thank you.--
1130:
849:
The award to which he refers is the borough council's recognition of the "most innovative and sustainable construction projects completed in the borough over the past two years." By no stretch of the imagination is being on this list considered a prestigious award giving automatic
819:
That's your own criteria, but it is not
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Many listed buildings in the UK, of which there are over 350,000, would not qualify for a Knowledge (XXG) article because there is no third party coverage. However many buildings which are not yet listed, would.
515:
Ok, I struck site and changed it to magazine, but this minor mention still does not give notability. And honestly, if you can't see why the mentions in the travel guides do not count as more than trivial coverage, I give up, there's no convincing you of the
894:
While several third-party sources, they don't provide significant secondary coverage of the building outside of the local level (name-drops are not appropriate for this, nor are, effectively, advertisements for its accomodations). Do we even know
834:
Lets look at it the other way, what (other then being the meeting place of a
English alternative rock band Coldplay, BTW the authors of that entry don't even find that fact noteworthy) makes this building in your opinion worthy of notice ?
774:
Is this building on any Heritage or Important building list ? Has it won any design awards ? Because if the answer to either is no then I fail to see what is so special about this that it warrants an encyclopaedia entry.
995:
into a 'Buildings of University College London' article with a merge to that. My firm preference, which I personally feel is more than justified by the sources, remains for this article to be kept stand-alone though.
1171:
No decent sources establishing notability. "Coldplay slept there", is probably one of the worst arguments I've ever heard in an AFD. As stated above me "there's a reason why "your dorm" one of our listed bad article
1136:
says "Archetypal of the modern era is Coldplay, one of the biggest bands in the world, who happily admit that they first met and jammed in the stairwells of Ramsay Hall after enrolling at University College London."
439:, a very long article about a subject of undeniable notability. It is simply not practical to properly cover the subject of this article in that article. And there is much to say about the subject of this article.
1019:— the building has won an award and is well-referenced with historical information. There is enough worthwhile referenced information for a standalone entry that would not be appropriate in a merged article. —
165:
253:. I speedy deleted this as promotional, but then it was pointed out to me that the Speedy tag had been deleted and re-added, so it was technically ineligible for speedy deletion, and I restored it.
593:
Yes, it's an essay, but articles of those types are very, very likely to be deleted unless the subject is truly extraordinary. You've yet to prove otherwise to anyone's satisfaction but your own.
961:
It is not practical to merge this article into the main UCL article, the level of detail in this article would be completely undue in that article and almost all of the content would be lost.
1140:
Sounds like a notable event took place there. The most evidence to its notability, are the links Rangoon11 found to reliable sources that cover architecture that give it full coverage.
457:
magazine. Point still stands, it's not significant coverage. In regards to travel guides, I basically can't be more clear; a guide saying "stay at a dorm like this one, it's cheap"
579:
That is an essay, not policy. And this is not merely a 'dorm' but a notable building in its own right in a conservation area in the centre of a very major city, with multiple uses.
975:
The merge would not be to the level of detail that this article gives; it would be enough so that the information that fits without an undue weight would be added, and no more.--
126:
1091:
899:
it was named "Ramsay Hall"? This seems like an appropriate section in a larger article on the architecture of the university, but doesn't work as a standalone article. --
666:
643:
159:
862:
Local awards do not demonstrate wide notability; they can be sourced in a notable article but don't demonstrate why the whole of mankind should know about this. --
234:- definitely should not have an individual article on a dorm (famous people having lived there does not make it notable). I think a merge may lead to issues of
1219:
Yeah, still not impressed. If you want to include that factoid in the Coldplay article go ahead, but further it doesn't lend any notability to the building.--
762:
315:
While I don't want to say you're wrong about its notability, I do have to take issue with the links you presented. 2 and 3 are just articles about
707:
621:. Subjects do not need to be "truly extraordinary", they need to be notable (which is POV of course), especially as Knowledge (XXG) expands. —
548:
62:
279:
Also one of the oldest and most well-known student halls of residence of a major university which has seen notable individuals stay there.
48:. Coldplay and "cheap place to stay" are poor arguments for retention, but the awards and other sources may be indicative of notability.
758:
295:
A natural break-out article from the main UCL article, which does not have space for a detailed treatment of the topic of this article.
1067:. This is a judgement call of course and the fact that there is such a discussion on this AfD indicates that there is no consensus. —
412:
17:
354:
The recent refurbishment is also noteworthy, as the builiding is in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area and the project won an award:
1239:. It's a perfectly good factoid, but not one that gives notability. Otherwise, we'd have countless "Band X's basement" and such.--
257:
appears to believe it is of architectural importance and wants to work on it - so can we perhaps allow a little time for that? --
99:
94:
378:
combine together to create overall notability. In regards to your three newest links, I have some other issues. 6 is from the
103:
435:
It is important to note that with this article we have the additional important factor that it is a natural break-out from
196:
Promotional article on a UK university accommodation block that does not look important enough for an encyclopaedic entry.
697:
379:
262:
180:
1188:
They didn't just sleep there, they lived there, met each other, formed their band, and created their first music there.
1129:
A different building by that name in London got coverage over a hundred years ago for a place where musicians gathered.
757:
sufficient notability in reliable sources, including the LA Times, with enough information for a stand alone article. --
223:
147:
86:
1277:
36:
1138:
283:
301:
looks at the actual content of the article, and in any case that is a clean up issue rather than a notability one.
411:
acceptable to provide details of the project for the article (as would this for another project on the builiding:
341:
not mean that they are not capable of being used in combination with other sources to help demonstrate notability.
988:
936:
436:
216:
1276:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
693:
258:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
141:
220:
499:
1133:
1236:
280:
1095:
137:
1260:
1246:
1228:
1211:
1181:
1163:
1121:
1100:
1076:
1058:
1043:
1028:
1005:
982:
970:
956:
925:
911:
874:
857:
844:
829:
814:
799:
784:
766:
745:
730:
701:
681:
658:
630:
612:
588:
570:
523:
510:
468:
448:
389:
372:
327:
310:
266:
245:
226:
205:
68:
358:
285:
Also used as a hostel outside of term time, for which further third party coverage is easily found:
1256:
1117:
1054:
1001:
966:
921:
825:
795:
741:
584:
506:
444:
368:
361:
306:
187:
173:
52:
49:
1132:
Was the new building named after that? Are the awards and mention of it notable for a building?
1220:
1173:
952:
943:(noting) within in the context of our article on the College, but it does not reach the level of
235:
1072:
1024:
992:
677:
654:
626:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1243:
1224:
1189:
1177:
1141:
1040:
979:
854:
840:
810:
780:
520:
465:
386:
324:
242:
201:
90:
1109:
1064:
939:- the building is "note worthy" but not "notable"... in other words, the building is worth
618:
1108:- A review of the sources listed in the article has convinced me that this article passes
907:
870:
153:
1252:
1113:
1050:
997:
962:
917:
821:
791:
737:
712:
594:
580:
552:
502:
440:
364:
302:
254:
948:
355:
1068:
1020:
673:
650:
622:
120:
1240:
1037:
976:
851:
836:
806:
776:
517:
462:
383:
321:
239:
197:
82:
74:
1112:, and to top it off - Coldplay met whilst living at the hall! Totally notable.
900:
863:
276:- A large and architectural notable building right in the centre of London.
316:
736:
those who first created the article are also completely irrelevant.
706:
In the UK, which has countless buildings hundreds of years old, and
1270:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
238:, and a redirect seems weird for what's likely a common name.
453:
Ok, it's the Camden Council's report published on the LABC's
1251:
The Coldplay citations are just two of many in the article.
805:
see how it can be "worthy of notice" for an encyclopaedia.
360:. The building has been the subject of artistic interest:
987:
90% plus of this article would be lost in a merge with
116:
112:
108:
172:
211:
If this place is not notable itself, then we should
1092:
Halls of residence at the University College London
186:
947:we require in a topic for an article on its own.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1280:). No further edits should be made to this page.
991:. A more realistic option is the conversion of
617:That is not true I am convinced as well using
8:
667:list of England-related deletion discussions
665:Note: This debate has been included in the
644:list of Schools-related deletion discussions
642:Note: This debate has been included in the
547:there's a reason why "your dorm" one of our
790:in accordance with Knowledge (XXG) policy.
664:
641:
551:. This is a pretty good example of why.
711:be fun to put their dorm on wikipedia.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1063:I still believe this article passes
24:
759:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
461:give any sort of notability.--
1:
380:Camden London Borough Council
1297:
1261:12:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
1247:01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
1229:01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
1212:00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
1182:23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1164:04:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1122:04:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
1101:18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1077:09:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
1059:17:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1044:16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1029:16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
1006:18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
983:18:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
971:16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
957:14:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
926:16:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
912:13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
875:13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
858:06:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
845:00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
830:00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
815:00:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
800:23:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
785:23:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
767:20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
746:18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
731:17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
702:12:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
682:00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
659:00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
631:10:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
613:17:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
589:19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
571:19:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
524:20:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
511:19:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
500:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
469:19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
449:19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
390:19:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
373:17:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
328:15:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
311:14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
267:10:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
246:07:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
227:07:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
206:04:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
69:17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
989:University College London
937:University College London
437:University College London
217:University College London
1273:Please do not modify it.
549:listed bad article ideas
498:any other type of book:
32:Please do not modify it.
1134:Times Higher Education
694:Boing! said Zebedee
459:absolutely does not
259:Boing! said Zebedee
456:
44:The result was
993:UCL Main Building
684:
670:
661:
647:
454:
1288:
1275:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1098:
1036:more specific.--
904:
867:
728:
725:
722:
719:
671:
648:
610:
607:
604:
601:
568:
565:
562:
559:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
65:
60:
55:
34:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1278:deletion review
1271:
1206:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1191:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1096:
902:
865:
726:
723:
720:
717:
608:
605:
602:
599:
566:
563:
560:
557:
133:
97:
81:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1294:
1292:
1283:
1282:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1232:
1231:
1185:
1184:
1166:
1124:
1103:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1069:Jonathan Bowen
1032:
1031:
1021:Jonathan Bowen
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
930:
929:
928:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
769:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
713:Andrew Lenahan
686:
685:
662:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
623:Jonathan Bowen
595:Andrew Lenahan
574:
573:
553:Andrew Lenahan
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
333:
332:
331:
330:
297:
296:
292:
291:
270:
269:
255:User:Rangoon11
248:
229:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1293:
1281:
1279:
1274:
1268:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1093:
1090:I've created
1089:
1086:
1085:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
981:
978:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
898:
893:
890:
876:
872:
868:
861:
860:
859:
856:
853:
850:notability.--
848:
847:
846:
842:
838:
833:
832:
831:
827:
823:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
773:
770:
768:
764:
760:
756:
753:
747:
743:
739:
734:
733:
732:
729:
714:
709:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
691:
688:
687:
683:
679:
675:
668:
663:
660:
656:
652:
645:
640:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:
614:
611:
596:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
569:
554:
550:
546:
543:
542:
525:
522:
519:
514:
513:
512:
508:
504:
501:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
470:
467:
464:
460:
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
413:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
391:
388:
385:
381:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
329:
326:
323:
318:
314:
313:
312:
308:
304:
299:
298:
294:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
278:
275:
272:
271:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
249:
247:
244:
241:
237:
233:
230:
228:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1272:
1269:
1244:(let's chat)
1237:WP:INHERITED
1216:
1190:
1168:
1142:
1126:
1105:
1087:
1041:(let's chat)
1016:
980:(let's chat)
944:
940:
932:
896:
891:
855:(let's chat)
771:
754:
716:
689:
598:
556:
544:
521:(let's chat)
466:(let's chat)
458:
387:(let's chat)
325:(let's chat)
273:
250:
243:(let's chat)
231:
221:BuickCentury
212:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1097:Dr. Blofeld
708:quite a few
274:Strong keep
160:free images
83:Ramsay Hall
75:Ramsay Hall
945:notability
941:mentioning
516:obvious.--
1253:Rangoon11
1172:ideas".--
1114:Onthegogo
1051:Rangoon11
998:Rangoon11
963:Rangoon11
918:Rangoon11
822:Rangoon11
792:Rangoon11
738:Rangoon11
674:• Gene93k
651:• Gene93k
581:Rangoon11
503:Rangoon11
441:Rangoon11
365:Rangoon11
303:Rangoon11
1235:Indeed.
949:Blueboar
772:Question
317:Coldplay
236:WP:UNDUE
127:View log
1217:Comment
690:Comment
251:Comment
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
50:King of
1241:Yaksar
1221:Sloane
1174:Sloane
1169:Delete
1110:WP:GNG
1065:WP:GNG
1038:Yaksar
977:Yaksar
892:Delete
852:Yaksar
837:Mtking
807:Mtking
777:Mtking
619:WP:GNG
545:Delete
518:Yaksar
463:Yaksar
384:Yaksar
322:Yaksar
240:Yaksar
232:Delete
224:Driver
215:it to
198:Mtking
138:Google
104:delete
1207:Focus
1159:Focus
1088:Merge
935:into
933:Merge
213:merge
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1257:talk
1225:talk
1178:talk
1127:Keep
1118:talk
1106:Keep
1094:. ♦
1073:talk
1055:talk
1025:talk
1017:Keep
1002:talk
967:talk
953:talk
922:talk
903:ASEM
866:ASEM
841:talk
826:talk
811:talk
796:talk
781:talk
763:talk
755:Keep
742:talk
698:talk
678:talk
655:talk
627:talk
585:talk
507:talk
455:site
445:talk
369:talk
307:talk
263:talk
219:. –
202:talk
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
897:why
724:bli
672:--
606:bli
564:bli
188:TWL
125:– (
1259:)
1227:)
1180:)
1120:)
1075:)
1057:)
1027:)
1004:)
969:)
955:)
924:)
910:)
873:)
843:)
828:)
813:)
798:)
783:)
765:)
744:)
727:nd
721:ar
718:St
715:-
700:)
680:)
669:.
657:)
646:.
629:)
609:nd
603:ar
600:St
597:-
587:)
567:nd
561:ar
558:St
555:-
509:)
447:)
414:).
371:)
357:,
309:)
288:,
282:,
265:)
204:)
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:♠
1255:(
1223:(
1204:m
1201:a
1198:e
1195:r
1192:D
1176:(
1156:m
1153:a
1150:e
1147:r
1144:D
1116:(
1071:(
1053:(
1023:(
1000:(
965:(
951:(
920:(
908:t
906:(
901:M
871:t
869:(
864:M
839:(
824:(
809:(
794:(
779:(
761:(
740:(
696:(
676:(
653:(
649:—
625:(
583:(
505:(
443:(
367:(
305:(
261:(
200:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.