55:. The article at the time of the nomination was not supported by sufficient sources to establish notability. However, whether to keep an article or not relies on what sources exist, not solely on what is present in the article. The early part of the discussion leans toward deletion and the later part of the discussion is in favor of keeping. In the middle of the discussion Haukurth introduced additional sources and an evaluation of their quality arguing compellingly that they are sufficient to establish the subject as notable enough to be included in Knowledge. Comments following Haukurth’s information are nearly all in favor of keeping. It’s appropriate and important in this situation to give greater weight to the portion of the discussion that was based on more complete information, which in this case comprises the later support for keeping the article.
2338:. That's ten in all for his solo novels. Some of the sources are marginal but none is just a random guy with a random blog. Then there are 8 reviews for his work with Ringo. I feel it would be weird not to give Kratman some 'notability points' for those too. He's not a hidden ghostwriter but a fully credited co-author. Thomas Wagner notes in his review: "Tom Kratman (remember, in these kinds of "collaborations," the less famous guy does about 85% of the work) can string a sentence together and assemble a narrative thread that flows adequately". He then mentions Kratman 8 times in his review and Ringo only 2 times.
1613:, 16 April 2015. p. 30.) This is just for starters but it is enough to convince me of notability and that a decent policy-compliant article can be written. I don't, however, have the energy for yet another rescue project right now so I may not get around to this within the timeline of this AfD. Hopefully someone else does. But if this discussion is closed as delete then please do so without prejudice to a new properly sourced article being written.
1834:
6 with that, 5 with another, 4 with that one, 3 with yet another, and so on) and letting the newcomer tag along on the coattails. In fact, of 78 books listed for Ringo at GoodReads, only 10 are credited to Ringo as sole author. I'm probably dating myself making this comparison but it's like a promoter giving a new wrestler a short tag team run with Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair when they can't generate notability or a fanbase on their own.
2137:
When dealing with works of art it's critical and artistic impact that matter, not number of copies sold. Now these two factors often come together. But in the case of
Kratman who, as I've mentioned elsewhere, has spent much of his career as a blog troll, there's been no significant critical or artistic impact outside of the walled garden of Baen and the even more walled garden of Castalia House.
1470:"Jay Maynard Actually, I expect Tom Kratman to be next." "Aaron Bosen They already tried." "Glenn Edward McNally Jay Maynard didnt they already go after tom" "Michael Z. Williamson Yeah, they're in the process of trying to delete his right now." This has been followed by him making this false and inciteful accusation of a conspiracy multiple times across multiple pages in rapid succession.
2231:
Notability is cumulative and this adds a smidgen of notability. That said, I took the trouble of contesting your sweeping assertion that "Bestseller lists don't establish notability." because editors, especially new editors, learn the ropes by hearing such rules in AfD discussions. It is necessary
1011:
Indeed - I for one don't know what the subject's politics are - I'd never heard of him before reviewing this article, and it doesn't mention his politics. Everything I know about him is what's in the article, and in the reviews I read - none of which mentions his politics. I spent quite a bit of time
967:
Nice try, but they're saying nothing of the sort: the delete voters are pretty four-square in finding that the subject lacks notability. Unlike in the world of politics these days, Knowledge's far less susceptible to the tactic of denying the facts at the top of your lungs and expecting the sheep to
408:
So let me get this straight: your "speedy keep" argument comes down to the fact that though a neutral person started the AfD, the very person who seemingly has waited patiently for two and a half years for someone to post sources actually responded to the AfD, and a troll alleging that the person who
2299:
Under the standards of notability used with respect of living writers then he's not notable. I think there is a discussion to be had about those standards - I don't think he's any less deserving of documentation than the myriad one term state senators from
Arkansas ion the 1870s or episodes of 1990s
1833:
After doing some research I think Simonm223's point here about reflected glory is very strong. Baen seems to have a pattern with those dual titles and specifically, tying them to John Ringo seems to be a tactic for both pumping up Ringo's yearly output by shifting the workload (5 with one undercard,
1153:
Only the one Tom (or Thomas) Kratman appears in a Google search for the name. Each is a lawyer, military officer, and/or "awful
Military Sci-Fi author". I feel comfortable saying that's the same person as well as suggesting that, perhaps, a lot of editors here might want to spend more than 3 seconds
985:
That explains why all of a sudden, within 48 hours, at least three authors who've passed notability challenges before are suddenly randomly discovered by three different meatpuppets, and the pages of two others are vandalized. Though I note that on his private forum, Kratman asked that it be deleted
2136:
Bestseller lists don't establish notability. And this is where there's a contrast to the MZW article (which I do think is notable). Kratman's reviews are just lacking. As in we have basically one that is unambiguously non-promotional and it's a review of a book which he co-authored with John Ringo.
1308:
Hence the term "professionally published," meaning he was paid an advance, by a major house, and collects royalties. If you are unfamiliar with this very basic industry term, you lack any credentials to comment on members of said community. WP:IDONTKNOWIT remains invalid. He seems to have been paid
945:
Above, the deletionists are literally saying they want to kill this page because they don't like the subject's politics. They aren't even trying to hide it. I implore the rest of you, come to your senses and close this discussion. Knowledge was never meant to be a political action committee and the
389:
AfD started by a SPA, given the high likelihood of sock/meatpuppery inherent. When the next two participants are an editor who really does devote much of his user page in a screed against Mr. Kratman (however much he has the most edits to the article over the last four years) and seemingly
Kratman
247:
After multiple years of request for sourcing in talk, article is primarily self-sourced and author notability is not established. Page appears to have been created for possible promotional purposes. SlaterSteven asked for better, non-self-published sources as far back as
December 2016 but they have
755:
If you need sources for this article, or any sci-fi/fantasy related
Knowledge article, I would recommend Mike Glyer's website "File770". That site is a notable source by every standard and it contains a couple of articles that mention Kratman, although most articles only mention him in passing and
601:
in San
Francisco Book Review. I'm not sure either of these work though. The Publishers Weekly reviews are very short, more of a synopsis than a review, and they don't have a reviewers name attached to them - I think they churn out one of these for basically every book that gets published - I don't
1408:
We had three that I know of, and in one I vote keep. So I am not seeing any causation. Now I cannot speak for anyone else, and that is the problem when you generalize, you undermine your case if any of those who you generalize about can show how your generalization doer not really apply to them.
1800:
has a comment in the source text that says "See #3". Part of #4 says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention" and that is what I am referring to here. So, once we sort through the whole alphabet soup, the point is that authors inherit notability from
1033:
I am vaugley aware of his politics (well his stated views on some subjects, whether these are politics or a
Heinlein like millitraianaism I have no idea). And there is the key, his "politics" are not not new if SF, and in fact hark back to E E Doc Smith and Mack Reynolds (assuming this was not
809:
Why do you think that? It won several awards for the best fanzine and Mike Glyer is a known author. Also, it has a
Knowledge page (albeit one that also needs better sourcing). I admit I'm not a seasoned Knowledge editor, but I can't find a problem with it as a source. It could be that I do not
904:
This is the same Mike Glyer who publishes rumors of authors being pedos, then when proof is provided that the alleged events never took place and the convention in question denounces the allegation, refuses to pull the rumors, which came from some rando passerby. It has zero credibility as a
427:
I have no knowledge or notion that you're a "neutral" person. In nearly fifteen years at AfD, my overwhelming experience is that someone who creates an account for the sole purpose of filing an AfD is very, very seldom "neutral." Genuine first-timers to
Knowledge don't have the institutional
671:
Apart from having been dragged into the puppies debacle (none of his doing, to his credit...), this author has not attracted the kind of coverage or influence that we require for an article about a fiction author. Thanks to Girth Summit for winkling out some more material; but by quality and
1493:
If it walks like a conspiracy and quacks like a conspiracy, then why shouldn't we conclude it's a conspiracy? And again, I'm not the one doing the inciting - not even on Mike's Facebook page, where I've defended Knowledge before. You guys are making me look like a fool for doing so --
1801:"significant critical attention" to their works, e.g. book reviews and academic analysis. How much is 'significant' is left for us to decide but it should be decided in accordance with the present norms at AfD and we shouldn't apply a higher (or lower) bar here than we normally do.
2250:
There is a sneaking suspicion at the back of my mind that it was just this issue that brought me to Mr Kratmans page two years ago, the issue of whether or not an appearance in a niche and short duration best seller list is enough to confer notability (or something like
2090:
And for those watching on Facebook as we show them that once it can be shown that someone is notable by our criteria we won't delete their article, no, primary sources are not the gold standard. I won't copy it all here, if any of them are interested they can read these
602:
see how that establishes notability. The SFBR review is slightly more substantial, and has a name - but I don't think it's a staff reviewer, as far as I can work out this is a volunteer contributor (they have a link saying 'Become a reviewer'), so this is essentially
1545:
The encyclopedia is now online but earlier editions appeared in print. There is also significant analytical coverage of his work in a completed, publicly available PhD thesis (the name 'Kratman' appears 40 times in the document) which is a usable source according to
563:
same people, I was going to strike my vote as "involved", but I am not even aware of the other AFD, so who are these "people"? Nor did I vote delete here. Arguemtns should be based on the notability of the subject, not what you think other users are up
2265:
bestseller lists are "short duration" by definition. As a said, it confers a mere smidgen of notability. Notability here is relatively weak, supported by the sources cumulatively. Magic bullets are nice, but far more rare in real life than in genre
632:
coverage. San Francisco Book Review solicits "sponsored reviews" from authors and offers SEO services to authors - and it's mission is specifically to provide a high volume of reviews, so I would not consider them a reliable source for ensuring
390:
himself, this is a trainwreck in progress. I make no judgment of the subject's notability -- however much I agree that there's a lot of primary sourcing that should be stricken from the article -- which can come in a subsequent neutral AfD.
409:
asked for sources somehow has a personal vendetta even though they didn't start the AfD? That sounds less like an argument because no matter who starts this, all the troll has to do is run in screaming and you're going to give them a
728:
Thanks Simonm223 and Elmidae for you input on those sources. I was already leaning delete, so in light of what you've said I'm decided. I also note that in the Guardian piece about the Sad Puppies stuff, which is actually cited at
1378:
He is not the only right wing SF author around, but many of the rest have won awards or been the subject of major retrospectives (or even had films made based upon their books). Many of them have not been AFD'd, why not if its
863:
Ah, okay, that makes sense. But wouldn't that make io9 the only notable sci-fi/fantasy news site, except maybe Locus Online and Publishers Weekly? Speaking of Publishers Weekly, they also have a few reviews of Kratman's books:
1186:
Agreed. I'm a published author myself who's been a featured panelist at Worldcon and at Boskone, when those conventions were rivaling Worldcon attendance. I don't fancy that any of that qualifies me for a Knowledge article.
2048:
Mostly for the same bad reason as yourself, by the look of it. If you can wander into a mainstream mass-market bookstore and see an author advertised by a lifesize cardboard cutout, odds are they are notable in some context.
1742:). I don't see the inverse case (notable book reflecting on notability of the author). Can you point that out? (NB, even if that was the case, we are nowhere near such a threshold through the coverage of Kratman's books.) --
2014:
Aside from that, of course, the rules on deletion are pretty clear: the state of the article is only relevant when it is so spectacularly bad that it creates an impediment to fixing it, and this piece is nowhere near the
1958:. I've read through the entire discussion above, and it looks like I'm joining the late bandwagon: Haukur's analysis convinces me that Kratman meets the criteria for notability necessary to be included in Knowledge.
1145:
titled "Cui Bono in Bellum?")Oh wait, He's done that. (Or are the goalposts soon to be in motion?) Okay, well, if that isn't going to cut it, surely DragonCon 2007 with its estimated 30k+ attendees would be big enough?
325:
In effect the only RS we have for this is about the Hugo awards controversy. One mention in an article about other people as well and a load of primary sourcing. No real evidence of any independent notability as an
2161:"The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as... bestseller lists (
848:
which says that Knowledge should not use any source that allows user-generated content as a source. So although Glyer's blog is a well-respected and well-known blog, it's still not considered a reliable source.
216:
843:
very well. Glyer's work is a blog - and blogs are not considered reliable sources as they lack editorial oversight and any method of organized fact checking and formal retraction. In addition blogs fall under
1988:
Because it's only been two days and there are many things to do. I agree the article needs work. I've been gathering sources and looking at how to summarize them but it takes time to get the ducks in a row.
1393:
Correlation may not be causation, but it is certainly suggestive of it. There's a lot of correlation here. Why is it that, of SF authors who are currently subjects for AfDs, all of them are conservative? --
1232:
which would require that Kratman be widely cited by his peers in reliable sources - which means even if a fan convention schedule was a reliable source it wouldn't be usable to confer notability as it
882:
The Publisher's Weekly reviews are really more short synopses with the odd tentative comment attached; not really up to what one would expect from a citeable book review. (In my evaluation.) --
1924:. I agree with Haukur's reasoning--those sources, including the encyclopedia entry, the thesis, and the countless reviews, indicate sufficient notability to satisfy Knowledge's requirements.
1081:. I checked Locus Online's search and couldn't find anything either. I would be willing to reconsider (or support a merge/redirect to Sad Puppies) if there's enough for an article that meets
443:
And most of those were tagging all the problems with the article, 2 years ago. Arguments at AFD should be based on the subjects notability, not how many times an editor had edited a page.
1309:
advances for at least a dozen books, and appears in several bestselling anthologies, and co-wrote with at least one NYT bestseller. Apparently, no one here is capable of using Google.
1059:, a move I would find extremely dubious, it wouldn't constitute enough in-depth coverage of Kratman himself to qualify. And there just isn't enough of anything else to clear the bar for
654:
Non-notable writer whose only claim to fame is being used to push an agenda with the Hugo awards. The absolute lack of significant reviews or other independent citations is telling. —
531:
It's completely transparent when the same people who started and are "delete" for the ongoing AfD attempt on the Michael Z. Williamson article started this here and are "Delete" here.
2232:
to be specific about which bestseller lists confer notability so as not to mislead fellow editors who may take a firm but inaccurate statement from an experienced editor as gospel.
1865:
per Haukur (but maintain the primary-sources tag until the article has been improved). Fanzines are important in the world of science fiction and some have an excellent reputation.
282:
1973:
A question, if he is so notable and we have all these great sources, why does the article still reply on the self promotional ones? Why has no one tried to improve the sourceing?
2034:
I think it is clear that others disagree this is not beyond fixing. As to the rest, it was not me who deemed him notable, it was me finding the fact he found me notable risible.
1468:
2211:
Also, let's be clear. It was one book, 8th most popular SF hardcover for one week on the WSJ sub-list a decade ago. This wasn't like it was NYT bestselling fiction all genres.
299:
1819:
critical attention, but the biggest positive there seems to be reflected glory from John Ringo (who is certainly notable). And as such, I just don't think he meets the bar.
1285:
The bar to cross for authors is significantly higher than "ten professionally published books," especially in these days of vanity presses and print-on-demand houses. See
1072:
549:
I'm sorry, but I haven't so much as commented on the Williamson AfD (though I did put in a brief 2c at AN/I) - Kratman isn't notable. He's a troll. Not even a good one.
468:
Whatever it is, this isn't a speedy keep, regardless of who started the AfD. The article is indeed poorly sourced, and it's not immediately clear that the author meets
1453:, but the other side is allowed to throw around accusations of canvassing and meatpupetry and sockpuppetry with wild abandon. Pull the ohter one, it's got bells on. --
1251:
Mr Kratman is a legitimate author with at least ten professionally published books. Deleting his page would be in direct contravention to the core goals of Knowledge.
169:
210:
1085:
but I'm currently unconvinced there's enough for more than a sentence or two. The article as it currently stands is almost entirely cited from Kratman's own site. --
1034:
satire). Dodgy power is right right wing politics was a staple of 50's and 60's SF. That did not (and does not) make those authors unnotable, not being notable does.
1150:
as a featured guest known for being an SF&F writer.) Oh and one last thing: The edit to say he "claims to" have served in the Army isn't going to fly either:
265:
947:
1141:
in a talk on "Civilian Challenges to Writing Military SF". Oh and the 9 PM panel on "History in SF&F". And two readings. And the Monday at 1 PM panel with
593:
bar on the strength of criterion 3 - a well known body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews. I'm struggling - the best I've found is
116:
101:
1815:
I don't disagree with your interpretation of policy. But I don't think Kratman has had anything close to significant critical attention. He has had
1467:
I believe it should be noted that Jmaynard is making this claim within minutes of participating in this discussion on Williamson's facebook page.
1598:
Kratman's solo novels have also received a number of reviews, including a detailed critical one by perennial Hugo nominee Joseph T. Major:
1551:
1172:
What we really need are reliable sources that discuss the author or their work, not random things they have been a speaker or panelist of.
514:. However aside from involvement in a notable attempt to game a fan award, Kratman is a nobody of no significance within Science Fiction.
176:
1316:
1126:
that everyone in such a hurry to vote agaist keeping might have missed: Would Balticon 40 as a featured guest in the literary field (
1001:
920:
951:
1609:
in 2015 which discusses his work in context with other military science fiction authors. (Buchanan, Craig. "Sci-Fi Battlefields".
1692:
1370:
1277:
829:
774:
418:
253:
1708:
where notability is indeed inherited in the sense the critical coverage of the works translates into notability for the author.
1539:
1273:
142:
137:
96:
89:
17:
1839:
1591:
1484:
146:
2167:. AUTHORS, of course, derive notability from creating notable books. In other words, bestseller listings sdo contribute to
1754:
894:
696:
231:
1596:
1914:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1216:
Again, I should mention for fans of this and other authors who may have come to Knowledge that a convention schedule is
198:
129:
1882:. I think Haukur makes a compelling argument that notability is sufficient to meet standard guidelines for authors.
1366:
1348:
733:, his name doesn't appear. The fact that they didn't bother to mention his name in their article about it is telling.
110:
106:
680:
either. Nominees are not detailed there, and before Kratman gets mentioned I expect to see a full-title featuring of
1565:
1159:
536:
502:
issue if I've ever seen one. A non-notable author managed to get their name on a slate produced by notable racist
2416:
1835:
1688:
1480:
1333:
Totally agree. This appears to be yet another politically motiviated attempt to 1984 someone out of existence.
1130:) work? Or does he have to have been on a panel with other writers as a subject matter expert on a panel topic? (
476:. I'm on mobile so haven't done a proper search for better sources, but this discussion needs to run its course.
414:
249:
43:
2012:
A better question might be “If he is so non-notable, why has he been a focus of your user page for three years?”
58:
Haukurth should be commended for the doing the heavy lifting of finding the sources, essentially performing the
1887:
192:
2094:
2366:
2335:
2256:
2039:
1978:
1870:
1515:
1439:
1414:
1384:
1320:
1039:
1021:
997:
916:
873:
825:
770:
742:
615:
569:
485:
448:
348:
331:
1269:
1256:
2412:
2271:
2237:
2172:
2124:
2102:
2078:
1929:
1547:
1155:
1111:
1090:
1068:
715:
532:
188:
39:
2399:
2378:
2349:
2326:
2309:
2275:
2260:
2241:
2220:
2202:
2176:
2146:
2128:
2105:
2081:
2058:
2043:
2028:
1998:
1982:
1967:
1950:
1933:
1891:
1874:
1843:
1828:
1810:
1759:
1717:
1696:
1674:
1652:
1622:
1519:
1503:
1488:
1462:
1443:
1418:
1403:
1388:
1352:
1324:
1299:
1260:
1245:
1197:
1181:
1163:
1114:
1093:
1043:
1026:
1005:
993:
978:
955:
924:
912:
899:
877:
858:
833:
800:
778:
747:
720:
701:
663:
646:
620:
589:, and does not establish notability. I've been trying to see whether it's possible to get him over the
573:
558:
540:
523:
490:
452:
438:
422:
400:
373:
352:
335:
308:
291:
274:
257:
71:
1902:
1336:
1312:
1290:
1188:
989:
969:
908:
869:
821:
817:
766:
762:
429:
391:
2301:
1265:
1252:
2392:
2322:
2305:
2216:
2198:
2142:
2116:
1883:
1824:
1648:
1241:
1177:
854:
796:
642:
554:
519:
364:
I've just removed a long disruptive statement by an IP that was the basis for my block of the IP.
238:
224:
865:
2345:
2156:
2007:
1994:
1963:
1941:. Haukur has already outlined why, Slatersteven and Simonm223 have already demonstrated why not.
1806:
1793:
1769:
1713:
1670:
1618:
1499:
1458:
1399:
1208:
656:
598:
67:
2370:
2115:
per sources found by Haukur. Also, I found and added his listing on the bestseller list of the
1358:
1340:
1055:
Does not meet any wiki-notability standard, plain and simple. Even if we treated File 770 as a
2252:
2190:
2054:
2035:
2024:
1974:
1946:
1866:
1797:
1765:
1750:
1727:
1701:
1684:
1679:
Also, in another AfD someone made a good point that arguments that a book satisfies make for
1511:
1435:
1410:
1380:
1229:
1147:
1035:
1013:
890:
734:
692:
673:
634:
629:
607:
590:
565:
477:
473:
444:
369:
344:
327:
85:
32:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2411:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
38:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2358:
2267:
2233:
2168:
2120:
2097:
2073:
1925:
1910:
1789:
1739:
1723:
1705:
1680:
1665:
is basically a traditional publication with particular editors and bylines for its reviews.
1556:
1555:
There is also enough "sustained critical attention" to make a good case for a keep based on
1286:
1107:
1086:
1064:
1060:
710:
133:
59:
2374:
1362:
1344:
1218:
categorically not a reliable source for determining notability for a whole host of reasons
586:
499:
410:
303:
286:
269:
204:
1151:
2387:
2318:
2212:
2194:
2138:
1820:
1644:
1582:
1237:
1173:
850:
792:
638:
597:(plus a few other reviews of his books linked to from there) in Publishers Weekly, and
550:
515:
2092:
1012:
trying to find evidence of notability which might save the article, but drew a blank.
709:
Served in the army and dubiously nominated for an award. Not enough for notability. --
2341:
2016:
1990:
1959:
1802:
1709:
1666:
1658:
1640:
1614:
1531:
1495:
1454:
1450:
1431:
1427:
1395:
1225:
1221:
1142:
845:
603:
469:
63:
2362:
2050:
2020:
1942:
1744:
1636:
1586:
1577:
1543:
1056:
884:
840:
811:
788:
686:
681:
365:
1131:
1127:
163:
2193:. Moreso than I'm comfortable with in the case of such an unaccomplished author.
594:
2339:
1906:
1599:
1571:
1138:
1082:
730:
677:
511:
507:
322:
125:
77:
1632:
1560:
1535:
1635:
in which he's mentioned exactly once, is hardly compelling. Fanzines aren't
1409:
Assuming of course this is even true, and that all of them are conservative.
510:
and that slate, including Kratman, led to a broad kerfuffle as described at
986:
since he finds association with this group to be degrading. I can see why.
1434:. Any argument that breaches those is invalid, and will not be "counted".
385:
Right off the get-go, this is a tainted AfD. I'm opposed in principle to
1224:(which does not include convention schedules as a sign of notability),
503:
757:
606:. Would like to know what others think before !voting though. Cheers
1788:
allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". Note that
529:
Speedy keep and warn the troublemakers weaponizing the AfD process.
1605:, February 2009, pp. 3-4). There is also a printed article in the
2407:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1154:
on a search next time and perhaps set aside their prejudices.
866:
https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/authorpage/tom-kratman.html
2317:. If better sources do emerge, it's easy enough to undelete.
2334:. Here are the reviews of Kratman's books I know of so far:
1661:
which is about user-generated content like wikis or forums.
2163:
see footnote at BOOKCRIT - not all bestseller lists quality
1148:
https://archive.org/details/dragoncon_2007_program/page/n51
1722:
Actually I don't think that's the case. What is stated at
676:
criteria. - I don't see any cause for a merge/mention at
1228:(which would likely apply to a fan run convention), and
943:
You people are crazy and should be ashamed of yourselves
672:
authorship, I don't believe it is enough to satisfy our
2300:
TV shows, but this isn't the place to have that debate.
1477:
1475:
1473:
1471:
787:
As much as I like File 770, and Mike Glyer, it's not a
159:
155:
151:
1585:
and have received reviews including a scathing one by
223:
756:
only one is explicitly about Kratman. Here they are:
283:
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions
1657:The fanzine in question does not at all fall under
585:I agree that the Sad Puppies debacle is covered by
1768:says that "four of the notability guidelines, for
343:As doubts have been expressed as to my motivation.
300:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2419:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1899:.Meets all guidelines for notability I can see.
1542:which is a standard reference work in the field.
298:Note: This discussion has been included in the
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
264:Note: This discussion has been included in the
62:that should have been done by the nominator. --
2386:because of recent improvements to the article.
2072:per Haukur, needs the primary sources removed.
1132:http://www.balticon.org/program/b40schedule.pdf
1128:http://www.balticon.org/Balticon40/program.html
839:I'm sorry but it appears you don't understand
628:You are spot-on about PW. Those synopses are
237:
8:
946:people trying to make it one are the enemy.
266:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
117:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1900:
1334:
1310:
987:
906:
815:
760:
297:
280:
263:
1631:One review of a book he co-authored with
1534:. There is an entry for him written by
2365:plus the reviews collected by Haukur (
1134:the Saturday at 10AM panel along with
868:Would these be acceptable as sources?
684:'s deathless raptor buggering epic. --
7:
1726:(and somewhat vaguely referenced at
758:http://file770.com/tag/tom-kratman/
2363:Science Fiction Encyclopedia entry
1730:) is that great notability of the
1704:specifically has an exemption for
24:
1124:Comment on notability and sources
2369:) are enough to establish that.
102:Introduction to deletion process
1540:Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
968:"baaa" worshipfully up at you.
248:not been found or forthcoming.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1764:Yes, I'd be happy to clarify.
1592:Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
1:
1796:direct to the same thing and
1289:for the guidelines in force.
1510:I have made no such claims.
92:(AfD)? Read these primers!
2436:
1683:compliance is contrary to
1234:does not include citations
2400:23:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
2379:09:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
2350:16:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
2327:22:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2310:10:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
2276:16:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2261:15:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2242:15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2221:14:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2203:14:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2177:14:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
2147:13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
2129:17:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2106:14:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2082:14:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2059:17:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2044:13:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
2029:13:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1999:13:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1983:13:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1968:13:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1951:13:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1934:07:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1892:15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1875:14:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1844:22:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1829:17:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1811:14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1760:14:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1718:13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1697:13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1675:13:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1653:13:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1623:13:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1520:16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1504:18:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1489:16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1463:15:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1449:Right. We're supposed to
1444:11:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1419:16:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1404:15:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1389:11:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1353:10:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1325:05:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
1300:21:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
1261:16:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
1246:12:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1236:. So I'm sorry, but no.
1198:13:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1182:11:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1164:11:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1115:17:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1094:04:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1073:23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
1044:08:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
1027:22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
1006:06:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
979:21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
956:21:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
925:06:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
900:21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
878:20:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
859:19:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
834:19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
801:18:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
779:18:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
748:17:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
721:17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
702:16:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
664:16:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
647:15:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
621:15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
574:16:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
559:14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
541:14:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
524:13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
491:12:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
453:18:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
439:13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
423:11:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
401:10:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
374:10:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
353:17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
336:09:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
309:06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
292:06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
275:06:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
258:01:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
72:00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
2409:Please do not modify it.
35:Please do not modify it.
948:2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:90
658:The Hand That Feeds You
2367:User:Haukurth/sandbox5
2357:As per criterion 3 of
2336:User:Haukurth/sandbox5
2332:Update on book reviews
1689:Imadethisstupidaccount
415:Imadethisstupidaccount
250:Imadethisstupidaccount
1371:few or no other edits
1278:few or no other edits
90:Articles for deletion
1836:6YearsTillRetirement
1770:creative professions
1738:notable (point 5 at
1530:. The subject meets
1481:6YearsTillRetirement
1373:outside this topic.
1280:outside this topic.
2117:Wall Street Journal
1581:) likely all meet
1566:Watch on the Rhine
2164:
2011:
1918:
1905:comment added by
1758:
1734:may render their
1559:. His books with
1374:
1355:
1339:comment added by
1327:
1315:comment added by
1281:
1212:
1136:Hugo award winner
1008:
992:comment added by
927:
911:comment added by
898:
836:
820:comment added by
781:
765:comment added by
719:
700:
311:
294:
277:
107:Guide to deletion
97:How to contribute
2427:
2397:
2395:Let's discuss it
2162:
2100:
2076:
2005:
1748:
1747:
1356:
1296:
1263:
1206:
1194:
1156:Bob the Cannibal
1019:
1016:
975:
888:
887:
740:
737:
713:
690:
689:
659:
613:
610:
533:Bob the Cannibal
483:
480:
435:
397:
242:
241:
227:
179:
167:
149:
87:
37:
2435:
2434:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2417:deletion review
2393:
2185:That's leaning
2098:
2074:
1743:
1292:
1190:
1057:reliable source
1024:
1017:
1014:
971:
883:
745:
738:
735:
707:Delete and Salt
685:
657:
652:Delete and Salt
618:
611:
608:
583:Further comment
496:Delete and salt
488:
481:
478:
431:
393:
184:
175:
140:
124:
121:
84:
81:
51:The result was
44:deletion review
33:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2433:
2431:
2422:
2421:
2403:
2402:
2381:
2352:
2329:
2312:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2245:
2244:
2224:
2223:
2206:
2205:
2180:
2179:
2150:
2149:
2131:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2085:
2084:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2002:
2001:
1971:
1970:
1953:
1936:
1919:
1894:
1884:Gnome de plume
1877:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1677:
1548:WP:SCHOLARSHIP
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1406:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1303:
1302:
1249:
1248:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1184:
1167:
1166:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1106:per Haukur. --
1098:
1097:
1075:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1022:
982:
981:
959:
958:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
804:
803:
782:
750:
743:
723:
704:
666:
649:
623:
616:
579:
578:
577:
576:
561:
544:
543:
526:
493:
486:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
411:Heckler's veto
377:
376:
358:
357:
356:
355:
313:
312:
295:
278:
245:
244:
181:
120:
119:
114:
104:
99:
82:
80:
75:
49:
48:
28:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2432:
2420:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2405:
2404:
2401:
2398:
2396:
2391:
2390:
2385:
2382:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2353:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2340:
2337:
2333:
2330:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2313:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2298:
2295:
2294:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2158:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2135:
2132:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2104:
2101:
2095:
2093:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2077:
2071:
2068:
2067:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2009:
2008:edit conflict
2004:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1980:
1976:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1954:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1937:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1878:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1861:
1860:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1808:
1804:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1752:
1746:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:The Big Issue
1608:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1568:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1553:
1552:
1549:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1476:
1474:
1472:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1295:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1209:edit conflict
1205:
1204:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1193:
1185:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1149:
1144:
1143:David Sherman
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1020:
1010:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
984:
983:
980:
977:
976:
974:
966:
963:
962:
961:
960:
957:
953:
949:
944:
941:
940:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
903:
902:
901:
896:
892:
886:
881:
880:
879:
875:
871:
867:
862:
861:
860:
856:
852:
847:
842:
838:
837:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
813:
808:
807:
806:
805:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
759:
754:
751:
749:
746:
741:
732:
727:
724:
722:
717:
712:
708:
705:
703:
698:
694:
688:
683:
679:
675:
670:
667:
665:
662:
660:
653:
650:
648:
644:
640:
636:
631:
627:
624:
622:
619:
614:
605:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
580:
575:
571:
567:
562:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
545:
542:
538:
534:
530:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
494:
492:
489:
484:
475:
471:
467:
464:
463:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
437:
436:
434:
426:
425:
424:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
398:
396:
388:
384:
383:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
333:
329:
324:
320:
319:
310:
307:
306:
301:
296:
293:
290:
289:
284:
279:
276:
273:
272:
267:
262:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
240:
236:
233:
230:
226:
222:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
190:
187:
186:Find sources:
182:
178:
174:
171:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
144:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
118:
115:
112:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
94:
93:
91:
86:
79:
76:
74:
73:
69:
65:
61:
56:
54:
47:
45:
41:
36:
30:
29:
27:
19:
2408:
2406:
2394:
2388:
2383:
2354:
2331:
2314:
2296:
2253:Slatersteven
2186:
2160:
2133:
2112:
2069:
2036:Slatersteven
2013:
1975:Slatersteven
1972:
1955:
1938:
1921:
1901:— Preceding
1896:
1879:
1867:Almond Plate
1862:
1816:
1785:
1735:
1731:
1662:
1628:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1590:
1587:Dietmar Dath
1578:The Tuloriad
1576:
1570:
1564:
1554:
1527:
1526:
1512:Slatersteven
1436:Slatersteven
1425:
1411:Slatersteven
1381:Slatersteven
1335:— Preceding
1332:
1317:71.222.200.6
1311:— Preceding
1293:
1291:
1250:
1233:
1217:
1213:
1191:
1189:
1135:
1123:
1103:
1078:
1077:
1052:
1036:Slatersteven
994:71.222.200.6
988:— Preceding
972:
970:
964:
942:
913:71.222.200.6
907:— Preceding
816:— Preceding
814:very well.
784:
761:— Preceding
752:
725:
706:
682:Chuck Tingle
668:
655:
651:
637:notability.
625:
582:
566:Slatersteven
528:
495:
465:
445:Slatersteven
432:
430:
394:
392:
386:
382:Speedy Keep:
381:
379:
378:
361:
345:Slatersteven
328:Slatersteven
317:
315:
314:
304:
287:
270:
246:
234:
228:
220:
213:
207:
201:
195:
185:
172:
83:
57:
52:
50:
34:
31:
25:
2297:Weak Delete
2268:E.M.Gregory
2234:E.M.Gregory
2169:E.M.Gregory
2157:WP:BOOKCRIT
2121:E.M.Gregory
2099:Doug Weller
2075:Doug Weller
1926:AaronCanton
1794:WP:CREATIVE
1572:Yellow Eyes
1496:Jay Maynard
1455:Jay Maynard
1396:Jay Maynard
1369:) has made
1294:Ravenswing
1276:) has made
1192:Ravenswing
1139:Naomi Novik
1108:Goobergunch
1087:Goobergunch
1079:Weak delete
973:Ravenswing
810:understand
731:Tom Kratman
711:regentspark
678:Sad Puppies
512:Sad Puppies
508:Hugo Awards
433:Ravenswing
428:knowledge.
395:Ravenswing
323:Sad Puppies
211:free images
126:Tom Kratman
78:Tom Kratman
2191:WP:INHERIT
1798:WP:INHERIT
1766:WP:INHERIT
1728:WP:INHERIT
1702:WP:INHERIT
1685:WP:INHERIT
1633:John Ringo
1561:John Ringo
1536:John Clute
1230:WP:NAUTHOR
1220:including
1065:XOR'easter
870:Hopladamus
822:Hopladamus
767:Hopladamus
674:WP:NAUTHOR
635:WP:NAUTHOR
630:WP:ROUTINE
591:WP:NAUTHOR
498:This is a
474:WP:NAUTHOR
305:CASSIOPEIA
288:CASSIOPEIA
271:CASSIOPEIA
2413:talk page
2359:WP:AUTHOR
2319:Pinkbeast
2302:Nickpheas
2213:Simonm223
2195:Simonm223
2155:In fact,
2139:Simonm223
1821:Simonm223
1790:WP:AUTHOR
1740:WP:BKCRIT
1724:WP:AUTHOR
1706:WP:AUTHOR
1681:WP:AUTHOR
1645:Simonm223
1607:Big Issue
1557:WP:AUTHOR
1379:politics?
1287:WP:AUTHOR
1266:UndeadDan
1253:UndeadDan
1238:Simonm223
1174:Nil Einne
1104:Weak keep
1061:WP:AUTHOR
1023:(blether)
851:Simonm223
793:Simonm223
744:(blether)
639:Simonm223
617:(blether)
551:Simonm223
516:Simonm223
487:(blether)
60:WP:BEFORE
40:talk page
2415:or in a
2189:hard on
1960:TimBuck2
1915:contribs
1903:unsigned
1755:contribs
1367:contribs
1349:contribs
1337:unsigned
1313:unsigned
1274:contribs
1002:contribs
990:unsigned
965:Comment:
921:contribs
909:unsigned
895:contribs
830:contribs
818:unsigned
775:contribs
763:unsigned
697:contribs
587:WP:BLP1E
506:for the
500:WP:BLP1E
170:View log
111:glossary
68:Edgar181
42:or in a
2266:novels.
2134:Comment
2051:Qwirkle
2021:Qwirkle
2019:level.
1943:Qwirkle
1745:Elmidae
1663:Alexiad
1629:Comment
1603:Alexiad
1583:WP:BOOK
1538:in the
1214:Comment
905:source.
885:Elmidae
785:Comment
753:Comment
716:comment
687:Elmidae
626:Comment
504:Vox Day
466:Comment
366:Nyttend
362:Comment
326:author.
217:WP refs
205:scholar
143:protect
138:history
88:New to
2389:Cullen
2361:. The
2342:Haukur
2315:Delete
2251:that).
2187:really
2091:links:
2017:WP:TNT
1991:Haukur
1907:Desmay
1803:Haukur
1732:author
1710:Haukur
1667:Haukur
1659:WP:UGC
1641:WP:UGC
1615:Haukur
1575:, and
1532:WP:GNG
1451:WP:AGF
1432:wp:npa
1428:wp:agf
1226:WP:UGC
1222:WP:GNG
1053:Delete
1018:Summit
846:WP:UGC
739:Summit
726:Delete
669:Delete
612:Summit
604:WP:UGC
482:Summit
470:WP:GNG
189:Google
147:delete
2371:Db105
1782:music
1778:films
1774:books
1637:WP:RS
1426:Read
1359:Txw42
1341:Txw42
1015:Girth
841:WP:RS
812:WP:RS
789:WP:RS
736:Girth
609:Girth
479:Girth
321:with
318:merge
232:JSTOR
193:books
177:Stats
164:views
156:watch
152:links
16:<
2384:Keep
2375:talk
2355:Keep
2346:talk
2323:talk
2306:talk
2272:talk
2257:talk
2238:talk
2217:talk
2199:talk
2173:talk
2143:talk
2125:talk
2113:Keep
2103:talk
2079:talk
2070:Keep
2055:talk
2040:talk
2025:talk
1995:talk
1979:talk
1964:talk
1956:Keep
1947:talk
1939:Keep
1930:talk
1922:Keep
1911:talk
1897:Keep
1888:talk
1880:Keep
1871:talk
1863:Keep
1840:talk
1825:talk
1817:some
1807:talk
1792:and
1780:and
1751:talk
1736:work
1714:talk
1693:talk
1671:talk
1649:talk
1639:per
1619:talk
1528:Keep
1516:talk
1500:talk
1485:talk
1459:talk
1440:talk
1430:and
1415:talk
1400:talk
1385:talk
1363:talk
1345:talk
1321:talk
1270:talk
1257:talk
1242:talk
1178:talk
1160:talk
1083:WP:V
1069:talk
1040:talk
998:talk
952:talk
917:talk
891:talk
874:talk
855:talk
826:talk
797:talk
771:talk
693:talk
643:talk
599:this
595:this
570:talk
555:talk
537:talk
520:talk
449:talk
419:talk
370:talk
349:talk
332:talk
254:talk
225:FENS
199:news
160:logs
134:talk
130:edit
53:keep
1589:in
564:to.
472:or
387:any
239:TWL
168:– (
2377:)
2348:)
2325:)
2308:)
2274:)
2259:)
2240:)
2219:)
2201:)
2175:)
2165:)"
2159::
2145:)
2127:)
2096:.
2057:)
2042:)
2027:)
1997:)
1981:)
1966:)
1949:)
1932:)
1917:)
1913:•
1890:)
1873:)
1842:)
1827:)
1809:)
1786:do
1784:,
1776:,
1772:,
1753:·
1716:)
1695:)
1687:.
1673:)
1651:)
1643:.
1621:)
1569:,
1518:)
1502:)
1487:)
1479:.
1461:)
1442:)
1417:)
1402:)
1387:)
1365:•
1357:—
1351:)
1347:•
1323:)
1272:•
1264:—
1259:)
1244:)
1180:)
1162:)
1071:)
1063:.
1042:)
1004:)
1000:•
954:)
923:)
919:•
893:·
876:)
857:)
832:)
828:•
799:)
791:.
777:)
773:•
695:·
645:)
572:)
557:)
539:)
522:)
451:)
421:)
413:.
372:)
351:)
334:)
302:.
285:.
268:.
256:)
219:)
162:|
158:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
70:)
64:Ed
2373:(
2344:(
2321:(
2304:(
2270:(
2255:(
2236:(
2215:(
2197:(
2171:(
2141:(
2123:(
2119:.
2053:(
2038:(
2023:(
2010:)
2006:(
1993:(
1977:(
1962:(
1945:(
1928:(
1909:(
1886:(
1869:(
1838:(
1823:(
1805:(
1757:)
1749:(
1712:(
1691:(
1669:(
1647:(
1617:(
1601:(
1595:.
1563:(
1550:.
1514:(
1498:(
1483:(
1457:(
1438:(
1413:(
1398:(
1383:(
1361:(
1343:(
1319:(
1268:(
1255:(
1240:(
1211:)
1207:(
1176:(
1158:(
1146:(
1112:?
1110:|
1091:?
1089:|
1067:(
1038:(
996:(
950:(
915:(
897:)
889:(
872:(
853:(
824:(
795:(
769:(
718:)
714:(
699:)
691:(
661::
641:(
568:(
553:(
535:(
518:(
447:(
417:(
380:*
368:(
347:(
330:(
316:*
252:(
243:)
235:·
229:·
221:·
214:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
191:(
183:(
180:)
173:·
166:)
128:(
113:)
109:(
66:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.