2482:. I think that it is uncontestable that ethnic Americans are notable groupings. It is also well established policy that it is acceptable to have both a list and a category for members of notable groups. As such, the policy arguments for keeping are quite valid, and were not given due weight by the closing admin. The proper closure of this discussion was "keep" by the strength of the arguments. The article clearly needed a cleanup; not all of the sourcing was reliable, and the inclusion criteria needs to be better defined - but it should not be our definition, it should be the definition of reliable secondary sources. The unreliably sourced material needs to go, and the people who are not themselves identified as a German american need to be cut. Most of the concerns of those opining delete can be addressed by appropriate sourcing. What we want is people who are notable as being a German American, not merely people who are notable and one obscure source, possibly not even a reliable one, has said that they have some German ancestry. I also note that closing admins are wrong to discount "It's useful" arguments in a deletion discussion - we exist to be an encyclopedia, and the "useful" articles are exactly the ones we should have - provided that the use is an encyclopedic use. Deleting useful articles, lists, and categories harms the encyclopedia, and we should always put the encyclopedia first in our considerations.
2386:
that you yourself were the admin who upheld the deletion, very much against consensus. As regards this article and the similarly deleted list of
Norwegian Americans (and several others), now that these impeccably sourced and annotated articles are gone, since there was no effort to merge the content into the articles you mention, the information about who exactly is of these heritages is absolutely gone. This is a severe problem for our users who come here looking for this information, and a very poorly considered decision. It is not unreasonable to maintain a well-sourced and annotated list of Norwegian Americans (or any other ethnic group notable enough to merit its own article), as many of our users will require such data for their research.
2466:- There's no morass. We must be reasonable in everything we do. In Jackson Browne's case, if he has no known German ancestry, and reliable sources do not state that he self-identifies as German American or that others have labeled him as German American, we would not include him in the article. However, as the article would be well sourced and annotated, if it were decided via consensus that he should be included (i.e. if there is a section of that list devoted to Americans who have been born in Germany, whether they are of German ancestry or not--something I personally don't necessarily support), all of what we're discussing about the qualifications for his inclusion would be discussed in the annotation following his name.
2430:), what reliable sources tell us that everyone on the list is at least that much German. These lists also fail for another inescapable reason: views of citizenship and ethnicity are of passing validity, fluid, and are fully capable of reinvention. Was Einstein a German-American? Shouldn't we consult the local German laws at the time of his emigration to the US to find this out (as we would with any other person) - then you might be surprised to learn that he wasn't German ethnically or by citizenship under those laws. Is the Queen of England German? (I realize she's not American, so wouldn't be on
2275:. I think this was an honest but mistaken close. There are bad lists but this one was reasonably well annotated and cited. The closer relied on the "principal argument" that the list documents a loose association, yet it is one that is considered important by society. I'm skeptical of the relevance myself, but we derive our work from secondary sources; if a secondary source can be found that documents a person's ethnicity in this manner, that's sufficient for me. Somebody else made the judgement. --
2503:" by itself is a bad argument also says that usefulness can be the basis of a valid argument, and that simply saying "'it's useful' is not a valid argument" is not a valid argument in itself. On the other hand, the delete arguments, for the most part, did nothing more than assert that the list was "loosely associated", or complain about the lack of well-defined inclusion criteria. But there has never been any evidence of a consensus that
1220:- I was unaware that we had selected you (or anyone) to determine who's comments count and who's do not. Did you bother letting the other editors know that their opinions should not be considered? We elevate administrators based on trust, and generally trust them to properly evaluate and close deletions (as was done here). I find it absolutely abhorrent that you have taken it upon yourself to decide whice comments are valid. /
2058:
policy against each other. The community does that. Over-categorization was just one of t he issues discussed--it is not necessarily obvious why this a very broad intersection like this is wrong. Perhaps we need a policy discussion on this, perhaps at not, to establish whether this type of list is permitted , rather than trying to do it by trying to delete them one at a time.
330:: the award for this article seems much more substantial than the more specialized awards justifying many of the other stubs, such as "2005 XRCO UNSUNG SIREN". subject to correction, I wouldn't necessarily consider that last one a plausible claim to notability. As for town stubs, they've always been considered a valuable addition to WP, regardless of motive for writing them.
2331:- Thoroughly sourced and encyclopedic article about the second largest ethnic group in the United States. Previous delete decision was made against consensus, previous DR was similarly closed "delete" against consensus, and current consensus is to keep and improve such articles, if the ethnic group is notable. In this case, the ethnic group is certainly notable.
2354:. Not article, list. List, not article. Article does not equal list. List does not equal article. List != article. They are not the same thing. You are saying that the ethnic group is notable. Nobody has at any point suggested it is not. In the AFD, most of the "keep"s were based on the ethnic group being notable, and did not address the
418:
I think editors are more likely to add content to an article that already exists; especially inexperienced ones who would be unsure how to create an article and wouldn't start off by establishing notability (leading to a speedy delete). An article's potential is more important than its current state.
2507:
was meant to prohibit lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups. Policy has to be interpreted in light of the consensus supporting it, and not simply based on one's personal opinions about what policy means. And arguments that the inclusion criteria is not well defined ("How German does one
2385:
I chose my words carefully, so please watch your tone when you imply that another editor doesn't know what he is talking about. My comment was based on evidence, namely: 1) the content of the article before its deletion (against consensus) and 2) the behavior of the deleting admins. It's interesting
1803:
Wow. Looking back at this it's truly amazing. I'd really love to know how the majority of all of the other ethnic
American groups survived the last mass deletion effort, but, by and large, the largest contributor was deleted. This is all very unbalanced, socially ignorant and absurd. The "concensus"
273:
I can't comment on other articles because they have to be assessed individually. The context comes with the content: I'm sure he did not spring from the womb an adult film director, so how did he get into the field? Is there anything particularly innovative about his direction techniques? Et cetera;
1697:
as a supplement to that notable article. Closer did not explain why such a list was inappropriate, but assumed it was so, and seeing no evidence to the contrary, imposed his assumption. This (at least according to consensus below) shifted the burden of proof in the wrong direction. If the parent
654:
from deleting admin. As contested prods, I don't have a problem with the recreation of these articles. However, like
Coredesat said, on recreation they can and probably should be speedied, making the process rather pointless. Do you have plans and means to expand these articles, using some reliable
2057:
reading the close, the closer admitted the cogency of each set of arguments, agreed they were each based in policy, and chose which set he preferred. This is not the role of an admin; the role is to judge the consensus of the reasonable policy based arguments, not weigh different considerations of
684:
This is being debated because another admin has indicated that if overturned, they should be speedied immediately. What's the point of having an undelete / redelete just for the sake of process? Anyway, creating these articles as a redirect to the artist page is a good solution as well, of course.
2038:
Americans" which have survived AfD. Also, the that discussion shows an emerging consensus that ethnic group lists should not all be deleted; if anything there were valid arguments that lists based on non-notable ethnic categorizations should be deleted, but I don't believe anyone is arguing that
1058:
I do not think there was any sort of concensus obtained here. The comment by the closer is misleading - not only was there no super-majority, there was not even a simple majority (6-6 by my count). There are serious, good faith, comments on both sides, and active efforts to improve the article
2436:
list in any event, but inquiring minds want to know where someone of her pedigree ought to fall). What about
Jackson Browne? He was born there, to a US serviceman and his American wife. But accident of birth doesn't confer rights in most countries - Germany included - so by German law, he's not
2291:
Certainly Neil's argument above argument is among the plausible ones, but it should have been made in the discussion. If there's a approximately balanced discussion and an admin has an opinion on it, he should add his views to the others, and then someone else can evaluate. I have a definite
1455:
points out that we sometimes need more, as when facts are arranged so as to make a point. The article restricted itself to cases where "the fictional usage is related to the real usage, and this connection is the intended topic of this article". With that clause present, the article violated
1378:
It is admitted that there was no consensus to delete; the admin chose the arguments he preferred. The arguments for keep were based in policy The overall subject was admitted to be notable and the material was not OR but in fact sourceable , and sourcing had begun for the individual items to
236:: the name, the fact that he directed pornographic films, the fact that he won an AVN Award in 1996, and the name of the film that won the award. If the article had added any more detail then it would not be a valid A1 but with just that information, the article is superfluous to the table.
2036:
The very page you linked to makes it pretty clear that AfD is not the place to address them, as the results have been haphazard and arbitrary: there is really nothing which distinguishes this particular list, or any of the others which have been deleted, from the many other "List of <x:
2255:- reasonable arguments on both sides. The debate essentially comes down to the significance of a particular cross section in relation to each list member, and as this is really just an issue of different standards for different editors, I think it should be left to (lack of) consensus. —
287:
Those are the kinds of questions I'd expect in an FA review rather than a speedy delete review :) I admit that out of all the stubs on porn stars I've made, this is one of the few that didn't have any personal info. If you would like to undelete the article, I will add a little bit more.
346:
Sure, the subject is worthy of an article since he won an award. But this stub accomplishes nothing more than a red link at the list of awards. I would even suggest that "2005 XRCO UNSUNG SIREN" provides more new information than this stub did. All I'm suggesting is that the editor do
1129:
closure based on strength of the arguments. Many of the keep arguments amounted to little more than "It's useful", "It's harmless" or "Well organized". Well intentioned comments, but they do not address the concerns of the nominator. The closure here was perfectly reasonable.
1447:, not because I think this was the only possible closure, but because I believe this was within the range of reasonable administrative discretion. It is likely I'd have come up with a different closure of no consensus, but on further consideration this is the right answer.
367:
To clarify my position, for the record: My opinion on the article conforms to what appears to be consensus so far. I.e., if Epbr123 puts forth a little effort and does some real work on the stub by providing some sourcing and some information-- then by all means, restore it.
313:
which has been brought against him. If this editor would take time to work on these articles first, rather than putting up stubs in the belief that they are safe from deletion on the award-technicality, his contributions would appear to be more valuable.
263:
I could add more info, but from your comments it seems the problem with the article was a lack of content, rather than a lack of context. Are you sure there was a valid reason for speedying? I wouldn't want to see any more similar articles deleted.
2362:
here realises that most of the overturns here are (probably deliberately) ignoring the closing statement, ignoring what article this DRV is about, and obfuscating the true discussion in order to get their nice yet wholly unencyclopaedic list back.
2508:
have to be to be on the list?") are addressed by better defining the criteria, not by deletion. It is clear from both the AfD and the preceding DRV that there is no consensus to delete lists of people belonging to notable ethnic groups, and per
1295:
depression? There is not one reliable source that discusses the topic of fictional applications of real materials. Compiling one example after another created an indiscriminate collection of information. The closer noted that in the close. --
1349:
For the record, I didn't participate in the AFD. Most of the keep votes were of the Its Useful/I Like It Style, whereas the delete ones adressed issues such as OR, Synthesis, Verifiability, etc. The Admin interpreted the debate correctly.
1849:
is never a good argument. And
Alexander's rudeness, both in not bothering to inform me of this discussion as per step #3 in big letters at the top of the DRV page, and his comments here ("unbalanced, ignorant, absurd"), is most unwelcome.
1379:
demonstrate it. But this was my argument there, so of course I think it a valid one. A reasonable try at constructing a rather usual article. Perhaps the best solution is to permit recreation in part but with each item fully sourced.
1886:
1049:
2346:. The delete decision was not against consensus, because over half the "keep"s made the exact same (deliberate?) error you, Dhartung, DGG and Trialsanderrors did above - they were, and you are, defending the existence of the
1509:– The most recent version of this article was a malformed redirect that didn't work, so the deletion was perfectly valid. I've re-created this as a redirect to the actual article, so there's no reason to continue this. –
2498:
article, but not the list. But if the notability of a topic does not justify a corresponding list, what does? He also dismissed the "it's useful" arguments, despite the fact that the very essay which suggests that
2216:
I read it. It's the typical "I get to decide which argument is valid" admin powergrab that's become so prevalent around here. That you don't understand the rules on spinout lists is just the icing on the cake. ~
1565:
1560:
1569:
2403:
2009:
1468:
first) and the clause was introduced because of that argument, but I don't see a viable policy compliant path for this article until someone finds reliable secondary sources on the general phenomenon.
842:
it was not spam, in that it was clearly different than promotional material a company would provide. Also listed at least one apparently acceptable 3rd party reference. This should have gone to AFD. --
309:
number, if you count his stubs on
English towns.) In conjunction with the same editor's mass-tagging for deletion of more substantial articles, his actions seem highly questionable. Hence, partly, the
1594:
1552:
2074:
If you read the close properly, you'll note I said both sets of arguments were excellent, but most of the keeps were arguing that this was a notable ethnic group - which is probably true, but that
1080:
votes was relatively weak compared with the policies and guidelines mandating deletion. It takes more than one hand to count all the policies and guidelines that are applicable in deleting this
1006:
1001:
1894:
2418:
the problems with this article apply to the others, but results differ. The damned that you didn't (nominate them all together) problem. Is it German citizenship or ethnicity? Or a mish-mash,
1010:
1983:
Not even close to a cross-categorization. That's the definition of an ethnic group. Cross-categorization would be ethnic group by occupation, for example -- two entirely different buckets. --
1882:
1790:
1035:
993:
232:
I was the deleting admin and do not wish to formally vote. The reason for deletion under CSD A1 is that all the information in the article was already available in the table of winners in
1890:
402:, article had no content. Admin deleted correctly. We are better off with a red link to encourage someone to write some actual content. Most one sentence substubs rightly get speedied.
461:– Continued deletion as CSD A1/A3 endorsed. A rewrite is welcome, but it will need to be more than just an infobox and track listing, which is what was available here. "Articles" with
1072:- While simple vote-counting may show a slim consensus (or none at all, in one case), a comparison of the rationales behind the votes is clear. The closing admin properly weighed the
613:. I was about to overturn these PRODs when I noticed the articles each consisted only of an infobox and a track listing. If undeleted they should immediately be speedied as
2422:
of the two? If ethnicity, no one has adequately explained how German you must be to be on the list, why that much German - and not more and not less - is not arbitrary (or
1608:
2308:
What argument? You mean where I explained my close? How would that have been an argument to make in the discussion? Did you read the closing statement? Again, yeesh.
1257:: These are primarily the same people who participated in the AfD. Could people not associated with the AfD read it, and see if they think any concensus was reached?
1419:. Consensus never has and never will be a vote count. Strength of argument is more important. To quote DGG (most likely out of context, but it works nonetheless), "
48:
34:
2292:
opinion on it too, but I argued it in the discussion; I would not have closed, and used my own opinion as the reason as if it had more weight than anybody else's.
1649:
no reason given for deletion... obviously overturn until that changes. But since this was not protected against recreation, DRV wasn't really needed, technically. --
1283:- I don't see how the closer could have close it any other way. The Keep reasoning was mere fluff, not based in policy, and never overcame the delete reasonings.
1548:
1505:
196:
not my field but seems pretty obvious.PORNBIO was just rejected as a standard, but in general this does not appear a valid speedy. for A1 or A7. Content was
43:
2179:
Admins are perfectly free to weigh in with opinions, but opinions go to the bottom of the discussion, not to the top. Consensus for deletion was not given. ~
1747:
1742:
835:
No valid reason was given for this deletion. The content listing was valid, continually edited and even contained competitive links for complete fairness.
1751:
1156:
s: First, I though a deletion review was for procedure (was a consensus obtained?) as opposed to content. Second, while there are some bad arguments for
819:
2443:
of their ethnicity? Without any real-world implications this seems the height of folly and makes us look more like a racial site than an encyclopedia.
1776:
1734:
310:
2340:
Oh, for crying out loud. Nobody has, at any point, suggested the ethnic group was not notable. We have a great article about the ethnic group, at
1698:
article is notable, assume a sourced list supplementing that article is encyclopedic, absent evidence to contrary. Relisting at editorial option. –
1164:, as well. Presumably consensus, if any, should be attained by comparing the good arguments on each side. Throwing out the poor comments, we have
1904:
1870:
1059:
during the AfD. The closer felt the delete arguments were stronger, which is certainly a plausible position, but it's far from concensus.
557:
39:
2082:, and I don't think anyone would suggest that should be deleted. Few of the "keeps" actually produced good arguments for retaining the
1637:
1556:
514:
509:
171:
518:
2007:- The closer interpreted the debate correctly and finally may have moved us forward on this issue. We let these lists of <x: -->
997:
915:
As the deleting admin, you can go ahead and restore it yourself, at which point this discussion would automatically close as moot.
543:
501:
2106:
cross-section. The said arguments were not a priori reasons to keep the article, but they do seem relevant. If the concept of a
21:
128:
123:
989:
953:
2263:
2122:
2026:
1969:
1921:
1310:
870:
305:
There have been a great number of these one-sentence stubs ("So-and-so won an award") put up by this editor lately. (A truly
132:
571:
2188:
As per above, perhaps actually reading the closing statement would help. Most of the opinions about keeping were based on
184:
winning porn director was deleted for being "very short with no context", however, I feel the article qualifies as a stub.
1738:
157:
115:
2539:
1846:
1713:
1664:
1531:
1484:
972:
932:
742:
702:
480:
436:
94:
17:
776:
771:
574:. Deleting admin has not responded to request for restoration. At very worst information should've been merged into
780:
2197:
1874:
1730:
1685:
1365:
805:
763:
671:
why is this being debated, PRODs can be challenged and at worse these articles can be changed into redirects.
419:
PS. the article did have content; it's the duplication of the content, and the context that's being disputed.
2563:
2226:
It wasn't a "powergrab" and I understand the "rules" on spinout lists, thanks. The role of the closing admin
1633:
2449:
1625:
2528:
2516:
2486:
2470:
2453:
2410:
2390:
2374:
2335:
2319:
2303:
2283:
2267:
2241:
2221:
2211:
2183:
2163:
2150:
2126:
2097:
2069:
2047:
2031:
1991:
1974:
1946:
1926:
1900:
Whilst some cross-categorizations are notable (for example, List of Jewish musicians), a majority are not.
1878:
1861:
1837:
1808:
1702:
1653:
1520:
1473:
1439:
1427:
1411:
1390:
1370:
1341:
1315:
1273:
1261:
1249:
1224:
1208:
1141:
1119:
1107:
1063:
961:
919:
910:
894:
874:
846:
832:
731:
689:
675:
663:
646:
634:
601:
582:
469:
423:
413:
392:
372:
359:
341:
318:
292:
282:
268:
258:
249:
240:
223:
188:
83:
642:
without prejudice to the creation of an actual article (rather than a directory entry) on these topics.
1805:
1629:
1288:
1650:
1618:
1291:(the fictional application of Aluminium) related to chocolate -- Harry Potter's fictional cure for the
843:
728:
2230:
to assess the arguments - if not, we'd have a bot closing AFDs. Yeesh, it's not a difficult concept.
1832:
1515:
1136:
119:
2437:
German. Again, a morrass. And as I've said why should WP be in the business of classifying people by
2218:
2180:
2102:
Well, the significance of a list of German
Americans is largely a product of the significance of the
829:
505:
1435:, the delete arguments were clearly more based in Knowledge (XXG) policy than the keep arguments. --
1096:
2444:
1406:
1353:
629:
78:
2500:
2280:
2020:
1988:
1963:
1943:
1915:
1304:
659:
is established? If so, then there is no problem when you recreate them. Otherwise, keep deleted.
279:
255:
237:
111:
70:
2427:
2419:
1327:
2342:
2136:
2079:
1690:
1258:
1245:
1205:
1189:
1060:
916:
246:
2504:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1448:
1399:
1085:
887:
883:
859:
618:
614:
245:
Would Epbr123 be willing to expand the article? That would seem to solve the A1 problem.
2495:
2350:
article, which was not, never has been, and probably never would be deleted. This is the
2347:
2193:
2189:
2132:
2111:
2103:
2040:
1689:– Deletion overturned. GRBerry and DHowell make excellent points. If the parent article
1197:
643:
567:
497:
457:
2584:
2509:
2423:
1804:
verdict didn't make much sense, especially with extremely similar pages in existence. --
1783:
1601:
1324:
1092:
1081:
1042:
812:
550:
164:
1460:
by being a synthesis to make a point, without it the list would be indiscriminate. The
254:
Indeed it would; if you have information to add I will happily recreate it immediately.
2467:
2387:
2369:
2332:
2314:
2236:
2206:
2145:
2092:
1856:
1465:
1403:
1336:
1193:
855:
672:
626:
408:
369:
356:
315:
75:
1100:
1088:
656:
2299:
2276:
2257:
2116:
2065:
2013:
1984:
1956:
1939:
1908:
1424:
1386:
1297:
1270:
1221:
1173:
1165:
1116:
1104:
903:
891:
864:
597:
388:
337:
219:
2513:
2483:
2160:
2044:
1470:
1436:
1201:
1169:
767:
579:
420:
289:
278:
says, it isn't enough to tell us what a man did, you've got to tell us who he was.
275:
265:
201:
185:
1768:
1586:
1027:
797:
535:
355:
after he's stepped on so many people's toes by mass-AfDing in this same category.
351:
work on a stub before starting literally thousands of them for others to improve,
149:
2525:
1827:
1510:
1241:
1181:
1177:
1131:
902:
As the guy who deleted the article, I'll just apologise and ask to restore it.--
622:
575:
2407:
1699:
1621:
was deleted without a valid reason. It may be a user unfamiliar with the term.
958:
466:
2364:
2309:
2231:
2201:
2140:
2087:
1851:
1331:
1292:
686:
660:
403:
233:
205:
181:
2139:
and its many sub-categories, and the state of the List of bridges article.
2110:
wasn't notable or was only marginally notable, we probably wouldn't have a
1269:- we have as much right to comment at DRV as you do to request a review. /
2494:
The closing admin dismisses the keep arguments by saying they justify the
2294:
2060:
1381:
1185:
592:
383:
332:
214:
1693:
is notable, it is not immediately clear why a list of such would not be
1451:
problems aren't overcome when every fact in an article list is sourced;
2524:
and keep these and other such categories that were wrongfully deleted.
1897:. At a minimum, let's form a consensus here to get rid of the sentence
759:
723:
1818:
per excellent reasoning by the closer. The outcome of discussions on
2107:
1115:- I was the editor who made the original nomination for deletion. /
465:
cannot establish context, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. –
1464:
argument was made relatively late in the discussion (I think by
1204:
for improvement. This does not seem to indicate any concensus.
1398:
based on strength of argument. The article was unsalvageable
1955:
People from
America organized by ethnic German ancestry. --
2159:
be a valid argument to justify a list on
Knowledge (XXG)?
1421:
Fifty people giving foolish reasons do not make consensus.
2358:
part. Is it so difficult to parse? I really do hope the
1076:
of the positions and noted that the reasoning behind the
1822:
articles do not have a direct bearing on the outcome of
1764:
1760:
1756:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1023:
1019:
1015:
793:
789:
785:
531:
527:
523:
145:
141:
137:
2192:
being a notable ethnic group. But the AFD wasn't on
566:Notable album(s) by notable artist. Also including
1907:. Knowledge (XXG) should not show favoritism. --
727:– Deleting admin doesn't object to undeletion –
1549:Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten
1506:Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten
8:
625:seems to have notability concerns itself. --
1712:The following is an archived debate of the
1530:The following is an archived debate of the
1160:, there are some very superficial ones for
971:The following is an archived debate of the
741:The following is an archived debate of the
479:The following is an archived debate of the
93:The following is an archived debate of the
1678:
1498:
946:
716:
450:
63:
2078:; we have an article on the ethnic group
990:Fictional applications of real materials
954:Fictional applications of real materials
2554:
2538:The above is an archived debate of the
2012:. AfD is the place to address them. --
1663:The above is an archived debate of the
1483:The above is an archived debate of the
931:The above is an archived debate of the
701:The above is an archived debate of the
590:expired PROD, so it can be re-created.
435:The above is an archived debate of the
1938:This is not a cross-categorization. --
1905:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
1871:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
621:(no content). It should be noted that
572:Enquiring Minds Vol. 2: The Soap Opera
1084:. The arguments as to why we should
7:
2512:, this list should have been kept.
2076:wasn't the article under discussion
2008:Americans get way out of hand. See
1330:rubbish, and was rightly deleted.
381:I'lll certainly agree about that.
28:
1240:own deletion. AFD is not a vote.
2043:is a non-notable ethnic group.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1887:List of Jewish Americans AfD#2
1:
2131:We probably shouldn't have a
1895:Lists of Jewish-Americans AfD
655:third party sources, so that
2529:03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
2517:03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
2487:21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2471:21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2454:21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2411:19:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2391:20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2375:09:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2336:08:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
2320:10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
2304:21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2284:20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2268:20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2242:10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
2222:19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2212:12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2184:06:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2164:03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
2151:10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
2127:20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2098:12:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2070:00:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
2048:03:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
2032:00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1992:20:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1975:00:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1947:23:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1927:22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1883:List of Jewish Americans AfD
1862:22:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1838:19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1809:14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1703:12:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
1654:18:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1521:19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1474:21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
1440:05:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
1428:00:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
1412:00:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1391:00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1371:22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1342:22:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1316:21:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1274:21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1262:21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1250:20:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1225:21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1209:21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1142:19:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1120:21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1108:19:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
1064:18:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
962:12:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
920:09:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
911:09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
895:07:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
875:05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
847:00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
833:23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
732:13:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
690:07:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
676:11:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
664:12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
647:05:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
635:00:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
602:00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
583:23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
470:12:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
424:10:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
414:10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
393:08:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
373:23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
360:22:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
342:21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
319:18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
293:09:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
283:21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
269:21:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
259:17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
250:16:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
241:08:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
224:00:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
189:23:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
84:02:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
2612:
2564:"Personal Bio Michael Zen"
1891:Lists of American Jews AfD
1877:is notable. Then there is
2585:"AVN Awards Past Winners"
2010:Lists of Ethnic Americans
1070:Strongly endorse deletion
208:– Best Director (Film) –
2545:Please do not modify it.
2198:List of German-Americans
1875:List of Jewish musicians
1731:List of German Americans
1719:Please do not modify it.
1686:List of German Americans
1670:Please do not modify it.
1537:Please do not modify it.
1490:Please do not modify it.
978:Please do not modify it.
938:Please do not modify it.
748:Please do not modify it.
708:Please do not modify it.
486:Please do not modify it.
442:Please do not modify it.
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2155:What, in your opinion,
1695:encyclopedically useful
957:– Deletion endorsed. –
463:no sentences whatsoever
2561:but the reference was
2542:of the article above.
1902:
1879:Lists of American Jews
1716:of the article above.
1667:of the article above.
1534:of the article above.
1487:of the article above.
975:of the article above.
935:of the article above.
745:of the article above.
705:of the article above.
483:of the article above.
439:of the article above.
97:of the article above.
74:– Deletion endorsed –
1898:
1869:- Right there in the
1289:transparent aluminium
204:film director. *1996
1843:Endorse (my) closure
1103:are unconvincing. /
862:or any other CSD. —
180:This article on an
1847:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1184:for deletion, and
1180:., and the closer
2552:
2551:
2456:
1677:
1676:
1642:
1628:comment added by
1497:
1496:
945:
944:
715:
714:
449:
448:
2603:
2596:
2595:
2593:
2592:
2581:
2575:
2574:
2572:
2571:
2559:
2547:
2447:
2402:: per consensus
2372:
2367:
2343:German-Americans
2317:
2312:
2260:
2239:
2234:
2209:
2204:
2148:
2143:
2137:Category:Bridges
2135:, given we have
2119:
2095:
2090:
2080:German-Americans
2029:
2023:
2018:
1972:
1966:
1961:
1924:
1918:
1913:
1873:policy, it says
1859:
1854:
1786:
1772:
1754:
1721:
1691:German-Americans
1679:
1672:
1641:
1622:
1604:
1590:
1572:
1539:
1499:
1492:
1433:Endorse deletion
1409:
1396:Endorse deletion
1358:
1356:
1339:
1334:
1313:
1307:
1302:
1045:
1031:
1013:
980:
947:
940:
908:
867:
815:
801:
783:
750:
717:
710:
640:Endorse deletion
632:
617:(no context) or
553:
539:
521:
488:
451:
444:
411:
406:
167:
153:
135:
102:
81:
64:
53:
33:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2590:
2588:
2583:
2582:
2578:
2569:
2567:
2562:
2560:
2556:
2543:
2540:deletion review
2510:deletion policy
2496:German-American
2400:Strong overturn
2370:
2365:
2348:German-American
2329:Strong overturn
2315:
2310:
2266:
2256:
2253:Slight overturn
2237:
2232:
2219:trialsanderrors
2207:
2202:
2194:German-American
2190:German-American
2181:trialsanderrors
2146:
2141:
2133:list of bridges
2125:
2115:
2112:list of bridges
2104:German American
2093:
2088:
2041:German American
2027:
2021:
2014:
1970:
1964:
1957:
1922:
1916:
1909:
1857:
1852:
1801:Strong Overturn
1795:
1789:
1782:
1781:
1775:
1745:
1729:
1717:
1714:deletion review
1668:
1665:deletion review
1623:
1613:
1607:
1600:
1599:
1593:
1563:
1547:
1535:
1532:deletion review
1488:
1485:deletion review
1407:
1369:
1354:
1352:
1347:Endorse Closure
1337:
1332:
1321:Endorse closure
1311:
1305:
1298:
1054:
1048:
1041:
1040:
1034:
1004:
988:
976:
973:deletion review
936:
933:deletion review
904:
873:
863:
824:
818:
811:
810:
804:
774:
758:
746:
743:deletion review
706:
703:deletion review
630:
568:Both Worlds *69
562:
556:
549:
548:
542:
512:
498:Enquiring Minds
496:
484:
481:deletion review
458:Enquiring Minds
440:
437:deletion review
409:
404:
176:
170:
163:
162:
156:
126:
110:
98:
95:deletion review
79:
62:
59:12 October 2007
55:
54:
51:
49:2007 October 13
46:
37:
35:2007 October 11
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2609:
2607:
2598:
2597:
2576:
2553:
2550:
2549:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2519:
2489:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2458:
2457:
2445:Carlossuarez46
2413:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2286:
2270:
2262:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2121:
2086:. Do you see?
2052:
2051:
2050:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1978:
1977:
1950:
1949:
1930:
1929:
1864:
1840:
1812:
1811:
1797:
1796:
1793:
1787:
1779:
1773:
1724:
1723:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1675:
1674:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1615:
1614:
1611:
1605:
1597:
1591:
1542:
1541:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1495:
1494:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1442:
1430:
1414:
1393:
1373:
1363:
1344:
1323:, article was
1318:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1252:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1212:
1211:
1145:
1144:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1046:
1038:
1032:
983:
982:
967:
966:
965:
964:
943:
942:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
897:
877:
869:
856:not even close
849:
826:
825:
822:
816:
808:
802:
753:
752:
737:
736:
735:
734:
713:
712:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
679:
678:
666:
649:
637:
607:
606:
605:
604:
578:main article.
564:
563:
560:
554:
546:
540:
491:
490:
475:
474:
473:
472:
447:
446:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
396:
395:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
362:
322:
321:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
243:
229:
228:
227:
226:
178:
177:
174:
168:
160:
154:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2608:
2586:
2580:
2577:
2565:
2558:
2555:
2548:
2546:
2541:
2536:
2535:
2530:
2527:
2523:
2520:
2518:
2515:
2511:
2506:
2502:
2497:
2493:
2490:
2488:
2485:
2481:
2478:
2477:
2472:
2469:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2452:was added at
2451:
2446:
2442:
2441:
2435:
2434:
2429:
2425:
2421:
2417:
2414:
2412:
2409:
2405:
2401:
2398:
2397:
2392:
2389:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2376:
2373:
2368:
2361:
2360:closing admin
2357:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2334:
2330:
2327:
2326:
2321:
2318:
2313:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2296:
2290:
2287:
2285:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2271:
2269:
2265:
2259:
2254:
2251:
2243:
2240:
2235:
2229:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2220:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2210:
2205:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2182:
2178:
2175:
2165:
2162:
2158:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2149:
2144:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2124:
2118:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2096:
2091:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2062:
2056:
2053:
2049:
2046:
2042:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2030:
2024:
2019:
2017:
2011:
2006:
2003:
2002:
1993:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1973:
1967:
1962:
1960:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1948:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1928:
1925:
1919:
1914:
1912:
1906:
1901:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1865:
1863:
1860:
1855:
1848:
1844:
1841:
1839:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1830:
1826:discussion.
1825:
1821:
1817:
1814:
1813:
1810:
1807:
1806:Alexander Lau
1802:
1799:
1798:
1792:
1785:
1778:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1720:
1715:
1710:
1709:
1704:
1701:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1673:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1660:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:208.138.31.76
1627:
1620:
1610:
1603:
1596:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1527:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1513:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1493:
1491:
1486:
1481:
1480:
1475:
1472:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1383:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1367:
1362:
1359:
1357:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1335:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1314:
1308:
1303:
1301:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1051:
1044:
1037:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1008:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
981:
979:
974:
969:
968:
963:
960:
956:
955:
951:
950:
949:
948:
941:
939:
934:
929:
928:
921:
918:
914:
913:
912:
909:
907:
901:
898:
896:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
876:
872:
866:
861:
857:
853:
850:
848:
845:
841:
838:
837:
836:
834:
831:
821:
814:
807:
799:
795:
791:
787:
782:
778:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
756:
755:
754:
751:
749:
744:
739:
738:
733:
730:
726:
725:
721:
720:
719:
718:
711:
709:
704:
699:
698:
691:
688:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:
674:
670:
667:
665:
662:
658:
653:
650:
648:
645:
641:
638:
636:
633:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
608:
603:
599:
595:
594:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
559:
552:
545:
537:
533:
529:
525:
520:
516:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
487:
482:
477:
476:
471:
468:
464:
460:
459:
455:
454:
453:
452:
445:
443:
438:
433:
432:
425:
422:
417:
416:
415:
412:
407:
401:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
385:
380:
374:
371:
366:
363:
361:
358:
354:
350:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
334:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
317:
312:
308:
304:
294:
291:
286:
285:
284:
281:
280:Sam Blacketer
277:
272:
271:
270:
267:
262:
261:
260:
257:
256:Sam Blacketer
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
242:
239:
238:Sam Blacketer
235:
231:
230:
225:
221:
217:
216:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
187:
183:
173:
166:
159:
151:
147:
143:
139:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
82:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2589:. Retrieved
2579:
2568:. Retrieved
2557:
2544:
2537:
2521:
2491:
2479:
2463:
2439:
2438:
2432:
2431:
2420:WP:SYNTHesis
2415:
2399:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2341:
2328:
2293:
2288:
2272:
2252:
2227:
2196:, it was on
2176:
2156:
2083:
2075:
2059:
2054:
2015:
2004:
1958:
1935:
1910:
1899:
1866:
1842:
1833:
1828:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1800:
1718:
1711:
1694:
1684:
1669:
1662:
1646:
1624:— Preceding
1616:
1536:
1529:
1516:
1511:
1504:
1489:
1482:
1444:
1432:
1420:
1416:
1395:
1380:
1375:
1360:
1351:
1346:
1320:
1299:
1284:
1280:
1266:
1254:
1237:
1217:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1137:
1132:
1126:
1112:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1057:
977:
970:
952:
937:
930:
905:
899:
879:
851:
839:
827:
747:
740:
722:
707:
700:
668:
651:
639:
611:Keep deleted
610:
591:
565:
485:
478:
462:
456:
441:
434:
399:
382:
364:
352:
348:
331:
327:
306:
213:
209:
202:pornographic
197:
179:
99:
92:
69:
58:
44:2007 October
2501:it's useful
2448:—Preceding
1881:, with its
1328:synthesized
1259:LouScheffer
1206:LouScheffer
1190:LouScheffer
1061:LouScheffer
917:Newyorkbrad
858:to meeting
623:Gangsta Boo
576:Gangsta Boo
247:Chick Bowen
198:Michael Zen
112:Michael Zen
71:Michael Zen
2591:2007-10-08
2570:2007-10-12
2566:. IAFD.com
2505:WP:NOT#DIR
1198:Marhawkman
1113:Disclosure
1097:WP:FICTION
860:WP:CSD#G11
830:Davidewart
657:notability
644:Eluchil404
353:especially
210:Blue Movie
2587:. AVN.com
2468:Badagnani
2388:Badagnani
2333:Badagnani
2016:Jreferee
1959:Jreferee
1911:Jreferee
1466:Trident13
1355:SashaCall
1300:Jreferee
1293:Dementors
1287:- How is
1194:Mandsford
1082:listcruft
828:CSD SPAM
673:Catchpole
370:Dekkappai
357:Dekkappai
316:Dekkappai
234:AVN Award
206:AVN Award
182:AVN Award
2522:overturn
2492:Overturn
2480:Overturn
2440:our view
2428:WP:SYNTH
2277:Dhartung
2273:Overturn
2258:xDanielx
2177:Overturn
2117:xDanielx
2055:Overturn
1985:Dhartung
1940:Dhartung
1647:Overturn
1638:contribs
1626:unsigned
1619:redirect
1425:Kbdank71
1271:Blaxthos
1222:Blaxthos
1174:sgeureka
1166:Blaxthos
1117:Blaxthos
1105:Blaxthos
906:Alasdair
882:Neither
880:Overturn
865:xDanielx
852:Overturn
840:Overturn
669:Overturn
276:Rawlston
20: |
2514:DHowell
2484:GRBerry
2464:Comment
2450:comment
2416:Endorse
2356:list of
2289:Comment
2161:DHowell
2045:DHowell
2005:Endorse
1936:Comment
1867:Comment
1820:similar
1816:Endorse
1777:restore
1748:protect
1743:history
1651:W.marsh
1595:restore
1566:protect
1561:history
1471:GRBerry
1445:Endorse
1437:Stormie
1417:Endorse
1376:Restore
1285:Comment
1281:Endorse
1255:Comment
1238:Endorse
1202:Emperor
1170:Eric119
1154:Comment
1127:Endorse
1074:content
1036:restore
1007:protect
1002:history
900:Restore
888:G11able
844:W.marsh
806:restore
777:protect
772:history
760:Tealeaf
729:W.marsh
724:Tealeaf
652:Comment
580:Exxolon
544:restore
515:protect
510:history
421:Epbr123
400:Endorse
365:Comment
328:Comment
290:Epbr123
266:Epbr123
186:Epbr123
158:restore
129:protect
124:history
2526:Hmains
2108:bridge
1893:, and
1752:delete
1570:delete
1462:WP:NOR
1458:WP:NOR
1453:WP:SYN
1449:WP:NOR
1242:Stifle
1200:, and
1182:Stifle
1178:Verrai
1162:delete
1099:, and
1086:ignore
1011:delete
884:A7able
781:delete
519:delete
133:delete
2424:WP:OR
2408:Leuko
2157:would
1903:from
1784:cache
1769:views
1761:watch
1757:links
1700:Xoloz
1617:This
1602:cache
1587:views
1579:watch
1575:links
1423:" --
1408:desat
1366:Talk!
1267:Reply
1218:Reply
1093:WP:OR
1043:cache
1028:views
1020:watch
1016:links
959:Xoloz
813:cache
798:views
790:watch
786:links
631:desat
551:cache
536:views
528:watch
524:links
467:Xoloz
200:is a
165:cache
150:views
142:watch
138:links
80:desat
52:: -->
16:<
2433:this
2404:here
2366:Neil
2352:list
2311:Neil
2300:talk
2281:Talk
2233:Neil
2203:Neil
2142:Neil
2114:. —
2089:Neil
2084:list
2066:talk
1989:Talk
1944:Talk
1853:Neil
1824:this
1765:logs
1739:talk
1735:edit
1634:talk
1583:logs
1557:talk
1553:edit
1404:Core
1402:. --
1387:talk
1333:Neil
1246:talk
1158:keep
1101:WP:V
1089:WP:N
1078:keep
1024:logs
998:talk
994:edit
886:nor
794:logs
768:talk
764:edit
687:Fram
661:Fram
627:Core
598:talk
570:and
532:logs
506:talk
502:edit
405:Neil
389:talk
349:some
338:talk
307:HUGE
220:talk
146:logs
120:talk
116:edit
76:Core
32:<
2426:or
2295:DGG
2061:DGG
2037:-->
1845:.
1834:ʏɑɴ
1829:ɑʀк
1791:AfD
1609:AfD
1517:ʏɑɴ
1512:ɑʀк
1382:DGG
1186:DGG
1138:ʏɑɴ
1133:ɑʀк
1050:AfD
892:Joe
890:.
820:AfD
593:DGG
558:AfD
384:DGG
333:DGG
311:RfC
274:as
215:DGG
172:AfD
22:Log
2406:.
2302:)
2279:|
2228:is
2200:.
2068:)
1987:|
1942:|
1889:,
1885:,
1767:|
1763:|
1759:|
1755:|
1750:|
1746:|
1741:|
1737:|
1640:)
1636:•
1585:|
1581:|
1577:|
1573:|
1568:|
1564:|
1559:|
1555:|
1400:OR
1389:)
1325:OR
1248:)
1196:,
1192:,
1188:,
1176:,
1172:,
1168:,
1152:2
1095:,
1091:,
1026:|
1022:|
1018:|
1014:|
1009:|
1005:|
1000:|
996:|
854:-
796:|
792:|
788:|
784:|
779:|
775:|
770:|
766:|
619:A3
615:A1
600:)
534:|
530:|
526:|
522:|
517:|
513:|
508:|
504:|
391:)
340:)
222:)
212:.
148:|
144:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
122:|
118:|
42::
2594:.
2573:.
2499:"
2371:☎
2316:☎
2298:(
2264:C
2261:/
2238:☎
2208:☎
2147:☎
2123:C
2120:/
2094:☎
2064:(
2028:c
2025:/
2022:t
1971:c
1968:/
1965:t
1923:c
1920:/
1917:t
1858:☎
1794:)
1788:|
1780:|
1774:(
1771:)
1733:(
1632:(
1612:)
1606:|
1598:|
1592:(
1589:)
1551:(
1385:(
1368:)
1364:(
1361:/
1338:☎
1312:c
1309:/
1306:t
1244:(
1053:)
1047:|
1039:|
1033:(
1030:)
992:(
871:C
868:/
823:)
817:|
809:|
803:(
800:)
762:(
596:(
561:)
555:|
547:|
541:(
538:)
500:(
410:☎
387:(
336:(
218:(
175:)
169:|
161:|
155:(
152:)
114:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.