697:
upon coming across the recreated article I thought it was invalid I would have used another afd, but I cannot say that doing this was wrong. The technicality that the redirect is not a deletion is nonsense; after it has been protected it is effectually a deletion. One could of course seek consensus to overturn it at the talk page of the redirect; one could do it at the talk page of the main article. Whichever route chosen would be acceptable. Unfortunately, whichever route would be chosen, someone would object to using that route--paying attention to technicalities is creating unreasonable difficulties to an editor. If BR were a new editor, or even a only moderately experienced editor, instead of a dedicated WPedian, I'm fairly sure we'd never see them here again after this sort of treatment. It is altogether reasonable to discuss it here; this is where we discuss disputed recreations of articles, not merely XfD closes. I see no need to argue about the notability here (about which I am rather doubtful) --I or anyone else who doubts it can use AfD, and I suspect someone will.
1081:, I'm afraid. It was not an appropriate case for a non-admin closure. I agree with entirely S Marshall that experienced non-admins should be trusted to close discussions. Being an admin does not make you inherently better at that task. My problem in this case is different. If, in closing a discussion, the deletion of an article is a real possibility, a non-admin shouldn't close it, because, by definition, they lack the technical ability to carry out one of the possible outcomes. An editor closing a discussion needs to come to a decision with a genuinely open mind to all possible options. Us non-admins can't do that in AfDs where deletion is on the cards and this has nothing to do with our experience or competence. My views here are entirely consistent with the parameters of
82:. Three editors would grant permission to recreate the article. It is not clear whether all or most of the other participants in this review oppose doing so. I interpret this as having the following effect: To the extent that a recreation would conflict with the endorsed closure, because the recreated article would be substantially similar to the one discussed at AfD, this review denies permission to recreate the article. If a recreated article addresses the notability problems identified in the AfD, no express permission by DRV is required to recreate it, but this requires convincing an admin to lift the existing protection. Should it become disputed whether this should be done, a new DRV request or
376:
removed by Cutest
Penguin (sort of correctly, sort of by accident), the speedy deletion request was reinstated by Dharmadhyaksha, by reverting Cutest Penguin. That's where I first got involved, I knew that per the deletion discussion in June, the page shouldn't have been deleted, and reinstated the previous closure by redirecting he page as per the AfD closure 3 months back. I was reverted twice by Blue Rasberry, who reverted back to the version of the page last edited by Dharmadhyaksha, and in doing so, tagged the article for speedy deletion a further twice.
334:
the original deletion and not the article) and it's not like there's some benefit to having sources scrutinized and chin-scratched over rather than just writing articles. When an article is recreated in good faith with sources that weren't in the original, what's required is some investigation on the part of editors looking to see if the reasons for deletion were addressed, not what happened here. My suggestion is to allow recreation and approach situations like this with more judiciousness in the future.
504:- Earlier when AfD were nominated the article lacked significant coverage but now it seems to be well cited with reliable sources and that's with significant coverage in multiple sources which ultimately makes the subject notable. Even while going through the references I discovered that those references are much recent than the AfD nomination dates. In the third AfD nomination the admin mentioned with suggestion that either to deletion or merger with the
405:" is essentially telling them to fuck off to DRV. That's complicated by the fact that DRV isn't really the right venue. So now BR has had the page redirected (and protected) and been told their only route is through DRV and is now being told (not by everyone, but still) that DRV isn't the place to go and there's another process they need to follow. BR is an experienced editor and they're certainly
533:. Wrong advice was given on the redirect talk page. Unless challenging the XfD process or close, a non-deletion redirect based on new information or arguments does not belong at DRV. Instead, seek consensus to re-create a spinout fro the target article. The discussion should be held on the talk page of the target artice, in this case at
971:. I'd probably have closed this as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy relisting" myself, if only because it had been open forever and there was clearly socking of some sort going on. I agree that non-admins probably shouldn't close contentious discussions, but I would consider the close reasonable if
1085:, which in my view is an essay justified not by an authoritarian distinction between admins and non-admins but by the reasons I've given above. As for the case at hand, I'm not for process wonkery, but I think we would benefit from having a fresh set of eyes on this, and with full reasons given for the close. --
1055:
with a semi-protected AfD to prevent all the socking. I might disagree with this particular close, but I differ from
Smokeyjoe in that I think on principle, it's generally appropriate for experienced editors to close contentious discussions even if they aren't admins. If we overturn a decision, it
421:
point. If the new article doesn't address the concerns at AfD than it can never be recreated. In between "immediately" and "never" there's room for editors and admins to exercise their judgment. A 5 year old AfD might be considered less of a hurdle than a 5 month old one, but that's really something
333:
A few things. First, don't edit war over redirects then use the tools so as not to hit 3RR. Second, I'm not sure the best procedure for re-written articles it to tell people to fuck off to DRV. That's not really the role of this board (as we're seeing with the discussion being about the propriety of
254:
where User:Soman put forth that the subject had "national limelight, plenty of press coverage, and thus notable". This was the recent AfD (June) on this subject person and it was raised while she was in the highest coverage that she ever received so far when her estranged husband was sworn in as the
416:
There's no hard and fast limit to when an article can be created after the last AfD. If the article was deleted for notability reasons and the new one contains sources which allow it to meet the GNG (which is what seems to be the case here, though I haven't combed through it closely), then it could
412:
I'm aware of the history on the page, so there's no need to recap that. What's salient for me is an admin edit warring over the page then protecting the page citing "disruptive editing" while the other editor is imploring them to use the talk page. None of that was necessary. The page could've been
696:
The discussion about procedure is absurd. The policy in effect is NOT BURO; there are many possible ways to write a replacement article. Coming here is one of them, and if that is the one chosen, this is the place to discuss it. Personally, I would not have reverted and protected the article--if
379:
I consider just over 3 months to be far too short a time to ignore the outcome of an AfD discussion, especially one that took into account notability and have directed the editor in question here to discuss their re-creation of the article. I specifically left the new article in the history, so it
375:
in June (the outcome of the deletion discussion, per the closure by slakr). The page was deleted on 27 September 2014 to make way for the new article Blue
Rasberry created, and was subsequently tagged for deletion by Dharmadhyaksha as recreation of deleted material. The speedy deletion request was
1003:
I don't disagree, looking at the closer's comments after the close, I'd have arrived at the same conclusion by a different path. For me, that'd be that the vast majority of contributions, from both sides, look to be suspect on some level, so a true community consensus is impossible to gauge. A
641:
It doesn't make them non-notable either. A substantially different article about a person needs to be retested for notability, especially in this case. The most recent AfD was a couple of weeks after Modi became the prime minister and there was a recency effect that would need testing.. 4 months
603:
is not a valid rationale for an article that is substantially different from the AfD version. Ideally, recreation should be allowed and the normal AfD process used to determine whether this new version satisfies our criteria for inclusion or not. (Note: I'm not sure it does, a lot of the content
1026:
and myself - all established editors in good standing. If you discard the rubbish on both sides you're still left with three policy-based contributions, all opining for deletion. The closing editor disagreed with those contributions and imposed his view on the discussion. Simple as that.
456:
suitable to send to AFD (or even just allow it)? I would opt for AFD. There has been a tendency recently to delete articles about relatives of very well-known people even when extensive press coverage has been way in excess of the GNG criteria. DRV has sometimes endorsed this.
255:
PM on 26 May. Her notability hasn't increased at all since then. Moreover, she not getting the status in past 4 months that any PM's spouse should have got strengthens the argument that her notability is only due to her relation with the PM and thus is only inherited. §§
929:
I agree it's promotional, and probably will be deleted, but it deserves the benefit of a proper discussion. Tho a new AfD could bestated right away, sine the close was non-consensus, this close was a misjudgment , and should be corrected explicitly.
74:– This review is difficult to close because many reviewers seem to be responding to different questions. No reviewer addresses the request that a current version of the article be resubmitted to AfD, and this is therefore not done. There is instead
413:
sent to DRV (if you felt that was the only option) while remaining an article or you could've had a discussion with BR about whether or not the page overcame the reasons for deletion. But you didn't. That's why I made that comment.
1004:
fresh discussion (not just a relist) might get some more policy based arguments and clean out the noise. But yes, if it's a difficult discussion like this one it's usually a good idea to explain your reasoning when closing it.
666:
Repeating; "Moreover, she not getting the status in past 4 months that any PM's spouse should have got strengthens the argument that her notability is only due to her relation with the PM and thus is only inherited".
358:
The DRV request is woefully incomplete, so here's full explanation from my point of view. I was asked to look at the article and delete it (under CSD-G4 - recreation of previously deleted page, per the discussion at
1056:
should be because the decision was wrong. We should never overturn a decision because the closer hadn't been entrusted with some irrelevant technical tools. That's insanely bureaucratic and authoritarian.—
1102:- As Stalwart points out, once the invalid votes are discarded there are three delete opinions left and no keeps. An AfD with three cogent policy based delete opinions and no keeps, is consensus to delete.
445:
There has been a lot of things happening that shouldn't have been (including by an admin) though I expect all this has been well-intentioned. The only decisions for us here seem to be (1) were the repeated
475:
360:
380:
can be restored in full, if the decision is to allow the re-creation of the article, or alternatively, the content can be merged into the target for the re-direct if the previous closure in endorsed.
850:
989:
The NAC overturn for an admin requires only you to sign the close as a close you would have done to satisfy the wonkery part. However, a slightly better explanation of the close is desirable. --
250:
very recently I beg to differ from nominator that GNG was never raised. Though the actual policy was not quoted, and that's good in a way to not stick walls of text, the issue was discussed at
450:
deletions legitimate (if the deletions were intended to be G4, or intended as deletions)? I can't see the history to judge but I have rather a feeling that they were not. (2) Is the new draft
575:. I am confused about process also as I continue to confirm that all past AfDs were correct closes and do not want any of them reviewed, except in the context of the new article.
623:
Check the AFDs to see whether GNG was discussed or not, just because the person is estranged wife of the Prime
Minister of an important nation doesn't make that person notable. -
383:
I have no interest in the outcome of DRV or any AFD and will not be making any comment on the merits of the article being deleted, merged, re-directed or re-created.
482:
after her husband Modi became the PM of India. Soman presented evidence of "plenty of press coverage", but none was regarded significant. Does the de jure status of
34:
604:
appears to be mere fluffy stuff, but I think this needs to be discussed. She is, after all, the estranged wife of the Prime
Minister of an important nation.)--
355:- is this comment in the correct place ? I've not said to anybody to fuck off anywhere, and I've only been dealing with the article on an administrative basis.
48:
43:
195:
was the original closing admin, who did an excellent and correct close that the version of the article under discussion should be deleted and redirected.
479:
372:
251:
159:
79:
183:
I confirm the correctness and validity of all previous deletions of this article. Previous article versions were not good and gave no evidence of
403:
You will need to take the discussion to deletion review and demonstrate that
Jashodaben is independently notable before creating a new article.
483:
174:
950:
I agree that the article reads as promotion, and is not founded on independent secondary sources. I would have !voted delete in the AfD. --
678:
266:
838:
39:
206:
and GNG has never before been discussed in relation to this person. I rewrote the article. This person is the subject of multiple
1069:
859:
21:
716:
as per SmokeyJoe. This discussion needs content specialists on the families of Indian politicians, not DRV volunteers.
642:
later, we're in a better position to do that test. Using CSD as a reason to delete this article is just plain wrong. --
508:
which seems to be controversial due to separated marriage and I don't think a merger will be valid in this case. —
1128:
788:
736:
721:
109:
17:
674:
287:
262:
247:
129:
474:
It is inaccurate to say that GNG was not discussed. "Significant coverage" (GNG) was part of AfD rationale of
1117:
1094:
1073:
1039:
1008:
998:
979:
959:
941:
921:
903:
777:
725:
708:
682:
653:
632:
615:
588:
566:
546:
525:
496:
466:
431:
392:
343:
328:
303:
270:
237:
98:
191:
the admin tells me that this is the correct venue to ask for a new review of a new article on this person.
583:
298:
232:
199:
1090:
648:
628:
610:
761:– I am undoing this clearly mistaken non-admin closure in my capacity as an individual administrator (
1065:
717:
364:
125:
70:
994:
955:
917:
668:
624:
562:
542:
510:
324:
279:
256:
912:. Non admins shouldn't close contentiously. Ask at WP:AN for an experienced admin to re-close. --
872:
572:
534:
871:
of an SPA and sock-puppet riddled discussion which clearly required admin tools to close. I've
808:
576:
462:
427:
339:
291:
225:
1086:
1029:
893:
643:
605:
491:
316:
409:
of navigating the procedures, but there's no advantage to taking such a hidebound approach.
1057:
487:
363:- the page being moved in between the second and third deletion discussions. The page at
1110:
1019:
1018:
equally questionable "delete" !votes but the "vast majority" of the arguments are from
1005:
990:
976:
951:
913:
768:
762:
558:
538:
388:
320:
89:
214:. I am coming to deletion review to ask that this article be allowed to go through an
1082:
972:
937:
868:
704:
600:
505:
447:
368:
283:
215:
211:
203:
83:
804:
757:
458:
423:
352:
335:
207:
883:
non-SPA keep !vote to the discussion, he decided to super-vote it closed instead.
399:
I cannot offer any other options, there are set processes to follow on
Knowledge.
282:
My perspective is different. I still say that no one asked which sources confirm
1023:
184:
192:
1103:
384:
188:
557:. There was no deletion. The use of an XfD and its close was proper. --
932:
699:
877:"Looking through the article... there are enough sources to meet WP:GNG"
286:. It only takes a few and the review should be simple enough to do. See
573:
Talk:Narendra_Modi#Article_on_Modi.27s_wife.2C_Jashodaben_Chimanlal
975:
had been an admin, so overturning would just be process wonkery.
879:. But rather than using that as a rationale for contributing the
476:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (2nd nomination)
361:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (2nd nomination)
221:
This new writing of the article is not like the others.
845:
831:
823:
815:
451:
166:
152:
144:
136:
422:
which can be talked over and we didn't do that here.
198:This article has been deleted three times because
8:
571:As you suggested, I started a discussion at
397:It's in the right place. Telling an editor "
248:Talk:Jashodaben_Chimanlal#Contested_deletion
787:The following is an archived debate of the
108:The following is an archived debate of the
76:consensus to endorse the "redirect" outcome
750:
480:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben
373:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben
252:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben
224:I acknowledge that past AfDs were recent.
80:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben
63:
78:of the most recent deletion discussion,
969:Endorse, with no prejudice to relisting
765:) and am re-closing the discussion. –
369:Narendra_Modi#Early_life_and_education
484:Spouse of the Prime Minister of India
7:
873:discussed it with the closing editor
288:Talk:Jashodaben_Chimanlal#Notability
1131:of the page listed in the heading.
739:of the page listed in the heading.
290:for three interviews, for example.
28:
714:Endorse and close as out of scope
486:grant notability? was discussed.
246:of the previous AfDs. As said at
621:Endorse deletion/redirect result
472:Endorse deletion/redirect result
367:was left set with a redirect to
313:Endorse deletion/redirect result
244:Endorse deletion/redirect result
86:request will need to be made. –
1127:The above is an archive of the
735:The above is an archive of the
1040:12:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
1009:12:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
999:11:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
980:10:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
960:21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
942:07:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
922:03:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
904:02:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
526:20:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
497:20:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
467:15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
393:16:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
344:15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
329:14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
304:14:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
271:14:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
238:14:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
1:
1118:04:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
1095:10:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
1074:01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
778:09:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
726:03:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
709:22:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
683:07:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
654:16:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
633:15:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
616:13:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
589:13:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
567:00:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
555:Close the as "out of scope"
547:00:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
432:17:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
99:09:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
1154:
202:, which is irrelevant to
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1134:Please do not modify it.
885:Revert non-admin closure
794:Please do not modify it.
742:Please do not modify it.
218:in its current version.
115:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
315:. Still does not meet
365:Jashodaben Chimanlal
126:Jashodaben Chimanlal
71:Jashodaben Chimanlal
1079:Overturn and relist
791:of the page above.
112:of the page above.
1100:Overturn to delete
889:overturn to delete
535:Talk:Narendra Modi
1141:
1140:
1072:
869:non-admin closure
776:
749:
748:
694:Permit Recreation
652:
614:
478:. The latest AfD
97:
59:30 September 2014
35:2014 September 29
1145:
1136:
1108:
1064:
1062:
1036:
1034:
900:
898:
867:Poorly executed
862:
857:
848:
834:
826:
818:
796:
775:
773:
766:
751:
744:
671:
646:
608:
598:Allow recreation
586:
581:
522:
519:
516:
513:
502:Allow recreation
494:
490:was also cited.
301:
296:
259:
235:
230:
208:reliable sources
179:
177:
169:
155:
147:
139:
117:
96:
94:
87:
64:
53:
33:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1132:
1129:deletion review
1114:
1104:
1058:
1032:
1030:
896:
894:
858:
856:
853:
844:
843:
837:
830:
829:
822:
821:
814:
813:
792:
789:deletion review
769:
767:
740:
737:deletion review
718:Unscintillating
669:
584:
577:
520:
517:
514:
511:
492:
299:
292:
257:
233:
226:
200:WP:NOTINHERITED
173:
171:
165:
164:
158:
151:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
113:
110:deletion review
90:
88:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1151:
1149:
1139:
1138:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1112:
1097:
1076:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
984:
983:
965:
964:
963:
962:
945:
944:
924:
875:who suggested
865:
864:
854:
841:
835:
827:
819:
811:
799:
798:
783:
782:
781:
780:
747:
746:
731:
730:
729:
728:
711:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
670:Dharmadhyaksha
659:
658:
657:
656:
636:
635:
618:
594:
593:
592:
591:
579:Blue Rasberry
550:
549:
528:
499:
469:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
417:be created at
414:
410:
381:
377:
356:
347:
346:
331:
309:
308:
307:
306:
294:Blue Rasberry
280:Dharmadhyaksha
274:
273:
258:Dharmadhyaksha
228:Blue Rasberry
181:
180:
162:
156:
148:
140:
132:
120:
119:
104:
103:
102:
101:
61:
56:
49:2014 October 1
47:
44:2014 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1150:
1137:
1135:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1109:
1107:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1061:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1014:Sorry, there
1013:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1002:
1001:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:
986:
985:
981:
978:
974:
973:User:SNUGGUMS
970:
967:
966:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
939:
935:
934:
928:
925:
923:
919:
915:
911:
908:
907:
906:
905:
902:
901:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
861:
852:
847:
840:
833:
825:
817:
810:
806:
803:
802:
801:
800:
797:
795:
790:
785:
784:
779:
774:
772:
764:
760:
759:
755:
754:
753:
752:
745:
743:
738:
733:
732:
727:
723:
719:
715:
712:
710:
706:
702:
701:
695:
692:
691:
684:
680:
676:
672:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
655:
650:
645:
640:
639:
638:
637:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
617:
612:
607:
602:
599:
596:
595:
590:
587:
582:
580:
574:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
529:
527:
524:
523:
507:
506:Narendra Modi
503:
500:
498:
495:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
468:
464:
460:
455:
452:
449:
444:
441:
440:
433:
429:
425:
420:
415:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
354:
351:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
337:
332:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
311:
310:
305:
302:
297:
295:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
231:
229:
222:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
196:
194:
190:
186:
176:
168:
161:
154:
146:
138:
131:
127:
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
116:
111:
106:
105:
100:
95:
93:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1133:
1126:
1111:
1105:
1099:
1078:
1059:
1052:
1028:
1015:
968:
931:
926:
909:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
866:
805:Randall Bell
793:
786:
770:
758:Randall Bell
756:
741:
734:
713:
698:
693:
620:
597:
578:
554:
530:
509:
501:
471:
453:
442:
418:
406:
402:
398:
312:
293:
243:
227:
223:
220:
197:
182:
114:
107:
91:
75:
69:
58:
1087:Mkativerata
644:regentspark
606:regentspark
493:Redtigerxyz
1060:S Marshall
771:Sandstein
371:after the
210:and meets
92:Sandstein
1020:bender235
1006:Lankiveil
991:SmokeyJoe
977:Lankiveil
952:SmokeyJoe
914:SmokeyJoe
601:WP:CSD#G4
559:SmokeyJoe
539:SmokeyJoe
448:WP:CSD#G4
321:EricSerge
317:WP:ANYBIO
910:Overturn
625:sarvajna
488:WP:BLP1E
454:a priori
20: |
860:restore
824:history
763:WP:NACD
649:comment
611:comment
531:Endorse
521:Penguin
459:Thincat
443:Comment
424:Protonk
407:capable
401:" and "
353:Protonk
336:Protonk
175:restore
145:history
1083:WP:NAC
1053:Relist
1024:LaMona
927:Relist
585:(talk)
300:(talk)
284:WP:GNG
234:(talk)
216:WP:AfD
212:WP:GNG
204:WP:GNG
84:WP:RPP
1035:lwart
938:talk
899:lwart
846:watch
839:links
705:talk
537:. --
193:slakr
167:watch
160:links
52:: -->
16:<
1106:Reyk
1091:talk
995:talk
956:talk
918:talk
887:and
881:only
832:logs
816:edit
809:talk
722:talk
673:§§ {
629:talk
563:talk
553:and
543:talk
463:talk
428:talk
389:talk
385:Nick
340:talk
325:talk
261:§§ {
189:Nick
185:WP:N
153:logs
137:edit
130:talk
32:<
1113:YO!
1016:are
933:DGG
851:XfD
849:) (
700:DGG
515:ute
419:any
22:Log
1093:)
1031:St
1022:,
1011:.
997:)
958:)
940:)
920:)
895:St
891:.
724:)
707:)
681:}
667:§§
631:)
565:)
545:)
518:st
465:)
430:)
391:)
342:)
327:)
319:.
269:}
187:.
42::
1089:(
1070:C
1068:/
1066:T
1033:★
993:(
982:.
954:(
936:(
916:(
897:★
863:)
855:|
842:|
836:|
828:|
820:|
812:|
807:(
720:(
703:(
679:C
677:/
675:T
651:)
647:(
627:(
613:)
609:(
561:(
541:(
512:C
461:(
426:(
387:(
338:(
323:(
267:C
265:/
263:T
178:)
172:(
170:)
163:|
157:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
128:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.