1035:: "Publish or perish" may be a motto inside academe for putting people on the tenure track, but we also all know that the process is also filled with political nonsense, and nowhere more so than in the liberal arts, where people often publish more books than scholarly journal articles, where there are fewer publishing opportunities and more peole competing for those opportunities. A person who has to start their entire life over following emigration is not going to necessarily be as prolific as someone who has had the luxury of living in an ivory tower for their entire career. Here, I looked at the somewhat sparse article, and it looks to me like WP:PROF is probably inadequate; this individual clearly has notability from his dissident status on top of his historical work.
1014:. Roughly speaking, it is judged relative to the "average professor" in that field. There aren't very many citations to his work, and although a few more have been identified here (e.g. K.e.coffman's above), his citation record is still substantially below what we would consider a notable historian, i.e. Romanovsky is pretty much an "average professor". Moreover, I think the "suppression" angle that has been argued both at AfD and here is a little disingenuous: Romanovsky emigrated to Israel in 1988 and therefore has been free of any sort of intellectual/scholarly oppression for roughly 30 years. Almost all those in favor of overturning seem really to really just be relitigating the AfD instead of demonstrating that its closure was capricious.
794:. We normally close on the basis of the majority of policy based comments. The relevant standard was WP:PROF, and there was no question he did not meet it. Academic notability is not giving lectures or having a few papers. The keep votes were essentially "Let's make an article anyway". We do have the right to override a guideline byIAR, but there has to be a reason. No reason was presented. Saying "The Sassoon Center has it's own article. Daniel Romanovsky has been involved as an abstractor in the Posen papers aspect of the project, " is not a reason. Princeton University Library has an article; I worked there on typical library functions. Should I have an article?
1098:. PROF c1 is what is relevant to most academics and the "impact" (or whatever you'd like to call it) 's indeed judged on how "noted" the subject is by her peers, where "noted" can be via citations, holdings of books, etc. It sounds like you're talking more about dedicated reviews of a person's work, technical bios, or the like (for example what appears in a NAS bio for newly-elected members). These are certainly even more compelling, but I don't see that Romanovsky has such. So, while I agree that "not all citations are equal, and not all publications are equal", you'll forgive me if it appears that just offering the same special pleading as others above.
819:
was an active
Historian and effectively a refusenik in a hostile totalitarian system, which is documented, should also be considered. I must say that the entire way we measure academic notability in the humanities should be revisited and arguably policy changed. It should be be more nuanced. I have been speaking to my partner about this, who is an academic librarian in the medical sphere, and she has suggested some models in use in England, introduced in 2014, regarding weighing other criteria apart from just citation-counting. I shall be presenting some ideas in a different forum. The subject has notability I believe, but he straddles different criteria.
461:. Closing this AFD as a delete was not in accordance with due process. That said, I would not have closed this AFD as a keep either; It was in its first cycle, so it would have been more reasonable to relist it in order to allow a clearer consensus to develop. The fact that so many of the keep comments were qualified as "weak" would have, presumably, influenced the closing administrator's view of the debate. The article at the time of deletion didn't assert a great deal about his notability, so this should be debated further.
985:
demonstrated by independent reliable sources." It does not prescribe a number of GS citations, or a number of mentions, or an official position in a university, or anything else. When I looked at the evidence presented, it seemed to me that the evidence demonstrated a significant impact. This evidence is chiefly the
Epstein source, but also the nature of the GS citations and the GB mentions. The evidence still points me towards keeping this (not absolutely clear cut, I admit, but keep). In line with what
1077:, you are still basing your definition of an "average professor" based purely on the citation record, which is precisely what I had a problem with: when judging consensus with respect to whether somebody meets WP:PROF, it is my belief that they should also look at the descriptions of the individual's work in reliable sources, and not just the number of citations. Not all citations are equal, and not all publications are equal, either.
203:: I believe that the article should be restored, as I did not see a clear consensus to delete. Granted, some of the comments were “week keeps”, but additional sources were offered during the AfD process that could be used to beef up the article. The subject of the article has done important, and possibly unique, research “document how ordinary Soviet citizens understood, remembered, and spoke about in the mid-1980s” (
616:. The first comment here, saying the subject did "important, and possibly unique, research" could be made of all intellectuals/acdemics – as basically an EXISTS argument, it's a pretty good summary of the "keeps" in the AfD. Now we have more pleading about suppression, pictures from a photo album, and such that pile-onto this argument. This seems to be relitigating the AfD.
816:
editorial boards of scholarly publications; publications in especially prestigious and selective academic journals; publication of collected works; special conferences dedicated to honor academic achievements of a particular person; naming of academic awards or lecture series after a particular person; and others.
818:
I consider "others" in the guideline quoted above to be satisfied in the subjects' lectures in various countries in
Eastern Europe under the aegis of Vad Yashem. This is obviously different to your own comparison. The subject here is also subject to broader notability guidelines, and the fact that he
699:
per
Irondome. I did not see this original AfD, so cannot comment on the actual state of the article, but if a historian and a Soviet dissident cannot be deemed notable under WP:ACADEMIC, then WP:ACADEMIC needs some serious re-tweaking to avoid problems with recentism, national bias and a tendency to
184:
This person was an historical researcher and Soviet dissident. His contributions to the study of the
Holocaust under German occupation of parts of the Soviet Union are recognized by a number of authors of scholarly books on the subject. The 8 keep votes recognized this. The 5 delete votes focused
815:
He is or was working on a major academic endeavour. C1 of WP:PROF seems to be satisfied here. "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying
Criterion 1: significant academic awards and honors (see below); service on
382:
closed prematurely, against a developing consensus and with an over-reliance on a simplistic citation bean-counting exercise which seriously needs reviewing as policy i.m.o. The guidance states that use of cite counting, esp on Google
Scholar should be used with caution. In addition new material is
81:
By about two to one, reviewers would overturn the "delete" closure to "no consensus". That's close to consensus to overturn, but perhaps not quite consensus. So I'm doing what closers can in "no consensus" outcomes at DRV, and am relisting the discussion, which it hasn't been before. Reviewers may
383:
being added to the article adding weight to subjects notability. A whole new area has now been opened up regarding the subjects' role in Soviet-era "illicit" intellectual activity, of which subject appears to have been a significant activist in. Restore and let this article be allowed to develop.
984:
I !voted "keep" in the AfD, and I understand that this comment will be judged in that light. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the closer did not quite judge consensus correctly. NPROF states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as
934:-- with the article undeleted, I can see that Barbara Epstein source (that I linked to above) was used in the article, but only to cite that Romanovski was a Holocaust researcher. The link that I provided goes into detail as to what the research was. Here's another example:
552:
is also an acceptable guideline for presuming notability. The discussion was almost entirely based on "notability", which is not a policy, and reasoned opinions based on the guidelines (which allow for commion sense and occasional exceptions) should be taken into account.
480:] which is a collection of photos of notable intellectual dissidents from the Soviet era. The subject and his wife appear prominently here. There also appear to be accompanying interviews. This is adding to the subjects notability as a Refusnik, working in Leningrad.
404:. The subject's field of interest – Holocaust research in the Soviet Union – is itself a little-known and -researched field due to communist suppression, and more leeway needs to be given to present this research on Knowledge. I also feel the AFD was closed too soon.
226:. The article needs work, no doubt about it. Parts of Romanovsky's biography were completely overlooked, thus giving a wrong impression of the lesser significance of his work under the Soviet system. However, this can be developed given the valuable feedback from
940:
by Leonid Rein, with more details on his research. This is from cursory look. So it seems to me that
Romanovsky made an important contribution in his field of his study, namely Holocaust in Belarus during WWII and the article can be expanded using these sources.
837:
is correct that the WP:PROF criteria is fine for the sciences, but terrible for the humanities. I've been looking at some academic papers on this topic, and the gap in things like h-index ratings between, for example, physicists and law professors is stunning.
364:
as one of the participants of the discussion. Most of the keep opinions argued that "he exists and is a recognized scholar", which is not a policy-based criterion. It is within the purview of the closing admin to recognize that and discount those contributions.
234:
about the fact that Danila
Romanovsky was a long-time Soviet dissident, politically active under the Soviet system. Seminars on history of Jews were held in his Leningrad apartment in the 1980s, which used to be a serious matter under the totalitarian
935:
765:
400:, agree with Irondome. The 5 delete votes continually ignored the progress being made on finding sources for this Soviet-era researcher and instead hammered away with the argument that there weren't hundreds of Google Scholar citations to satisfy
892:
The WP PROF criterion ins fine for the humanities. But we don't use h value to measure, nor citations, but academic books by major publishers. It's still the same factor of impact/influence, but using the measure that applies in the subject.
425:
points out above. That being said, I wouldn't object to this being restored into draft space if those who insist there are further sources are willing to improve the article so it unambiguously demonstrates the subject's notability.
658:
if the developing consensus (8 keeps/weak keeps vs 5 deletes) can be decided by a super vote? Then admins should just delete articles they deem as not meeting notability, and save the rest of us the trouble of participating.
676:. Closer plainly stated that the "keeps" did not demonstrate notability. You seem to want to rely on a simple numerical tally of votes, rather than the argument each one does (or fails) to make.
185:
on his later career as a educator in Israel and consisted mainly of citing WP policy on the notability of academics, while not addressing his primary notability. (I wrote the original article.)
989:
says above, we need to be aware of the context in which an academic is working (standards for number of citations vary by discipline, for instance) when judging "significant impact." Regards,
859:
This is old news. It has long been the convention to adjust citation criteria according to field. There is much discussion of this on the notability talk page and its archives.
544:
as there's still nothing actually to suggest enough for his own notability." came closest to being properly guideline-based. The other opinions were variations on not meeting
771:
by
Barbara Epstein (a somewhat meaty end-note describing his work). The discussion was terminated shortly thereafter without a chance for participants to review this source.
167:
76:
261:, request does not present new information and appears to simply re-argue points from the AFD debate (see Deletion Review should not be used: #5(not #6)", above).
1127:: Yes, the point is not to reargue the AfD, but I believe it was closed prematurely, without all the sources having been explored and active discussion on-going.
48:
34:
289:
I was going by point 1 of when a review may be opened: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly."
745:: Given that the article has been deleted and I can't see it, I can say that a published historian persecuted by the Soviets back in the days of the
43:
595:
weighed – that is the essence of the AfD process. What it comes now is demonstrating that the process itself was capricious in this particular case.
575:
155:
570:
as a supervote. You should also temporarily restore the article so we can weigh the arguments made at deletion against the article itself. --
1174:. Poorly closed; absence of a consensus to keep is not consensus to delete, and this should have been closed as no consensus if not keep.
571:
440:
176:
39:
401:
1179:
1055:...so, the same sort of pleading as before...comments like yours make it more clear that we're just relitigating the AfD.
21:
1175:
1194:
105:
17:
370:
236:
968:
294:
190:
125:
1132:
1082:
994:
946:
776:
664:
212:
1183:
1161:
1136:
1107:
1086:
1064:
1043:
1023:
998:
972:
950:
924:
904:
883:
868:
846:
828:
805:
780:
757:
733:
708:
685:
668:
645:
625:
604:
579:
562:
524:
489:
470:
452:
430:
413:
392:
374:
348:
324:
298:
280:
251:
216:
194:
94:
1157:
1103:
1060:
1019:
864:
729:
681:
621:
600:
448:
319:
304:
246:
536:
arguments did not adequately show how subject passes notability guidelines." But it seems to me the
1041:
844:
755:
706:
422:
366:
439:. Although this person may be of significance, the sources to prove it are not present, even now.
964:
879:
824:
640:
545:
485:
388:
290:
231:
186:
720:. It sounds like you're arguing that "a historian and a Soviet dissident" are positions notable
558:
409:
121:
70:
634:- the deletion discussion did not arrive at a consensus and the closer erred in finding one.
1128:
1078:
990:
942:
772:
660:
466:
227:
208:
1176:
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006.
1153:
1099:
1074:
1056:
1015:
860:
725:
677:
617:
596:
520:
508:
444:
313:
240:
204:
309:"to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early)".
874:
Well it will be revisited. Old news can become new approaches. Nothing is static on WP.
1036:
986:
959:
Thanks. I've made some additions to the article from your suggestions. Thanks also to
839:
750:
701:
427:
330:
262:
85:
749:
was generally subject to a fair amount of press -- but it was pre-google, of course.
238:
Meanwhile, the AfD was closed with eight "keep" !votes and only five "delete" !votes.
920:
900:
875:
834:
820:
801:
636:
549:
481:
384:
554:
405:
462:
516:
504:
540:
arguments were also very defective. Staggeringly, SwisterTwister's comment "
303:
Also, both K.e.coffman and I presented new info actually. The point #6" in
960:
915:
895:
796:
746:
82:
make their arguments on the merits again in the reopened discussion. –
700:
downplay the world of academe as applied to liberal arts disciplines.
311:
I don't believe my argument to be the case of mere technicality here,
1152:– Was it? The open date was July 16 and the close date was August 2.
768:
Minsk Ghetto 1941-1943: Jewish Resistance and Soviet Internationalism
421:, appropriate closure as the "Keep" arguments were pretty weak, as
654:
I concur with the above. What is the point of having a deletion
502:
511:) 08:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC) They cooperated but here is only
1010:. Yes, of course this all depends upon what is meant by
162:
148:
140:
132:
912:article temporarily restored for discussion here.
532:I have some sympathy with the closing rationale "
937:Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II
232:Talk:The Holocaust#AfD for Holocaust historian
8:
104:The following is an archived debate of the
764:At the AfD, I offered up this new source:
63:
497:One needs Russian name to find sources.
307:says (quote): Review should not be used
833:WP:GNG is more applicable, and indeed,
7:
813:I did not say that DGG. I said that
1197:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
329:Sorry, typo, I meant #5, not #6.
230:and I. Please see my comment at
1193:The above is an archive of the
572:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
548:which itself makes clear that
1:
441:WP:Verifiability, not truth
95:08:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
1220:
1184:10:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
1162:14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1137:11:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1108:14:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1087:07:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1065:22:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
1044:21:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
1024:17:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
999:13:42, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
973:18:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
963:for making this possible.
951:03:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
925:02:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
905:02:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
884:01:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
869:00:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
847:00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
829:00:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
806:00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
781:23:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
758:00:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
734:19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
709:18:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
686:19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
669:18:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
646:18:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
626:13:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
605:19:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
580:12:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
563:09:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
525:06:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
499:Елена и Даниил Романовские
490:03:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
471:03:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
453:02:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
431:01:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
414:23:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
393:22:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
375:20:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
349:22:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
325:20:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
299:20:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
281:19:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
252:19:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
217:19:24, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
195:18:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1200:Please do not modify it.
530:Overturn to no consensus
111:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1150:Re: closed prematurely
591:. The arguments were
697:Overturn and Restore
478:There is also This
423:User:David Eppstein
108:of the page above.
459:Restore and relist
1207:
1206:
568:Overturn deletion
122:Daniel Romanovsky
93:
71:Daniel Romanovsky
1211:
1202:
1039:
842:
753:
704:
644:
437:Endorse deletion
362:Endorse deletion
346:
343:
340:
337:
322:
316:
278:
275:
272:
269:
249:
243:
228:User:K.e.coffman
179:
174:
165:
151:
143:
135:
113:
92:
90:
83:
64:
53:
33:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1198:
1195:deletion review
1037:
840:
751:
702:
635:
344:
341:
338:
335:
320:
314:
276:
273:
270:
267:
247:
241:
205:Oxford Journals
175:
173:
170:
161:
160:
154:
147:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
109:
106:deletion review
86:
84:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1217:
1215:
1205:
1204:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1140:
1139:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1090:
1089:
1069:
1068:
1047:
1046:
1027:
1026:
1002:
1001:
987:User:Montanabw
978:
977:
976:
975:
954:
953:
928:
927:
909:
908:
907:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
852:
851:
850:
849:
808:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
761:
760:
737:
736:
712:
711:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
649:
648:
632:Overturn to NC
629:
610:
609:
608:
607:
583:
582:
565:
527:
492:
473:
456:
434:
416:
395:
377:
367:David Eppstein
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
331:Andrew Lenahan
284:
283:
263:Andrew Lenahan
255:
254:
220:
219:
182:
181:
171:
158:
152:
144:
136:
128:
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1216:
1203:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
983:
980:
979:
974:
970:
966:
965:Thoughtmonkey
962:
958:
957:
956:
955:
952:
948:
944:
939:
938:
933:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
917:
913:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
891:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
870:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
848:
845:
843:
836:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
817:
812:
809:
807:
803:
799:
798:
793:
790:
789:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
763:
762:
759:
756:
754:
748:
744:
741:
740:
739:
738:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
707:
705:
698:
695:
694:
687:
683:
679:
675:
672:
671:
670:
666:
662:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
647:
642:
638:
633:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
611:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
500:
496:
493:
491:
487:
483:
479:
477:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
432:
429:
424:
420:
417:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
394:
390:
386:
381:
378:
376:
372:
368:
363:
360:
359:
350:
347:
332:
328:
327:
326:
323:
318:
317:
310:
306:
305:WP:DRVPURPOSE
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
291:Thoughtmonkey
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
279:
264:
260:
257:
256:
253:
250:
245:
244:
237:
233:
229:
225:
222:
221:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
199:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
187:Thoughtmonkey
178:
169:
164:
157:
150:
142:
134:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
91:
89:
80:
78:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:3 August 2016
57:
50:
49:2016 August 4
45:
41:
36:
35:2016 August 2
23:
19:
1199:
1192:
1171:
1149:
1145:
1124:
1095:
1052:
1032:
1011:
1007:
981:
936:
931:
914:
911:
894:
814:
810:
795:
791:
767:
742:
721:
717:
696:
673:
655:
631:
613:
592:
588:
567:
541:
537:
533:
529:
512:
498:
494:
475:
458:
436:
418:
397:
379:
361:
334:
312:
308:
266:
258:
239:
223:
200:
183:
110:
103:
87:
75:
69:
58:
1129:K.e.coffman
1012:significant
943:K.e.coffman
773:K.e.coffman
661:K.e.coffman
546:WP:ACADEMIC
513:Elena moved
209:K.e.coffman
44:2016 August
1154:Agricola44
1100:Agricola44
1075:Agricola44
1057:Agricola44
1016:Agricola44
861:Xxanthippe
726:Agricola44
678:Agricola44
656:discussion
618:Agricola44
597:Agricola44
445:Xxanthippe
315:Poeticbent
242:Poeticbent
88:Sandstein
1079:Vanamonde
1038:Montanabw
991:Vanamonde
841:Montanabw
752:Montanabw
703:Montanabw
428:Lankiveil
1172:Overturn
982:Overturn
876:Irondome
835:Irondome
821:Irondome
747:Cold War
637:Thparkth
482:Irondome
402:PROF C-1
385:Irondome
77:Relisted
20: |
1146:Comment
1125:Comment
1096:Comment
1053:Comment
1033:Comment
1008:Comment
932:Comment
811:Comment
792:Endorse
718:Comment
674:Comment
614:Endorse
593:already
589:Comment
555:Thincat
495:Comment
476:Comment
419:Endorse
406:Yoninah
398:Restore
380:Restore
259:Endorse
224:Restore
201:Restore
177:restore
141:history
722:per se
550:WP:GNG
542:Delete
538:delete
463:KaisaL
921:talk
901:talk
802:talk
743:Reply
517:Xx236
505:Xx236
235:rule.
163:watch
156:links
52:: -->
16:<
1180:talk
1158:talk
1133:talk
1104:talk
1083:talk
1061:talk
1020:talk
995:talk
969:talk
947:talk
880:talk
865:talk
825:talk
777:talk
766:The
730:talk
682:talk
665:talk
641:talk
622:talk
601:talk
576:talk
559:talk
534:Keep
521:talk
509:talk
486:talk
467:talk
449:talk
410:talk
389:talk
371:talk
321:talk
295:talk
248:talk
213:talk
191:talk
149:logs
133:edit
126:talk
32:<
961:DGG
916:DGG
896:DGG
797:DGG
342:bli
274:bli
207:).
168:XfD
166:) (
22:Log
1182:)
1160:)
1148:.
1135:)
1106:)
1085:)
1063:)
1022:)
997:)
971:)
949:)
923:)
903:)
882:)
871:.
867:)
827:)
804:)
779:)
732:)
724:.
684:)
667:)
624:)
603:)
578:)
561:)
523:)
515:.
501:.
488:)
469:)
451:)
443:.
412:)
391:)
373:)
345:nd
339:ar
336:St
333:-
297:)
277:nd
271:ar
268:St
265:-
215:)
193:)
74:–
42::
1178:(
1164:.
1156:(
1131:(
1102:(
1081:(
1067:.
1059:(
1018:(
993:(
967:(
945:(
919:(
899:(
878:(
863:(
823:(
800:(
775:(
728:(
680:(
663:(
643:)
639:(
628:.
620:(
599:(
574:(
557:(
519:(
507:(
484:(
465:(
455:.
447:(
433:.
408:(
387:(
369:(
365:—
293:(
211:(
189:(
180:)
172:|
159:|
153:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
124:(
79:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.