1312:, which is what you seem to argue. The community did not decide "to keep them all", as you claim: the community decided not to delet them all, which is a completely different concept. You seem to have learned nothing at all from all the recent discussions about portals (nor from the RfC, in fact), and still haev a blind belief in the superiority of your technological solutions, even if they have been shown again and again to create serious problems, and even though it has become clear that many portals where you changed the earlier, manual versions to your automated ones have become a lot worse in the process.
1519:", especially when I couched all of this, across this entire series of MfDs, in terms of towns/neighborhoods/boroughs/"small cities"/CDPs versus "real cities"/metro areas/counties/large subnational regions (in non-tiny nations), with the former not having sufficient reader encyclopedic interest for portals, but the latter category clearly having it. Pretty much no one on earth is actually going to think of Edge Hill, Georgia , as a "city", no matter what some government paperwork says in a file somewhere. In plain English, it is a town at best, more like a village or hamlet.
52:. I've read this thing nearing a dozen times now, and I've not gotten much of anywhere. The delete voters make the arguments that these are relatively minor places that aren't of broad interest beyond mainspace; I'm inclined to agree. The keep !voters make the argument that these have individual merit and are are very different from each other; I'm inclined to agree, especially on the second point (we have a small village that's a featured article with a dedicated maintainer and a city that no longer properly exists but had 20x the population).
1238:"A portal helps to browse on a particular subject, hence the subject of a portal should be broad so that it presents a diversified content. The portal subject area should have enough interest and articles to sustain a portal, including enough quality content articles above a Start-class to sustain the featured content section. To aid in this, the portal should be associated with a WikiProject to help ensure a supply of new material for the portal." The 20 articles is not even in the guideline it is something project members have mentioned.
1756:"Knowledge (XXG) is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Knowledge (XXG) can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own."
1290:, and all other portals. The approximately 1500 portals that existed at that time, including Portal:Briarcliff, represented a wide range of scope; some had over a hundred entries in them, while others had just a few. Yet, the community decided to keep them all. The portals guideline has not been updated to reflect the community consensus established there. WikiProjects should never have been included in the guideline, as that violates
713:
The exception is the article on the ice hockey team, which suffers from the same fanboy POV that far too many ice hockey-related articles suffer from. Seeing a portal like that suggests yet another move towards the encyclopedia's content consisting of what certain editors like or don't like instead of anything remotely resembling collaboration or broad editor interest.
427:. If readers wanted to explore the other 20 articles on Briarcliff, where else would they go? Not all of them are linked from the main article, and they're not going to understand categories and subcategories. Portals give them an immersive experience of images, facts, articles, dates, bios, and more, that is much more useful to a new reader than anything else here.
1854:, something I'm not fully bound to follow. Your idea is backward: if you want to nominate small city portals for deletion, you have to gain consensus for a proper portal notability policy, which would, in your eyes, include details on why and which small cities cannot, for silly reasons, not have their own portals. Then take these to MfD for God's sake.
2221:. Compare this to your claim that there is no requirement on the importance of a topic; in fact, this is directly contradicted by our guidelines. The only argument you have implied that holds any weight is that portals with maintainers should be safer. Please stop harassing every user you disagree with. You have made your point. ā
1037:
small city portals. That's essentially fraud. As for widespread community support, clearly nothing here needs or has that. We don't have any requirements for the notability of portals, there are no limits to the size, number, or scope of portals. As you stated, Briarcliff Manor passes POG as broad enough to warrant a portal.
1629:...Ā broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainersĀ ... broad so that it presents a diversified contentĀ ... should be associated with a WikiProjectĀ ... should not be a vehicle for advocacy or advertisementĀ ... should not cover too narrow a scopeĀ ...
2036:
Portals just mirror content from articles that need to be sourced; same thing as that lead paragraphs don't need cites so long as the information is reliably sourced later on. And yeah, I'm aware you're also trying to be able to speedy-delete all of these articles too, without telling me or any other
1689:
POG established that portals should have at least 20 articles in them, in order to have a "good number of articles" for selection. That 20-article figure has been noted in multiple MfDs and other portal discussions as a rough consensus for the minimum number of articles needed in a portal. Briarcliff
1067:
Please learn the distinction between personal attacks and simple debate. I called your act fraud because I view it that way. I am not insulting any personal aspect of you, name-calling, or anything. Simply, your act of spreading out nominations and then listing them all in further deletion debates is
56:
coverage āĀ but there isn't a cohesive, focused discussion amongst several editors I can point to. This discussion does a good job showcasing not only why having a good set of criteria is important, but also why having hard and fast rules with strict boundaries is difficult and not the wikipedia-way.
2104:
The portals listed above have plenty of articles linked to them. The purpose of portals is to link to articles to help maintain
Knowledge (XXG). All of the portals do that. The size of the city is not as relevant as whether there is enough content, in the form of articles, to justify a portal. There
1672:
POG does not establish a 20-article minimum. It defines "a good number of articles", in the "article selection" as "Good number means about 20 articles, though this figure may vary from case to case and is intended as a rough guide rather than a hard principle." Doesn't look to me like these portals
1036:
You're still being misleading; other voters will just see the list of precedents and be like, "oh, sure, delete", but almost none apply, and you even stated in one that you were spreading out the nominations (not several portals in one nom) in order to give the impression of more nominations against
307:
Alhambra for example is a nice
California town with 83,000 people. Boca Raton, New Rochelle and Aylesbury are similar sized. No evident reason for these places to have a portal. The world of articles is the predictable pages on the high school, the school district, a road that is partly in the city,
2341:
Yeah I know other stuff exists. You still have some random approach to which cities are notable enough and which aren't. Funny you thought you deleted
Yonkers' portal. It is one of the largest cities in NY and even in the US, with more people than the nationally-known Salt Lake City, Montgomery AL,
2200:
are of a poor quality? Which include two
Featured Articles, one Featured List and seventeen Good Articles? And you want to delete the portal that I spent countless hours shaping into a really strong portal? Because its quality is poor? Literally I dare you to find a city with a better percentage of
1655:
This is incredibly vague, there is no established guideline for just how broad a subject has to be. How about 26 articles in the topic? I think having a portal to organize 26 long and well-developed articles makes sense. As well, the guideline you're citing has established 20 articles as a minimum,
1334:
RFC how should we be dealing with TTH continued involvement in portals? It sounds like he believes every preexisting portal prior to the RFC is now protected from deletion. That fits with his insistence on tagging each one with a deletion tag like we were discussing deletion of each page. For a big
2295:
That's a very unique interpretation of POG; a stance that you're unique in taking. There's nothing in that or any policy that defines breadth vs. depth. And I disagree that any city like
Yonkers has any special sort of magical "breadth" that a smaller town such as Briarcliff lacks. This is wishful
2170:
guideline that we have, not some theoretical guideline that may someday exist. These topics are not broad enough to meet the current guideline's requirement; in addition to the guideline's mention (in a footnote) of a number of related articles, it also mentions a quality standard for the related
2142:
Is the 20 article rule a hard count, where above that number a portal is kept? I'd day that some portals having close to 20 articles would mean that the portals should be kept. Surely portals should be kept if they have enough content about them. One of the portals does have more than 20 articles,
1785:
There is a difference between portals which need to cover broad topics according to the guideline and articles which need to meet notability guidelines. Claiming the portal meets part of the guideline with 26 related articles but tossing the scope part of the guideline because you don't like it is
1762:
Another question is where to draw the line on a subject as being "local". Local could mean limited to a city or town. But others may view a state, province, or other similar region as being local. And such divisions vary in size throughout the world. And though the boundaries of a jurisdiction are
1205:
A comment above suggests portals should be linked from the lede of articles. Why would we create such circular links? If portals are a navigational aid why does a person already on the article need to go to a portal to get back to the article? The article link system is a proven successful way to
1117:
editors attempting to take over as much of the encyclopedia as they possibly can while making no effort of their own to actually improve any of the content involved. Looks like I correctly predicted where the automation of portals was taking us. Just months ago, the nominator was throwing around
712:
was recently created. Considering that there's no portal on the
University of Alaska as a whole, I wouldn't call this a broad enough topic for a separate portal. Moreover, most subarticles related to UAF are substubs or stubs which have seen little improvement, with many created by COI editors.
487:
Sounds like you're gunning for another proposal for mass-deletion of portals, which is not what this MfD is about, and that proposal just recently failed. Anyway, page views are widely influenced by accessibility - if the portal was by the lede like some other key links, it would get a much higher
1808:
The guideline is out-of-date, vague, and clearly lacks consensus. Please establish actual criteria before trying to delete portals just based on "I think it's too small". The scope part is incredibly vague; the 20-article idea has backing in the community. And, yes, guidelines apply to all of the
55:
A lot of the discussion touches on whether there should be a strict population cutoff, but the merits (much less the boundaries) haven't been adequately discussed and debated. We have editors bringing that idea up āĀ the below discussion shows some of the difficulty in linking that to quality and
541:
that
Knowledge (XXG) acts as a gazetteer for all communities, and thus communities inherently have a right to articles and therefore should have a right to organize themselves with categories, portals, navboxes, everything that larger communities should. I should bring this up to the movement of
2246:
DON'T talk for people, don't assume what they're thinking and speak for them. I pinged him so that he may provide an answer; your continued complaints to me and sticking POG in my face isn't going to help, and is worse than me even just asking for clarification with his flawed deletion argument
1926:
and didn't inform any of us. That's sly and deceiving, and you commented there and didn't either; I've lost all faith. If there already is a discussion about whether or not three or twenty articles are needed, why are we even discussing here? Also, consensus seems to be for only three articles
2127:
but then the portal would be about the history of the place not the modern small town. The best developed small city topics have pages about the school district, the high schools, maybe a university, some parks, a library system, maybe some business based there. All mundane predictable stuff.
1690:
has 26. Meanwhile your argument that POG requires broad subjects is irrelevant - please define which cities and towns are broad and which aren't and cite some consensus... Please... Knowledge (XXG)'s consensus is that all cities, towns, villages are broad enough topics to warrant articles (
1294:. As coverage grows on these subjects, so will these portals' coverage of it, automatically. Also, the Portals WikiProject is dedicated to improving portal design further, including how and from where entries are automatically gathered. As the tech improves, so will the individual portals.
1631:
Location-based portals are not broad enough, and are sure to become a vehicle for advertisement. Portals should be reserved for topics so broad that we cannot fit all the relevant links into a single article. And we can fit a lot of links in an article. I could see a Portal:London or a
707:
What's really going on here is that a small group of editors wish to choose these things on behalf of the rest of us and are aggressively gaming process to that effect, hence this and related XFDs. With no input whatsoever from the editors who have worked on the articles in question,
1573:? It's just a neighborhood... Meanwhile New Rochelle as a city has far less notability. We must maintain portals on populated places of all sizes, as long as people are willing to create them, and perhaps we can institute a guideline for number of articles it pertains to.
1448:
any on actual cities like Boca Raton (not towns/neighborhoods/census-designated places/suburbs) and on regional capitals like
Aylesbury, as of sufficient encyclopedic interest to support portals. "They're not good enough right this second" isn't a deletion rationale, per
1525:, then let's do it: 50K people? 75K? 100K? 250K? 500K? We should pick something and stick to it, however arbitrary it might be. PS: The need to upmerge smaller towns and such to bigger portals shows why the thinly-attended deletion of US county portals was a
2009:
As an experienced editor you should know the difference between a Speedy deletion criteria where we delete pages without discussion and a content guideline where we specify minimum standards. If you believe all guidelines about articles apply to portals (ie:
1529:
mistake. We're just going to have to end up re-creating them to merge all these town portals to, which collectively (after merger) obviously hold enough reader interest and enough article entries for broader-area portals, but do not for micro-area
616:. The fact is, we have guidelines for these, and they say portals should be for large subject areas, and these portals don't meet that. Community consensus has been clearly shown to be against creating articles for minor topics like these. ā
2143:
for example. I don't think just being a small city means that the topic cannot have a portal, especially if there are enough relevant articles about the small city. The other portals could be brought to that level, but it would take time.
796:
962:
I disagree entirely, it's just you and
Legacypac and others in a small group just continually deleting. To have a fair vote, the creator should provide input, WikiProjects should, etc. A larger consensus than just the MfD page stalkers.
1256:
in 2018, portals represented a wide range of scope, yet the community decided to keep them all. That set of 1500 portals is the representative set. Portals of similar scope to the portals in that set are okay by the community.
1515:. Given that how "town", "city", etc., are defined legally varies widely by jurisdiction (and not always consistently within one), it cannot possibly be the case that I mean "that which officially bears a designation of 'town
822:
1786:
not correct. It's like newbies who say it's all sourced (V) but don't like the N part. I get you are passionate about your town, but there are much more productive ways to showcases your town to the world then a portal.
1835:
You have it backward. If you want portals YOU revise the guideline and get it approved via RFC. You can't dismiss and ignore what little guideline we have and tell anyone who objects to fix the guideline you broke.
1718:
1 million people for a city or metro area, assuming no major over lap with a small country/city state portal or a subnational region portal - ie
Beijing is both city and a province level division. And don't create
645:, I'd say that's a success, and not something to toss out, using arbitrary standards of cities worthy and unworthy of organizational tools like portals. Where's the line? 8,000 people, 80,000, 800,000? 8 million?
814:
830:
59:
Anyway, I don't think there's agreement on what to do with most of these. This is a no consensus close, so if there is value in discussing some individually, this shouldn't prevent that. I'm defaulting to
1427:. Exclude the others from this nomination (note: this isn't necessarily a vote against deletion of those, just that I think we do better in keeping the auto-generated ones and the others separate at MfD).
488:
readership. Instead it's far, far down the article, near the bottom, and doesn't even display on the app or mobile version, which are increasingly becoming the predominant methods to read Knowledge (XXG).
805:
787:
2105:
is enough for the portals above, evidenced by the different links to articles in each portal's jurisdiction. Portals can also add more content in the future, making them more important going forward.
1220:"Sorry these fail WP:POG portal guidelines, even as loose as they are." Which part of the guideline? Because the standard for POG is that about 20 articles makes the portal broad enough to stay.
1196:
portal guidelines, even as loose as they are. X3 will pass, and should have been closed already frankly. Otherwise I expect all 5500 portals will be subjected to MfD which is a big waste of time.
935:
308:
and for some reason a pizza chain for Alhambra. Sets a bad precedent for creating portals on smaller cities. Anyone is welcome to bundle in other small city portals. There are a bunch of them.
1018:- something that has not passed an RFC or gained widespread community support. There is now a prohibition on mass creation that will stand until a new guideline is approved by the community.
1752:"Notability is not about assigning an elite status to a select group of subjects. It is about having the ability to write neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic-style information about them."
186:
1814:
778:
1874:. I disagree with Legacypac on several things; in particular, I donāt think all portals should be deletedājust the ones that donāt meet our guidelines. Here, though, he is right.
1335:
concept guy who insists on being the guy who organizing the whole of Knowledge (XXG), I'm surprised TTH is confusing Meta discussion with specific discussion of individual pages.
182:
221:
2196:
So your only rationale here for deleting is that you think some topics are not broad in your opinion? And that the related articles are of a poor quality? So do you believe
838:
1482:
is larger than the cities Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Rochester, Yonkers, etc., making Hempstead the second-most-populous place in New York. Meanwhile, the official city of
174:
1118:
the term "collaboration" while at the same time attempting to stifle my efforts at collaboration elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Time to put a stop to nonsense like this.
1478:
This idea to keep portals on cities and delete portals on towns is ridiculous. Incorporated title really means little in terms of significance. For example, the town of
217:
118:
542:
Wikipedians who actively write and advocate for expansion of community articles, because this just seems biased against smaller towns and cities, which makes no sense.
2392:
Considering that the nomination said "WP:X3 as drafted does not apply to everything here as different creators.", your copy-pasted comment here is rather meaningless.
152:
114:
504:
If you think readership is low, look at New York City, which has 496,000 views vs 2,400 for its portal (.5%) vs 3% for Briarcliff, six times the relative amount.
255:
209:
148:
420:
2381:; it is not a guideline or policy. As such, whether or not a portal was created before or after the discussion commenced is not a valid qualifier for deletion.
2123:
A small city will almost never ever have enough related content to support a portal. The only exceptions might be some small place with an amazing history like
2061:
1014:
The MfDs listed are all of the ones on inhabited places as noted. A town is smaller/narrower scope than a county. 20 articles is a rock bottom minimum part of
523:"Please bear in mind that portals should be about broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers"
473:
how so? If readers found portals useful we would see a lot more usage, yet all portals get minimal usage. 125 page views is actually pretty high for a portal.
1457:
those on smaller places to portals on larger areas. Redirects are cheap and will help prevent re-creation of town/'hood portals we'll never need in any form.
251:
106:
140:
2406:
Not to mention that the X3 proposal has closed as no consensus, so here at MfD is the only place we will be now (unless some of the creators use CSD U5).
402:; likewise there is no rule for notability based on a city's size, we include all populated places as part of Knowledge (XXG)'s function as a gazetteer (
537:
A guideline that I don't have to follow. I am the portal maintainer of the Briarcliff portal; the other ones I'm not certain of. It still is counter to
907:
7 votes is really good for an MfD, and if all 3 votes on some of the less well-attended MfDs are for "delete", closing as delete is quite reasonable. ā
243:
588:
942:
has established the precedent that portals should at least contain/connect to about 20 articles. Briarcliff Manor has at least 26, meaning that it
1876:
You do not need to create a new comprehensive guideline every time you want to delete a page if there are existing guidelines that are applicable.
1754:
Nothing in Knowledge (XXG) relies on how large a city is for notability. Notability always relies on neutral, independent, authoritative sources.
1252:
That is totally out of date. That guideline was never followed. People just made portals on what interested them. And, so by the time of the RfC
290:
580:
419:
In the case of Briarcliff Manor, I spent countless hours developing 20 or so articles on the village into GAs and FAs. I created the portal (
406:). This MfD breaks the very first pillar. There is also a strong push toward highlighting local communities better on Knowledge (XXG), like
286:
17:
1594:
Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources.
1351:
This is a ridiculous claim. The RFC was a blanket statement on all portals. It did not represent a judgment on any individual portal. ā
736:
How are we "gaming process"? You have equal right to vote in these MfDs, and they stay open for a reasonable time. Please do not cast
83:
1636:
of articles. These portals are not broad enough; our main articles on these places include everything the portals include, and more.
2237:
1962:
1906:
1542:
1468:
1367:
999:
923:
756:
696:
632:
382:
278:
443:
4127 page views for the head article vs 125 page views for the portal suggests readers find the article far more reader friendly.
2269:
of a topic's coverage on Knowledge (XXG) (which in this case is admirably deep, due in large part to your diligent efforts) with
592:
2415:
2401:
2387:
2353:
2336:
2307:
2290:
2258:
2241:
2212:
2180:
2152:
2137:
2114:
2070:
2052:
2027:
1938:
1910:
1865:
1845:
1828:
1795:
1776:
1740:
1705:
1684:
1667:
1645:
1607:
1584:
1547:
1497:
1473:
1436:
1410:
1394:
1371:
1344:
1321:
1303:
1266:
1247:
1231:
1215:
1187:
1136:
1131:
1095:
1079:
1062:
1048:
1027:
1003:
974:
957:
927:
902:
855:
760:
731:
726:
700:
672:
656:
636:
606:
553:
532:
515:
499:
482:
468:
452:
438:
386:
357:
338:
321:
89:
584:
411:
1174:
178:
709:
2313:
213:
2436:
2197:
1156:
169:
40:
1298:
1261:
110:
1526:
407:
144:
1308:
The RfC decided that portals (as a type of pages) can continue to exist. It did not conclude (or even discuss) that
1086:
I never said I was spreading out nominations - you fabricated that. On the contrary I've been batching nominations.
2342:
Little Rock, Tallahassee, Providence RI, etc. so you clearly don't know what you're talking about Unitedstatesian.
2148:
2110:
1149:
247:
204:
2411:
2332:
2286:
2176:
2064:, users were against references being existent in portals. As such, a lack of sources does not qualify deletion.
1416:
351:, "most decisions on Knowledge (XXG) are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule".
334:
101:
65:
1763:
legally defined, determining a distance from that location in which coverage would be non-local is not possible.
1589:
1420:
1286:ā This MfD attempts to override community consensus. The community decided to keep Portal:Briarcliff in the RfC
1181:
is mentioned in the nomination, but this is only a proposal, and is not an actual criteria for speedy deletion.
135:
1871:
1724:
573:
238:
2320:, (and would predict that all the other Portals for similarly sized settlements that DO exist will go also).
1728:
1331:
1287:
1253:
737:
282:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
2432:
2383:
2233:
2144:
2106:
2066:
1958:
1902:
1539:
1465:
1363:
1183:
1177:, draw from an appropriate selection of articles, and serves as useful navigational pages. Furthermore,
995:
919:
752:
692:
628:
378:
353:
36:
1920:
1810:
1746:
348:
1720:
1570:
1424:
1382:
1163:
273:
2407:
2328:
2282:
2191:
2172:
2037:
user. That's sly to be saying I should open a debate about minimum article requirements for a portal
1569:
being ridiculous. Notability isn't determined by how populated a city is. Can I delete the portal on
363:
330:
2317:
2011:
1875:
2281:
guideline requires, and a single town on earth does not have that required level of topic breadth.
2133:
2023:
1841:
1791:
1736:
1479:
1340:
1243:
1211:
1125:
1091:
1058:
1023:
979:
You are always welcome to notify WikiProjects as long as itās not canvassing. On your other point,
851:
720:
528:
478:
448:
317:
1946:. Rather than complaining about how someone else didnāt do something, you should do it yourself. ā
1943:
1679:
1641:
1483:
2041:
while trying to gain powers to literally blow past any MfDs and delete portals at your leisure.
75:
1503:
1450:
980:
2321:
2222:
1947:
1891:
1809:
English Knowledge (XXG), both articles and portals. Notability depends on reliable sources.
1534:
1460:
1352:
984:
908:
741:
681:
617:
367:
2350:
2304:
2278:
2255:
2218:
2209:
2167:
2049:
1935:
1879:
1862:
1825:
1773:
1702:
1664:
1624:
1604:
1581:
1494:
1407:
1291:
1228:
1193:
1114:
1076:
1045:
1015:
971:
954:
939:
899:
771:
677:
669:
653:
603:
550:
520:
512:
496:
465:
435:
2431:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
2374:
1887:
1691:
1178:
538:
403:
309:
1506:
and don't throw words like "ridiculous" at people you're probably misinterpreting. : -->
874:
Allen Park and the related portals were all automatic, not curated or with a wide scope.
641:
If I spent hours creating a visual guide to the articles I spent days writing, and then
2397:
2129:
2019:
1916:
1837:
1787:
1732:
1432:
1390:
1336:
1317:
1239:
1207:
1119:
1087:
1054:
1019:
847:
714:
524:
474:
444:
313:
2015:
1675:
1637:
642:
797:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods
1850:
You're just too stubborn to admit it doesn't break the wildly vague and outdated
1310:
every single portal which existed at that time may exist and can never be deleted
2033:
2343:
2297:
2248:
2202:
2042:
1928:
1855:
1818:
1766:
1695:
1657:
1597:
1574:
1487:
1400:
1221:
1069:
1038:
964:
947:
892:
662:
646:
596:
543:
505:
489:
458:
428:
2217:
Yes, that is his only rationale for deletion, because thatās what it says in
400:
There is no rule on the importance of a topic, or size of a city, for portals
2393:
1428:
1386:
1313:
457:
Thatās not in any way a logical method for determining reader-friendliness.
2277:
of how extensively Knowledge (XXG) covers the topic). Breadth is what the
1399:
Please can you specify which you are voting for and which against? Thanks
868:
823:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito JuƔrez, Mexico City
2062:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Portal/Guidelines/Archive 7 Ā§ References in portals
864:
Districts of India was semi-automatic, not curated or with a wide scope.
815:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California
1486:
in Georgia has 24 people. So let's throw that out of the idea bucket.
831:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon
2124:
2247:(which totally ignored the good standards of the Briarcliff topic).
1870:
This position regarding the portal guidelines seems to be a case of
1206:
navigate. Portal view stats show very few readers find them useful.
312:
as drafted does not apply to everything here as different creators.
1330:
Given the total cluelessness and/or blatant misstatement about the
806:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan
788:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals
425:
portals are the most reader-friendly avenue for exploring a topic
1656:
so thank you for citing a guideline that defeats your argument.
2427:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1632:
Portal:California or a Portal:Australia, where we would have
1053:
You can retract that false statement/personal attack please.
877:
Agoura Hulls had a shameful single vote. That should not fly.
886:
Ankaran, with only three votes, is a shameful close as well.
1815:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
1068:
deception for your own gain, to further your own beliefs.
1513:
tiny places we include in WP just for completeness's sake
861:
USCounties only got 7 votes, not nearly a true wide vote.
779:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals
414:. These efforts should be lauded, not attacked with MfDs.
2265:
What pythoncoder wrote is correct. I think you confuse
298:
294:
263:
259:
229:
225:
194:
190:
160:
156:
126:
122:
839:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran
366:
so he may provide a deletion rationale if he wants. ā
2171:
articles, which the !keep voters are ignoring here.
1878:
Of course, if you want to start an RfC for updating
880:
Benito JuƔrez likewise with three votes is shameful.
883:
Lents is another neighborhood, a strawman argument.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2439:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2039:exactly at the same time as you're discussing it
2166:We have to assess these six portals using the
1113:ā Here we have yet another case of the usual
774:during 2019. You can see the arguments made
421:which looked better before automation came in
8:
1927:needed, so this MfD should rightfully fail.
589:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject New York (state)
1673:have 20 selected articles. Delete per POG.
661:Where's the precedents you're citing here?
891:These aren't examples. They're mockeries.
581:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
2014:) then where are is the compliance with
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
1628:
871:, I'm not talking about neighborhoods.
770:All inhabited place Portals closed at
710:Portal:University of Alaska Fairbanks
7:
1385:, discuss the remainder separately.
1509:populous places of major notability
593:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Portals
2273:of the topic in general (which is
585:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Cities
48:The result of the discussion was:
24:
2327:have the required topic breadth.
1175:Knowledge (XXG):Portal/Guidelines
1157:Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York
170:Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York
1882:or creating a portal notability
946:for minimum number of articles.
1507:;-) It's pretty obvious I mean
867:Neighborhoods in Portland is a
643:4,000 people viewed and used it
1:
2201:good articles on its portal.
1532:
1458:
1451:WP:AADD#Surmountable problems
1150:Portal:New Rochelle, New York
205:Portal:New Rochelle, New York
2060:ā In the 2014 discussion at
2034:242 references isn't enough?
1694:); why not portals as well?
1417:Portal:Alhambra, California
102:Portal:Alhambra, California
66:Portal:Alhambra, California
2459:
2316:. And I note there is no
2259:15:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
2242:14:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2213:12:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2181:05:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2153:04:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
2138:16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
2115:16:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
2053:15:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
2028:16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
1939:17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
1911:18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
1866:20:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1846:19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1829:18:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1796:18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1777:16:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1741:20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1706:20:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
1685:20:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
1668:16:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1646:19:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1608:16:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1585:16:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1548:18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1498:18:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1474:17:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1437:15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1421:Portal:Boca Raton, Florida
1411:14:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1395:09:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1372:12:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1345:16:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1322:09:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
1304:20:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1267:20:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1248:17:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1232:15:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
1216:18:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
1188:03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
1137:02:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
1096:09:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
1080:20:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
1063:18:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
1049:18:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
1028:18:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
1004:18:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
975:16:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
958:18:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
928:13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
903:18:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
856:17:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
761:22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
732:02:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
701:22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
673:16:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
657:16:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
637:16:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
607:16:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
595:as relevant WikiProjects.
554:16:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
533:15:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
516:15:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
500:15:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
483:15:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
469:15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
453:14:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
439:14:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
423:), and I strongly believe
387:19:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
358:17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
339:04:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
322:02:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
136:Portal:Boca Raton, Florida
90:19:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
2416:12:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2402:09:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2388:09:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
2354:16:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2337:15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2308:15:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2291:14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
2071:09:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
408:Wiki Loves Your Community
95:Random Small City Portals
2429:Please do not modify it.
1731:as these overlap a lot.
1725:Porta;:Greater Vancouver
1623:, plainly does not meet
936:this deletion discussion
239:Portal:City of Bankstown
32:Please do not modify it.
2296:thinking on your part.
2198:the Briarcliff articles
269:(city no longer exists)
2377:is a present proposal
2275:completely independent
1965:) 19:54, 26 March 2019
1729:Portal:Lower Mainland
1523:establish a criterion
412:MonmouthpediA project
944:passes the threshold
2314:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1173:These portals meet
2032:What do you think
1921:did this in secret
1813:is one of several
1455:Merge and redirect
1381:the new ones like
1127:Talk to me, Billy
722:Talk to me, Billy
1527:WP:FALSECONSENSUS
1299:TheĀ Transhumanist
1262:TheĀ Transhumanist
1192:Sorry these fail
609:
88:
2450:
2386:
2348:
2322:Portal:Jerusalem
2302:
2253:
2230:
2229:
2226:
2207:
2195:
2145:PointsofNoReturn
2107:PointsofNoReturn
2069:
2047:
1955:
1954:
1951:
1933:
1915:Well apparently
1899:
1898:
1895:
1860:
1823:
1811:Geographic scope
1771:
1721:Portal:Vancouver
1700:
1683:
1682:
1662:
1644:
1602:
1579:
1546:
1518:
1492:
1472:
1425:Portal:Aylesbury
1405:
1383:Portal:Aylesbury
1360:
1359:
1356:
1302:
1265:
1226:
1186:
1164:Portal:Aylesbury
1134:
1128:
1122:
1074:
1043:
992:
991:
988:
969:
952:
916:
915:
912:
897:
749:
748:
745:
729:
723:
717:
689:
688:
685:
667:
651:
625:
624:
621:
601:
578:
577:
548:
510:
494:
463:
433:
375:
374:
371:
356:
303:
302:
274:Portal:Aylesbury
268:
267:
234:
233:
199:
198:
165:
164:
131:
130:
72:
71:
34:
2458:
2457:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2443:
2437:deletion review
2408:UnitedStatesian
2382:
2344:
2329:UnitedStatesian
2298:
2283:UnitedStatesian
2249:
2227:
2224:
2223:
2203:
2192:UnitedStatesian
2189:
2173:UnitedStatesian
2065:
2043:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1929:
1924:during this MfD
1896:
1893:
1892:
1856:
1819:
1767:
1696:
1678:
1674:
1658:
1640:
1598:
1590:WP:NOTBIGENOUGH
1575:
1516:
1488:
1401:
1357:
1354:
1353:
1295:
1258:
1222:
1182:
1132:
1126:
1120:
1070:
1039:
989:
986:
985:
965:
948:
913:
910:
909:
893:
746:
743:
742:
727:
721:
715:
686:
683:
682:
663:
647:
622:
619:
618:
597:
571:
544:
506:
490:
459:
429:
372:
369:
368:
364:Robert McClenon
352:
331:Robert McClenon
276:
272:
241:
237:
207:
203:
172:
168:
138:
134:
104:
100:
97:
69:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2456:
2454:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2423:
2422:
2421:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2318:Portal:Yonkers
2263:
2262:
2261:
2184:
2183:
2164:Delete all six
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2118:
2117:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1872:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1780:
1779:
1758:
1743:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1650:
1649:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1587:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1531:
1521:If we need to
1514:
1510:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1325:
1324:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1160:
1153:
1140:
1139:
1133:Transmissions
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1051:
1031:
1030:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
932:
931:
930:
888:
887:
884:
881:
878:
875:
872:
865:
862:
845:
844:
836:
828:
820:
812:
803:
794:
785:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
728:Transmissions
705:
704:
703:
659:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
502:
416:
415:
392:
391:
390:
389:
360:
342:
341:
305:
304:
270:
235:
201:
166:
132:
96:
93:
68:, however. ~
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2455:
2446:
2440:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2425:
2424:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2385:
2384:North America
2380:
2376:
2372:
2369:
2368:
2355:
2352:
2349:
2347:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2326:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2306:
2303:
2301:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2260:
2257:
2254:
2252:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2220:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2211:
2208:
2206:
2199:
2193:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2169:
2165:
2162:
2161:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2126:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2103:
2100:
2099:
2072:
2068:
2067:North America
2063:
2059:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2051:
2048:
2046:
2040:
2035:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1945:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1937:
1934:
1932:
1925:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1864:
1861:
1859:
1853:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1816:
1812:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1778:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1764:
1759:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1707:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1693:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1677:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1609:
1606:
1603:
1601:
1595:
1591:
1588:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1550:
1549:
1544:
1541:
1538:
1537:
1528:
1524:
1512:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1463:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1444:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1333:
1332:WP:ENDPORTALS
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1293:
1289:
1288:WP:ENDPORTALS
1285:
1282:
1281:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1255:
1254:WP:ENDPORTALS
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1184:North America
1180:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1135:
1129:
1123:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1042:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
982:
978:
977:
976:
973:
970:
968:
961:
960:
959:
956:
953:
951:
945:
941:
937:
934:As well, per
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
906:
905:
904:
901:
898:
896:
890:
889:
885:
882:
879:
876:
873:
870:
866:
863:
860:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
843:
840:
837:
835:
832:
829:
827:
824:
821:
819:
816:
813:
810:
807:
804:
801:
798:
795:
792:
789:
786:
783:
780:
777:
776:
775:
773:
762:
758:
754:
750:
739:
735:
734:
733:
730:
724:
718:
711:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
679:
676:
675:
674:
671:
668:
666:
660:
658:
655:
652:
650:
644:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
626:
615:
612:
611:
610:
608:
605:
602:
600:
594:
590:
586:
582:
575:
555:
552:
549:
547:
540:
536:
535:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
518:
517:
514:
511:
509:
503:
501:
498:
495:
493:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
471:
470:
467:
464:
462:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
437:
434:
432:
426:
422:
418:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
394:
393:
388:
384:
380:
376:
365:
361:
359:
355:
354:North America
350:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
336:
332:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
206:
202:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
171:
167:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
98:
94:
92:
91:
87:
85:
81:
77:
67:
63:
57:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2444:
2428:
2426:
2378:
2370:
2345:
2324:
2299:
2274:
2270:
2266:
2250:
2204:
2163:
2101:
2057:
2044:
2038:
2018:references?
1984:
1930:
1923:
1883:
1857:
1851:
1820:
1768:
1761:
1755:
1751:
1745:
1697:
1659:
1633:
1620:
1599:
1593:
1576:
1566:
1535:
1522:
1520:
1489:
1461:
1454:
1445:
1402:
1378:
1309:
1297:
1283:
1260:
1223:
1162:
1155:
1148:
1143:
1110:
1071:
1040:
966:
949:
943:
894:
846:
841:
833:
825:
817:
808:
799:
790:
781:
769:
664:
648:
613:
598:
570:
545:
507:
491:
460:
430:
424:
399:
395:
327:
306:
73:
61:
58:
54:
50:No consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
2312:Please see
1747:WP:ITSLOCAL
1536:SMcCandlish
1462:SMcCandlish
396:Strong keep
349:WP:NOTAVOTE
2379:discussion
2012:WP:GEOLAND
1621:Delete all
1121:RadioKAOS
834:Deleted P2
802:23 Portals
793:30 Portals
784:64 portals
738:aspersions
716:RadioKAOS
579:notifying
347:Check out
2433:talk page
2130:Legacypac
2020:Legacypac
1944:WP:BEBOLD
1917:Legacypac
1884:guideline
1852:guideline
1838:Legacypac
1788:Legacypac
1733:Legacypac
1571:Hollywood
1484:Edge Hill
1480:Hempstead
1337:Legacypac
1240:Legacypac
1208:Legacypac
1088:Legacypac
1055:Legacypac
1020:Legacypac
848:Legacypac
811:6 Portals
525:Legacypac
475:Legacypac
445:Legacypac
314:Legacypac
37:talk page
2435:or in a
2238:contribs
1963:contribs
1919:already
1907:contribs
1888:go ahead
1634:hundreds
1530:portals.
1368:contribs
1000:contribs
924:contribs
869:strawman
757:contribs
697:contribs
633:contribs
383:contribs
362:Pinging
200:pop 7800
39:or in a
2371:Comment
2271:breadth
2058:Comment
1511:versus
1504:WP:JERK
1415:Delete
981:WP:TINC
842:Deleted
826:Deleted
818:Deleted
809:Deleted
800:Deleted
791:Deleted
782:Deleted
410:or the
287:history
252:history
218:history
183:history
149:history
115:history
2351:(talk)
2305:(talk)
2279:WP:POG
2256:(talk)
2228:coder
2225:python
2219:WP:POG
2210:(talk)
2168:WP:POG
2125:Delphi
2050:(talk)
1985:(UTC)
1953:coder
1950:python
1936:(talk)
1897:coder
1894:python
1880:WP:POG
1863:(talk)
1826:(talk)
1774:(talk)
1703:(talk)
1665:(talk)
1625:WP:POG
1605:(talk)
1582:(talk)
1495:(talk)
1408:(talk)
1379:Delete
1358:coder
1355:python
1292:WP:OWN
1229:(talk)
1194:WP:POG
1115:WP:OWN
1077:(talk)
1046:(talk)
1016:WP:POG
990:coder
987:python
972:(talk)
955:(talk)
940:WP:POG
914:coder
911:python
900:(talk)
772:WP:MfD
747:coder
744:python
687:coder
684:python
678:WP:POG
670:(talk)
654:(talk)
623:coder
620:python
614:Delete
604:(talk)
551:(talk)
521:WP:POG
513:(talk)
497:(talk)
466:(talk)
436:(talk)
373:coder
370:python
328:Delete
62:delete
2375:WP:X3
2267:depth
1692:WP:5P
1676:Leviv
1638:Leviv
1179:WP:X3
1144:Keep:
539:WP:5P
404:WP:5P
310:WP:X3
295:watch
291:links
260:watch
256:links
226:watch
222:links
191:watch
187:links
157:watch
153:links
123:watch
119:links
70:Amory
16:<
2412:talk
2398:talk
2394:Fram
2333:talk
2287:talk
2234:talk
2177:talk
2149:talk
2134:talk
2111:talk
2102:Keep
2024:talk
2016:WP:V
1959:talk
1903:talk
1842:talk
1792:talk
1737:talk
1727:and
1723:and
1565:You
1502:See
1446:Keep
1433:talk
1429:Fram
1423:and
1391:talk
1387:Fram
1364:talk
1341:talk
1318:talk
1314:Fram
1284:Keep
1244:talk
1212:talk
1111:Keep
1092:talk
1059:talk
1024:talk
996:talk
920:talk
852:talk
753:talk
693:talk
629:talk
529:talk
479:talk
449:talk
379:talk
335:talk
318:talk
299:logs
283:talk
279:edit
264:logs
248:talk
244:edit
230:logs
214:talk
210:edit
195:logs
179:talk
175:edit
161:logs
145:talk
141:edit
127:logs
111:talk
107:edit
64:for
2325:may
1890:. ā
1680:ich
1642:ich
1592:. "
1567:are
1545:š¼
1471:š¼
740:. ā
2414:)
2400:)
2373:ā
2335:)
2289:)
2240:)
2236:|
2179:)
2151:)
2136:)
2113:)
2026:)
1961:|
1909:)
1905:|
1886:,
1844:)
1817:.
1794:)
1765:"
1750::
1739:)
1648:::
1627:.
1596:"
1533:ā
1459:ā
1453:.
1435:)
1419:,
1393:)
1370:)
1366:|
1343:)
1320:)
1296:ā
1259:ā
1246:)
1214:)
1094:)
1061:)
1026:)
1002:)
998:|
938:,
926:)
922:|
854:)
759:)
755:|
699:)
695:|
635:)
631:|
591:,
587:,
583:,
576:)
531:)
481:)
451:)
398:ā
385:)
381:|
337:)
320:)
297:|
293:|
289:|
285:|
281:|
262:|
258:|
254:|
250:|
246:|
228:|
224:|
220:|
216:|
212:|
193:|
189:|
185:|
181:|
177:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
109:|
82:ā¢
78:ā¢
2410:(
2396:(
2346:ɱ
2331:(
2300:ɱ
2285:(
2251:ɱ
2232:(
2205:ɱ
2194::
2190:@
2175:(
2147:(
2132:(
2109:(
2045:ɱ
2022:(
1957:(
1931:ɱ
1901:(
1858:ɱ
1840:(
1821:ɱ
1790:(
1769:ɱ
1760:"
1735:(
1698:ɱ
1660:ɱ
1600:ɱ
1577:ɱ
1543:Ā¢
1540:ā
1517:'
1490:ɱ
1469:Ā¢
1466:ā
1431:(
1403:ɱ
1389:(
1362:(
1339:(
1316:(
1242:(
1224:ɱ
1210:(
1130:/
1124:/
1090:(
1072:ɱ
1057:(
1041:ɱ
1022:(
994:(
983:ā
967:ɱ
950:ɱ
918:(
895:ɱ
850:(
751:(
725:/
719:/
691:(
680:ā
665:ɱ
649:ɱ
627:(
599:ɱ
574:ā
572:(
546:ɱ
527:(
508:ɱ
492:ɱ
477:(
461:ɱ
447:(
431:ɱ
377:(
333:(
316:(
301:)
277:(
266:)
242:(
232:)
208:(
197:)
173:(
163:)
139:(
129:)
105:(
86:)
84:c
80:t
76:u
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.