Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 November 14
2013 November 16 >

15 November 2013

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robbie Widlansky ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Same thing as the below DRV on Adam Reifer. As the discussion was closing, BASEBALL/N, the justification to keep the page, was changed, such that the Australian Baseball League was removed, meaning that Widlansky now fails that guideline. He also fails WP:GNG, more importantly. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse closure, DRV listing is out of scope as mentioned in item 2 under "Deletion review should not be used". Stifle ( talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • When I posted on the admin's talk page, she indicated no interest in anything beyond the close, which is her prerogative. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. On notability matters people are not required to !vote by hard criteria and if the guidance criteria change that does not invalidate a !vote. The AfD looks fine to me but, because the circumstances have changed, I see no reason against anyone sending the article to AfD again at an early stage. I think PROD would not be appropriate because the issue of redirection rather than deletion needs to be discussed. Thincat ( talk) 09:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but send to AFD. If policy or guidelines have changed then there is a possibility that consensus has also changed with regard to notability. Start a new AFD, explain the circumstances and allow the community to reconsider their view. No harm in that. Stalwart 111 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn closure and send to AFD. Usually I would trout the nominator because DRV is not AFD round two but in this case the AFD should have been relisted for more discussion. Neither of the keeps had a valid policy based reasoning for keeping and there is very little discussion to determine a consensus anyways, and definitely not a keep discussion. Poor close, thus should be relisted. Secret account 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, perfectly reasonable close and per Stifle. That doesn't mean a new AfD can't be started now, though; clearly, if the guideline's changed, then there are grounds to renominate.— S Marshall T/ C 15:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Reifer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a close one (3 vs. 3, including the nominator). However, the keep votes were made on the basis of passing Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball due to the individual having played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League. Due to numerous simultaneous nominations of fringe minor leaguers who could be argued to pass BASEBALL/N for this reason, and yet fail WP:GNG, this discussion commenced, which resulted in a tightening up of BASEBALL/N #2. Reifer now fails BASEBALL/N, as well as GNG. Because of all the simultaneous nominations, I failed to vote in this one, but would've voted delete. I think we should delete it now here, instead of through a new nomination. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Relist I do not think it right for us to delete it here. If the questions is whether of not it fails the guidelines, that should be decided at AfD. If the questions was whether the decision was arbitrary, or a supervote, or improperly influenced, or the like, then it was a matter for us. I know I sound bureaucratic, but it's important that a somewhat obscure place than this with only a few regular people commenting decides on the interpretation of the guidelines. FWIW, the change seems eminently sensible, and I'd guess that there will be many other players to re=evaluate, and there should be some discussion about how to go about it. Perhaps PROD would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure, DRV listing is out of scope as mentioned in item 2 under "Deletion review should not be used". Stifle ( talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. I agree with DGG's and Stifle's comments. On notability matters people are not required to !vote by hard criteria and if the guidance criteria change that does not invalidate a !vote. The AfD looks fine to me and I don't even think that DRV should demand a relist. However, because the circumstances have changed I see no reason against anyone sending the article to AfD (or even PROD) at an early stage. Thincat ( talk) 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but send to AFD. If policy or guidelines have changed then there is a possibility that consensus has also changed with regard to notability. Start a new AFD, explain the circumstances and allow the community to reconsider their view. No harm in that. Stalwart 111 12:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Lil Chuckee – No policy based argument has been put forward to overcome this deletion and the evidence is that this remains below the inclusion threashold. – Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lil Chuckee ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks says that there were 23,228 attempts in a typical week (including from outside Wikipedia) to access page Lil Chuckee. Some sort of page is needed there. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - the article was totally unsourced, so there ain't much DRV can do, other than to suggest you find some sources and write an article. this is the only substantive source I found in a quick search, but there's a lot of incidental mentions, so other sources are probably lurking out there. Wily D 09:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The 2010 deletion isn't really relevant any more; deletion discussions expire after a while. How long "a while" takes depends on various things but three years is definitely well past that. We should permit creation of a sourced version. The new article would be immune to G4 but subject to AfD in the normal way at editorial discretion.— S Marshall T/ C 12:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • go ahead and write a new article. Mangoe ( talk) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see a new article has been started. Alas, I also see it has no really reliable sources at all, and mentions no more accomplishments than in the previously deleted article. But I disagree partially with S.Marshall, Certainly a new article can be started without permission from anyone if the previous one has not been protected against re-creation, but debates do not lose their relevance if the interpretation of the guidelines has not changed. I think the overwhelming majority of pre 2010 AfDs would reach the same result today on the same material. Going back further, this would also hold for 2005+. Earlier than that they seem a little erratic.
Though a new article can be started without coming here, Nonetheless there is a reason to come here if there is a request to undelete the old material so it can be used for an article. (Though I think that if any admin thinks it clear-cut enough , they could do it by themselves, as for any other non-contentious action, after notifying the original closer if still present.) DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Federico Pistono – No consensus to overturn. To the extent that there is new information here, however, this does not prevent an uninvolved editor from creating another draft of the article with the new references (thereby avoiding CSD G4 and the need for a new DRV). If an experienced editor (preferably one familiar with Italian) wants the deleted revisions to serve as a starting place for addressing the concerns from the AfD, I would be happy to userfy it. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 22:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Federico Pistono ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I was recently notified that the page Federico Pistono, was being considered for deletion. Obviously, just as I did not interfere with the original article, I could not be part of the discussion either, so I just observed and let Wikipedia run its course. After it was deleted, I contacted the admin in question TParis, expressing some concerns, and his reply was as following:

Editors do the best they can to give an honest review but they arn't perfect. If you think there was a mistake made during the discussion, there is a review process at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:DRV. There is no problem with you opening a review even if you are the subject of an article. Simple state that you have sources that were not considered in the deletion discussion. If you have online links to those sources, that will help.

From what I understand, there were two main concerns with the article as it was:

  1. Lack of reliable third party sources
  2. The article needed re-writing

I do not intend to discuss the merits of the decision. My intention here is to simply provide links to articles which I think might have been overlooked by those who reviewed the page initially, possibly because they were not properly indexed by Google. I rest in the hands of the Wikipedia community to decide what to do with them.

  1. Huffington Post (English, video) ( source)
  2. Wall Street Journal (English, video) ( source)
  3. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by Stanford Cultural Historian Piero Scaruffi (English) ( source)
  4. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” at the Sturbridge Times (English) ( source)
  5. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by the Socialist Party of Great Britain - Will Robots Cause Capitalism to Collapse? (English) ( source)
  6. RT Interview (English, Video) ( source)
  7. RAI 3 reportage (Italian) ( source)
  8. Canale 5 reportage (Italian) ( source)
  9. Interview with Computerworld (Dutch) "Esplori: all video education in any language" ( source) and "The Pitfalls of Innovation" ( source)
  10. TG1 (Italian National TV) article ( source)
  11. Wired article (Italian) ( source)
  12. Free Software Foundation (English, audio)- Interview with Free Software Foundation Brazil ( source)
  13. The Zeitgeist Movement Interview (English) ( source)
  14. Wedwereld article (Dutch) ( source)
  15. El Universal Interview (Spanish) "Los robots robarán tu empleo, pero está bien" ( source)
  16. Jornal do Comércio (Portuguese) - Você vai perder seu emprego (May 20, 2013) ( source)
  17. Rede Globo (Brazilian TV, Portuguese, Video) - Interview on Brazilian TV Tudo+( source)
  18. Huffington Post (Italian) ( here, ( here
  19. Folha de S. Paulo article (Portuguese) ( source)
  20. Singularity Hub article (English) ( source)
  21. Interview with Tom's Hardware (Italian) "I robot ci ruberanno il lavoro ma ci ridaranno la vita" (Robots Will Steal Your Job, But Also Give Your Life Back). ( source)

Finally, there were four awards/recognitions listed, perhaps the most significant of which being the Young Knight Prize Award (Premio Cavalierato Giovanile) ( source).

I don't know how many of these references are useful and fall under Wikipedia's policies of reliability etc. I just thought it was worth mentioning them.

best, 4v4l0n42 ( talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - There were 36 sources cited in the deleted article. The AfD already considered those. DRV is for significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. See WP:DRVPURPOSE Please identify which of the above 21 references were not considered during the AfD and, of those, please identify which of those represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:GNG). -- Jreferee ( talk) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the AfD (the nomination did not seek to do otherwise). It was proper for the subject of the article to open a DRV (declaring his interest) and at the AfD the "do not delete" editor's contribution was also proper (and indeed helpful) because they also declared an interest. Editorially, the article is very unsuitable for an encyclopedia and I am disappointed that the people concerned do not realise that. However, it does seem at least some book reviews have been adduced which might affect people's view of the notability of the subject (or even the book) and a rewritten article might conceivably be acceptable. However, since the subject of the article should not be the person rewriting it, I don't have a good suggestion for how to proceed. Thincat ( talk) 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think many of the references given above meet the Wikipedia notability standards, and therefore I recommend that the article be restored. If the problem is that the last version of the article before deletion is poor, as stated in the comment above, then I recommend to restore the article and add the new references and any other appropriate edits. Giulioprisco ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think a bit more comment would be really helpful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't read enough of the languages to really evaluate those sources properly, but I wanted to say that of those I could review, I found source #2 rather impressive. What we need is a view from someone independent who speaks Italian.— S Marshall T/ C 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_15&oldid=1082508561"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2013 November 14
2013 November 16 >

15 November 2013

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Robbie Widlansky ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Same thing as the below DRV on Adam Reifer. As the discussion was closing, BASEBALL/N, the justification to keep the page, was changed, such that the Australian Baseball League was removed, meaning that Widlansky now fails that guideline. He also fails WP:GNG, more importantly. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Endorse closure, DRV listing is out of scope as mentioned in item 2 under "Deletion review should not be used". Stifle ( talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • When I posted on the admin's talk page, she indicated no interest in anything beyond the close, which is her prerogative. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 14:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. On notability matters people are not required to !vote by hard criteria and if the guidance criteria change that does not invalidate a !vote. The AfD looks fine to me but, because the circumstances have changed, I see no reason against anyone sending the article to AfD again at an early stage. I think PROD would not be appropriate because the issue of redirection rather than deletion needs to be discussed. Thincat ( talk) 09:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but send to AFD. If policy or guidelines have changed then there is a possibility that consensus has also changed with regard to notability. Start a new AFD, explain the circumstances and allow the community to reconsider their view. No harm in that. Stalwart 111 12:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn closure and send to AFD. Usually I would trout the nominator because DRV is not AFD round two but in this case the AFD should have been relisted for more discussion. Neither of the keeps had a valid policy based reasoning for keeping and there is very little discussion to determine a consensus anyways, and definitely not a keep discussion. Poor close, thus should be relisted. Secret account 14:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, perfectly reasonable close and per Stifle. That doesn't mean a new AfD can't be started now, though; clearly, if the guideline's changed, then there are grounds to renominate.— S Marshall T/ C 15:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adam Reifer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a close one (3 vs. 3, including the nominator). However, the keep votes were made on the basis of passing Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Baseball due to the individual having played in the Dominican Professional Baseball League. Due to numerous simultaneous nominations of fringe minor leaguers who could be argued to pass BASEBALL/N for this reason, and yet fail WP:GNG, this discussion commenced, which resulted in a tightening up of BASEBALL/N #2. Reifer now fails BASEBALL/N, as well as GNG. Because of all the simultaneous nominations, I failed to vote in this one, but would've voted delete. I think we should delete it now here, instead of through a new nomination. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 18:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Relist I do not think it right for us to delete it here. If the questions is whether of not it fails the guidelines, that should be decided at AfD. If the questions was whether the decision was arbitrary, or a supervote, or improperly influenced, or the like, then it was a matter for us. I know I sound bureaucratic, but it's important that a somewhat obscure place than this with only a few regular people commenting decides on the interpretation of the guidelines. FWIW, the change seems eminently sensible, and I'd guess that there will be many other players to re=evaluate, and there should be some discussion about how to go about it. Perhaps PROD would be sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse closure, DRV listing is out of scope as mentioned in item 2 under "Deletion review should not be used". Stifle ( talk) 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. I agree with DGG's and Stifle's comments. On notability matters people are not required to !vote by hard criteria and if the guidance criteria change that does not invalidate a !vote. The AfD looks fine to me and I don't even think that DRV should demand a relist. However, because the circumstances have changed I see no reason against anyone sending the article to AfD (or even PROD) at an early stage. Thincat ( talk) 09:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse but send to AFD. If policy or guidelines have changed then there is a possibility that consensus has also changed with regard to notability. Start a new AFD, explain the circumstances and allow the community to reconsider their view. No harm in that. Stalwart 111 12:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Lil Chuckee – No policy based argument has been put forward to overcome this deletion and the evidence is that this remains below the inclusion threashold. – Spartaz Humbug! 15:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lil Chuckee ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks says that there were 23,228 attempts in a typical week (including from outside Wikipedia) to access page Lil Chuckee. Some sort of page is needed there. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 09:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - the article was totally unsourced, so there ain't much DRV can do, other than to suggest you find some sources and write an article. this is the only substantive source I found in a quick search, but there's a lot of incidental mentions, so other sources are probably lurking out there. Wily D 09:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The 2010 deletion isn't really relevant any more; deletion discussions expire after a while. How long "a while" takes depends on various things but three years is definitely well past that. We should permit creation of a sourced version. The new article would be immune to G4 but subject to AfD in the normal way at editorial discretion.— S Marshall T/ C 12:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • go ahead and write a new article. Mangoe ( talk) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I see a new article has been started. Alas, I also see it has no really reliable sources at all, and mentions no more accomplishments than in the previously deleted article. But I disagree partially with S.Marshall, Certainly a new article can be started without permission from anyone if the previous one has not been protected against re-creation, but debates do not lose their relevance if the interpretation of the guidelines has not changed. I think the overwhelming majority of pre 2010 AfDs would reach the same result today on the same material. Going back further, this would also hold for 2005+. Earlier than that they seem a little erratic.
Though a new article can be started without coming here, Nonetheless there is a reason to come here if there is a request to undelete the old material so it can be used for an article. (Though I think that if any admin thinks it clear-cut enough , they could do it by themselves, as for any other non-contentious action, after notifying the original closer if still present.) DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Federico Pistono – No consensus to overturn. To the extent that there is new information here, however, this does not prevent an uninvolved editor from creating another draft of the article with the new references (thereby avoiding CSD G4 and the need for a new DRV). If an experienced editor (preferably one familiar with Italian) wants the deleted revisions to serve as a starting place for addressing the concerns from the AfD, I would be happy to userfy it. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 22:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Federico Pistono ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I was recently notified that the page Federico Pistono, was being considered for deletion. Obviously, just as I did not interfere with the original article, I could not be part of the discussion either, so I just observed and let Wikipedia run its course. After it was deleted, I contacted the admin in question TParis, expressing some concerns, and his reply was as following:

Editors do the best they can to give an honest review but they arn't perfect. If you think there was a mistake made during the discussion, there is a review process at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:DRV. There is no problem with you opening a review even if you are the subject of an article. Simple state that you have sources that were not considered in the deletion discussion. If you have online links to those sources, that will help.

From what I understand, there were two main concerns with the article as it was:

  1. Lack of reliable third party sources
  2. The article needed re-writing

I do not intend to discuss the merits of the decision. My intention here is to simply provide links to articles which I think might have been overlooked by those who reviewed the page initially, possibly because they were not properly indexed by Google. I rest in the hands of the Wikipedia community to decide what to do with them.

  1. Huffington Post (English, video) ( source)
  2. Wall Street Journal (English, video) ( source)
  3. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by Stanford Cultural Historian Piero Scaruffi (English) ( source)
  4. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” at the Sturbridge Times (English) ( source)
  5. Review of “Robots Will Steal Your Jobs, But That's OK” by the Socialist Party of Great Britain - Will Robots Cause Capitalism to Collapse? (English) ( source)
  6. RT Interview (English, Video) ( source)
  7. RAI 3 reportage (Italian) ( source)
  8. Canale 5 reportage (Italian) ( source)
  9. Interview with Computerworld (Dutch) "Esplori: all video education in any language" ( source) and "The Pitfalls of Innovation" ( source)
  10. TG1 (Italian National TV) article ( source)
  11. Wired article (Italian) ( source)
  12. Free Software Foundation (English, audio)- Interview with Free Software Foundation Brazil ( source)
  13. The Zeitgeist Movement Interview (English) ( source)
  14. Wedwereld article (Dutch) ( source)
  15. El Universal Interview (Spanish) "Los robots robarán tu empleo, pero está bien" ( source)
  16. Jornal do Comércio (Portuguese) - Você vai perder seu emprego (May 20, 2013) ( source)
  17. Rede Globo (Brazilian TV, Portuguese, Video) - Interview on Brazilian TV Tudo+( source)
  18. Huffington Post (Italian) ( here, ( here
  19. Folha de S. Paulo article (Portuguese) ( source)
  20. Singularity Hub article (English) ( source)
  21. Interview with Tom's Hardware (Italian) "I robot ci ruberanno il lavoro ma ci ridaranno la vita" (Robots Will Steal Your Job, But Also Give Your Life Back). ( source)

Finally, there were four awards/recognitions listed, perhaps the most significant of which being the Young Knight Prize Award (Premio Cavalierato Giovanile) ( source).

I don't know how many of these references are useful and fall under Wikipedia's policies of reliability etc. I just thought it was worth mentioning them.

best, 4v4l0n42 ( talk) 02:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - There were 36 sources cited in the deleted article. The AfD already considered those. DRV is for significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. See WP:DRVPURPOSE Please identify which of the above 21 references were not considered during the AfD and, of those, please identify which of those represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (See WP:GNG). -- Jreferee ( talk) 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the AfD (the nomination did not seek to do otherwise). It was proper for the subject of the article to open a DRV (declaring his interest) and at the AfD the "do not delete" editor's contribution was also proper (and indeed helpful) because they also declared an interest. Editorially, the article is very unsuitable for an encyclopedia and I am disappointed that the people concerned do not realise that. However, it does seem at least some book reviews have been adduced which might affect people's view of the notability of the subject (or even the book) and a rewritten article might conceivably be acceptable. However, since the subject of the article should not be the person rewriting it, I don't have a good suggestion for how to proceed. Thincat ( talk) 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think many of the references given above meet the Wikipedia notability standards, and therefore I recommend that the article be restored. If the problem is that the last version of the article before deletion is poor, as stated in the comment above, then I recommend to restore the article and add the new references and any other appropriate edits. Giulioprisco ( talk) 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think a bit more comment would be really helpful. Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't read enough of the languages to really evaluate those sources properly, but I wanted to say that of those I could review, I found source #2 rather impressive. What we need is a view from someone independent who speaks Italian.— S Marshall T/ C 09:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_November_15&oldid=1082508561"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE