Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MusicBlvd
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. One of the delete recommendations occured before additional sources were provided and the editor never returned to confirm their delete afterwards. The nominator appears to have accepted the notability of the subject (although not the content of the article) by creating a fork article. This leaves only one other recommendation for delete. The creation of a fork article is entirely against guidelines and cannot be allowed to stand. I note that ANI has already censured Olowe2011 for doing this. As part of this close I intend to undo the fork by merging Music Boulevard into MusicBlvd. This will be a simple paste of the material with no attempt at copyediting. I leave it to editors of the article to do whatever is needed with the material. I am only here addressing the issue of an unwanted fork and this action is not to be taken as endoresment of material in either article; that is a matter for content editing. Nor is the action to be taken as endorsement of the current article title: editors are free to move it to a different title. Evidence has been presented at this AfC that the current website musicblvd.com is not the same as the subject of this article. Consequently, the external link will be removed from the article as part of this AfD pending further evidence. SpinningSpark 22:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MusicBlvd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Added Music Boulevard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is clearly falsely advertising this organisation / company and could be seen to be purly advertising. This company is not notable and the sources / references used in this article provide little information to prove this article notable. As said the sources quoted are either dead-linked or self published. Olowe2011 (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How is a fast company link self published? The other editor already cleared this page. TrystanBurke —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment&Strong Delete - The article claimed and I quote MusicBlvd is partnered with Billboard.com, Musixmatch, and YouTube which you have quoted no sources for whatsoever. Just because you have accounts on Twitter, Youtube and billboard.com does not mean you are partnered. The accounts on Twitter (Has 2 followers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012 GMT) and Youtube (Has 2 Subscribers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012) which both indicate lack of notability. MusicBlvd has little indication of why it is culturally significant. I view this article to be in violation of WP:SOAP . Section 6. of that clearly states that All topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources. This article also violates the section External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. This organisation I don't really consider, myself as a major organisation. WP:COMPANY is a guideline that highlights the various different ways an article can be notable. The article also only appears to list Pro's for this organisation therefore does not seem to demonstrate a WP:NPOV. I'd also like to point out that the article Gracenote makes no references to MusicBlvd and that the following Source appears to indicate a company by the name of Music Boulevard and not as the article indicates MusicBlvd. Overall I have quoted the problems with this article and if there is anyway in which you could improve it to a point in which could be seen to compliment the WP:POLICIES it would satisfy me personally however, this AfD debate is to gain overall consensus and I cannot speak on behalf of other people so I will look forward to what other editors have to say. --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, Olowe2011. This article absolutely doesn't violate the section "External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article". Read that line carefully. The website used in the company infobox is the company's website. This is the second time I notice you making this claim. From briefly looking at this article it looks fine. Adweek, Business Wire, and NY Daily News are all RSes. The refs aren't very impressive, but they're not AfD worthy. WP:SOAP is about keeping unrelated material off of wikipedia. We don't want the article on law review journals to become a linkfarm for all ABA accredited schools to promote themselves, but if it's an article on the Harvard Law Review then it's perfectly acceptable to contain a link to the Harvard Law Review's webpage. That's not SOAP, that's common sense. -Thibbs (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment&Strong Delete - The article claimed and I quote MusicBlvd is partnered with Billboard.com, Musixmatch, and YouTube which you have quoted no sources for whatsoever. Just because you have accounts on Twitter, Youtube and billboard.com does not mean you are partnered. The accounts on Twitter (Has 2 followers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012 GMT) and Youtube (Has 2 Subscribers correct as of 11:30, 31/10/2012) which both indicate lack of notability. MusicBlvd has little indication of why it is culturally significant. I view this article to be in violation of WP:SOAP . Section 6. of that clearly states that All topics must be verifiable with independent, third party sources. This article also violates the section External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations which are the topic of the article. This organisation I don't really consider, myself as a major organisation. WP:COMPANY is a guideline that highlights the various different ways an article can be notable. The article also only appears to list Pro's for this organisation therefore does not seem to demonstrate a WP:NPOV. I'd also like to point out that the article Gracenote makes no references to MusicBlvd and that the following Source appears to indicate a company by the name of Music Boulevard and not as the article indicates MusicBlvd. Overall I have quoted the problems with this article and if there is anyway in which you could improve it to a point in which could be seen to compliment the WP:POLICIES it would satisfy me personally however, this AfD debate is to gain overall consensus and I cannot speak on behalf of other people so I will look forward to what other editors have to say. --Olowe2011 (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From the cited sources on the page the company doesn't seem to be a Major organisation as sited in my comment the facts behind this judgement I cannot see why this is a problem. The page name doesn't even relate to the sited sourcing on the page. Clearly this is a remake of a the previous company or of some sort. All references are from 1995 or similar dating and as I said relate to a different named company. There is no sourcing to indicate why this company / organisation is credible. Under current Wikipedia guidelines (in which I am very familiar) an article should prove its significance in a number of ways and reliable sourcing is one of them. If you have a personal issue with me that causes bias towards my posting I'd prefer for you to discuss this on my talk page rather than objecting to everything I post however I appreciate your feedback. As I stated above the only sourcing to this article is the social networking links and sources quoting a different named organisation as Music Boulevard and not MusicBlvd. There is no evidence to prove this company has any relation to that one. I also quoted WP:NPOV because the article does not give a balanced view on the topic. Due to the numerous issues in this article it does fall under the right category for an AfD nomination. I would also like to make clear that other than yourself this topic seems to have no significance at this time to other members of the community. The article MUST prove it's notability in which it doesn't. Therefore I have made this AfD as a matter of numerous problems with the article which I cannot see being fixed due to the lack of reliable information on the topic. In response to your comment about the Harvard Law school this has clearly proven itself to be a credible organisation via good sourcing and proof clear evidence of notability. Regards --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no bias toward you, Olowe2011. I have a bias against misinterpretation of WP:SOAP. The only reason I posted here was because I'd seen a similar misinterpretation applied to the target of your last AfD and I thought it would be good to address. The problem with your suggestion that MusicBlvd is not a "major" organization is that this is just your subjective opinion. There is too much ambiguity in the term "major" for a single editor to make unilateral decisions to strip official urls like you have done in at least two cases now. Generally if the topic of an article is a notable website then the website's homepage may be linked as an external link within that article. That's not a violation of SOAP. -Thibbs (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion - Due to your clearly demonstrating skills in making a quality and well sourced article it would be amazing to see you re-create an appropriate and correctly named article Music Boulevard. I am sure you will do a great job and I look forward to seeing this article. As for this one it looks like a advertising pitch if you don't take a brief look and look into it in more detail you might find you agree with my comments. But as I said if you created that article as a history to this it would be great. --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - From the cited sources on the page the company doesn't seem to be a Major organisation as sited in my comment the facts behind this judgement I cannot see why this is a problem. The page name doesn't even relate to the sited sourcing on the page. Clearly this is a remake of a the previous company or of some sort. All references are from 1995 or similar dating and as I said relate to a different named company. There is no sourcing to indicate why this company / organisation is credible. Under current Wikipedia guidelines (in which I am very familiar) an article should prove its significance in a number of ways and reliable sourcing is one of them. If you have a personal issue with me that causes bias towards my posting I'd prefer for you to discuss this on my talk page rather than objecting to everything I post however I appreciate your feedback. As I stated above the only sourcing to this article is the social networking links and sources quoting a different named organisation as Music Boulevard and not MusicBlvd. There is no evidence to prove this company has any relation to that one. I also quoted WP:NPOV because the article does not give a balanced view on the topic. Due to the numerous issues in this article it does fall under the right category for an AfD nomination. I would also like to make clear that other than yourself this topic seems to have no significance at this time to other members of the community. The article MUST prove it's notability in which it doesn't. Therefore I have made this AfD as a matter of numerous problems with the article which I cannot see being fixed due to the lack of reliable information on the topic. In response to your comment about the Harvard Law school this has clearly proven itself to be a credible organisation via good sourcing and proof clear evidence of notability. Regards --Olowe2011 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now you've gone ahead and created Music Boulevard??? I've never seen a stunt like this at AfD before. This is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Qworty (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI--This matter of creating a new article just to make a WP:POINT has been referred to AN/I [1]. Qworty (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I have stated in the referenced incident it was not to make a point it was to create a relevant non-related to this article content in which as stated this article provides not evidence of its connection to Music Boulevard created in 1995 therefore I have created one about the one founded in 1995. This article is about a new site which has been recently introduced. If I had made that article as a direct result of this AfD and it was the same content and same topic I would understand your notice to WP:POINT otherwise the article I have made has no connection to MusicBlvd. Regards, --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Olowe2011's Comment Located [the Administrator Notice Board]
|
|---|
|
- Delete - not seeing much evidence of notability here, very little coverage in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - OK I actually bothered searching for further sources now. There is plenty of RS coverage in addition to the sufficient RS coverage the article already had. I just added refs from Boston Globe, Washington Times, Star Tribune, Information Today, and Broadcasting & Cable. More sourcing is readily available. Recommend WP:BEFORE next time. -Thibbs (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Most of the news sources have the name MusicBlvd only with little else. Some provide a little more context: Star Tribune March 15, 1998 mentions "N2K's musicblvd.com features a Frequent Buyers Club, access to MTV news and Billboard charts, while CDNow is strong on music-related merchandise, such as album art posters and band T-shirts." Boston Globe December 25, 1998 mentions some musicblvd.com details. Music Boulevard and MusicBlvd are one and the same. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize you're talking about degree of coverage which is a somewhat subjective determination, but it's hard for me to accept that the AdWeek and Information Today articles don't provide thorough coverage. Did you look at them? As you pointed out the Boston Globe's article also covers the topic pretty well and taken together with the Star Tribune article you linked it really looks like the GNG has been met. There are also articles like this from Kiplingers, this from Target Marketing, and another comparative article from the Washington Post here that all cover the topic in some depth (each of those articles has at least 5 paragraphs devoted to the topic).
The question isn't whether comparatively more of the total coverage is significant or trivial. If this were the baseline then all articles would fail. Instead the question is whether there are multiple reliable sources significantly covering the topic period. I'd say that the RSes listed (Adweek, Information Today, Boston Globe, Star Tribune, Kiplingers, Target Marketing, etc.) demonstrate significant coverage and thus meet the basic threshold. The scads of other RSes where MusicBlvd receives only a few lines to a paragraph are perfectly acceptable for filling in details. -Thibbs (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Where is the evidence the links used to connect this Music Blvd with the one founded in 1995 are even related ? Also why is this article keeping getting written as if its in the present tense when there is no evidence to validate the company still existing other than social media pages with similar or the same names which could just be coincidence. There is actually no present referencing to prove this company still exists so why doesn't Advertising content stop being added? The sourcing point towards a company that EXISTED however, no longer. So I think some care over tense needs to be considered before even attempting to re create this article. Going on basics to what you have added so far the article should still be deleted in respect it no longer is notable (might have been in 1995 however clearly lacks it now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The proof that the 1995 company is the same as the current company is presented in the article itself, and the website is still active. Assuming the URL hasn't been usurped by another company (a matter which would need evidence of some sort) I don't think your swapping the tense is appropriate
and it's not in line with Wikipedia's standard practices. Look at Napster for an example of an ex-organization that is discussed in the present tense. It's a convention to cover topics in the abstract present tense. I'm not sure where this is codified, but you can see examples all over Wikipedia.-Thibbs (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (striking end because I can't find anything about this in the MoS. Maybe it's just up to editorial discretion... -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]- Anyone can re create a social networking site or buy a domain name which is the same or similar as an old company which had credibility. However this in itself doesn't make the reestablished company automatically notable just on the basis it uses the same names as a company in which was. It is like if a major food chain from 1995 (lets use the name FOODSTORES as an example) went bankrupt or was dispersed and then later a new business person decided to re create FOODSTORES with a website and created social networking sites however, apart from the name and purpose that's where similarities end. It would be like in that case, an article being made on Wikipedia for this new company (which describes this new company) with references from 1995 and only siting social networking mediums and its official website as any form of evidence it still exists. I am sure it is very simple to find a popular company from the 1950's that doesn't exist anymore and then take on its name then write an article on Wikipedia for it then to justify it existing using references from the old company. This is basically misinformation and could be seen as a blatant act of advertising using other peoples company information to justify your own companies on Wikipedia (on the sole basis you named it the same as the one you reference), which I must add is defiantly not what Wikipedia is for. In response to your request for evidence in regards to the website it is not for me to prove the website has a connection to this article. It is for the editor who wishes to contribute such content to prove in such circumstances notability is questioned, using references to prove the material is factual (See WP:VERIFY.) In this case, there are absolutely no sources that prove this company is still existing under which terms made it notable in the first place. As stated before anyone could have created a website using the domain of an old company / organisation and post it to a Wikipedia article. --Olowe2011 (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources all say that the website for Music Boulevard/MusicBlvd is www.musicblvd.com. That is the proof that www.musicblvd.com is the website for Msuic Boulevanrd/MusicBlvd. The RS states it in plain English. If you suspect that the website has been usurped by a modern day competitor or another company hoping to capitalize on the goodfaith of the former company then it's on you to prove that. The burden of WP:VERIFY regarding the website has been met by the Broadcasting & Cable source's statement that "N2K['s] first effort online was Music Boulevard (www.musicblvd.com)" and by Information Today's claim that "Located on the World Wide Web at www.musicblvd.com, Music Boulevard is a...". The burden now shifts to the editor making the claim that despite this evidence the website is actually controlled by another entity. Making vague claims about brand names from the 1950s isn't good enough. -Thibbs (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Once again, Them sources point to that being the site in 1995 there is no evidence to prove that website still exists with the same ownership as it did at the time it gained notability. There are no resources you can provide in this century and you are still fighting on the side of this article. And to do something you possibly should have done yourself I would like to point your attention to the following [[2]] look up which clearly indicates www.musicblvd.com was re registered on the 11-July-2003. Please explain to me why a site made in 1995 with 30 + Million views (in which by that standard this article topic is notable) was re registered by another person / entity other than which the article states was in control of the name. It is beginning to look like whatever you are faced with you will argue regardless which I hope doesn't represent an attack against my judgement as you have challenged me on the basis of me being new before I am wondering if that fact gives you bias onto my judgement. However, in this case I am right to point out the facts in which remain. There is no sources that can account for the company still existing now other than a website with the same name as the one created in 1995 (which as Whois states was registered by another entity in 2003.) You cannot prove that this company is still relevant or still has a major cultural impact. --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "attacking" anything, and I newer "challenged" your newness. I do think that it's inappropriate to delete urls from company websites willy nilly based on the underlying theory that urls = spam in all cases. And in this particular case I think it's pretty obvious that the burden of proof lies with the party making the charge that the website listed in all of the reliable sources as the company website has been usurped by ne'er-do-wells. I do see your recent efforts to blank official company urls like this to be a misjudgment, but I recognize that you are doing this with good intentions. Fighting spam and promotional garbage is a valuable activity, and I applaud your intentions, but I think your efforts could be made with a greater degree of care. -Thibbs (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Once again, Them sources point to that being the site in 1995 there is no evidence to prove that website still exists with the same ownership as it did at the time it gained notability. There are no resources you can provide in this century and you are still fighting on the side of this article. And to do something you possibly should have done yourself I would like to point your attention to the following [[2]] look up which clearly indicates www.musicblvd.com was re registered on the 11-July-2003. Please explain to me why a site made in 1995 with 30 + Million views (in which by that standard this article topic is notable) was re registered by another person / entity other than which the article states was in control of the name. It is beginning to look like whatever you are faced with you will argue regardless which I hope doesn't represent an attack against my judgement as you have challenged me on the basis of me being new before I am wondering if that fact gives you bias onto my judgement. However, in this case I am right to point out the facts in which remain. There is no sources that can account for the company still existing now other than a website with the same name as the one created in 1995 (which as Whois states was registered by another entity in 2003.) You cannot prove that this company is still relevant or still has a major cultural impact. --Olowe2011 (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources all say that the website for Music Boulevard/MusicBlvd is www.musicblvd.com. That is the proof that www.musicblvd.com is the website for Msuic Boulevanrd/MusicBlvd. The RS states it in plain English. If you suspect that the website has been usurped by a modern day competitor or another company hoping to capitalize on the goodfaith of the former company then it's on you to prove that. The burden of WP:VERIFY regarding the website has been met by the Broadcasting & Cable source's statement that "N2K['s] first effort online was Music Boulevard (www.musicblvd.com)" and by Information Today's claim that "Located on the World Wide Web at www.musicblvd.com, Music Boulevard is a...". The burden now shifts to the editor making the claim that despite this evidence the website is actually controlled by another entity. Making vague claims about brand names from the 1950s isn't good enough. -Thibbs (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can re create a social networking site or buy a domain name which is the same or similar as an old company which had credibility. However this in itself doesn't make the reestablished company automatically notable just on the basis it uses the same names as a company in which was. It is like if a major food chain from 1995 (lets use the name FOODSTORES as an example) went bankrupt or was dispersed and then later a new business person decided to re create FOODSTORES with a website and created social networking sites however, apart from the name and purpose that's where similarities end. It would be like in that case, an article being made on Wikipedia for this new company (which describes this new company) with references from 1995 and only siting social networking mediums and its official website as any form of evidence it still exists. I am sure it is very simple to find a popular company from the 1950's that doesn't exist anymore and then take on its name then write an article on Wikipedia for it then to justify it existing using references from the old company. This is basically misinformation and could be seen as a blatant act of advertising using other peoples company information to justify your own companies on Wikipedia (on the sole basis you named it the same as the one you reference), which I must add is defiantly not what Wikipedia is for. In response to your request for evidence in regards to the website it is not for me to prove the website has a connection to this article. It is for the editor who wishes to contribute such content to prove in such circumstances notability is questioned, using references to prove the material is factual (See WP:VERIFY.) In this case, there are absolutely no sources that prove this company is still existing under which terms made it notable in the first place. As stated before anyone could have created a website using the domain of an old company / organisation and post it to a Wikipedia article. --Olowe2011 (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The proof that the 1995 company is the same as the current company is presented in the article itself, and the website is still active. Assuming the URL hasn't been usurped by another company (a matter which would need evidence of some sort) I don't think your swapping the tense is appropriate
- Comment - Where is the evidence the links used to connect this Music Blvd with the one founded in 1995 are even related ? Also why is this article keeping getting written as if its in the present tense when there is no evidence to validate the company still existing other than social media pages with similar or the same names which could just be coincidence. There is actually no present referencing to prove this company still exists so why doesn't Advertising content stop being added? The sourcing point towards a company that EXISTED however, no longer. So I think some care over tense needs to be considered before even attempting to re create this article. Going on basics to what you have added so far the article should still be deleted in respect it no longer is notable (might have been in 1995 however clearly lacks it now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olowe2011 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize you're talking about degree of coverage which is a somewhat subjective determination, but it's hard for me to accept that the AdWeek and Information Today articles don't provide thorough coverage. Did you look at them? As you pointed out the Boston Globe's article also covers the topic pretty well and taken together with the Star Tribune article you linked it really looks like the GNG has been met. There are also articles like this from Kiplingers, this from Target Marketing, and another comparative article from the Washington Post here that all cover the topic in some depth (each of those articles has at least 5 paragraphs devoted to the topic).
- Keep, quoting the article: "MusicBlvd was the first music related and lyrics website in the world, with 80 million+ unique page views per quarter since 1998.[6] By 1998 it was described by The Boston Globe as one of the "big three" online music sellers alongside CDNow and Amazon.com, and MusicBlvd was lauded for its informative extras (links to artist biographies, reviews, features from a wide variety of national music publications, and a then-novel list of links to artists who have influenced the artist).[7] By 1999, the company was ranked 9th among all electronic commerce sites, with around 2.7 million visitors in the month of December alone.[8]". It sounds notable to me. Cavarrone (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP -- Firstly: subject is notable per coverage in reliable sources. (Oddly, the nominator even refutes their own claim that it isn't notable by creating a duplicate article at Music Boulevard.) The issues about relevant content within the article are for talk page discussions, RFC, etc. -- not an AFD.
- Secondly: MusicBlvd or Music Boulevard (owned by N2K) was a major source of internet music in the 1990s (as described by the newspaper sources cited such as USA Today, New York Times and the book The Cdnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet. pp. 185–186..) MusicBlvd was bought by CDnow on March 17, 1999 [3] [4], because, according to the book The Cdnow Story: Rags to Riches on the Internet, it was their "chief competitor." CDnow was eventually absorbed by Amazon.com in 2002. [5] The current musicblvd.com domain appears to be owned/operated by a company unassociated with this subject, just like the current cdnow.com. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you review the article history you will noticed on which grounds it was nominated. Since it has undergone significant changes / improvements by myself and another editor. If you read what the article originally said and made reference to then you might agree at the time it would fall in line for AfD. --Olowe2011 (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.