Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agnieszka's Dowry


 * 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 Delete. Despite extended efforts from the creator of the article to save it, consensus is clear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agnieszka's Dowry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable poetry publication, with a high degree of promotionalism. The references in the article aren't--just look at them: apparently Brown University has a copy of an issue, the Electronic Poetry Center at UBuffalo lists it, as does Mom's Writers Club and a bunch of other directory-style websites. Google Books adds directory listings such as this one, but produces nothing of any substance. Google Web adds more links and directories, but again, no substantial discussion or even a mention in a reliable source. The text itself is promotional enough, really, to warrant a speedy nomination, but since the creator (and editor of the journal) is in hot water at ANI right now I thought it would be more fair to let the community deal with this. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ☛ Forgive me. if writing here out of turn is a gross violation of Wikipedia rights and an indefinitely blockable offense :), but I felt compelled to make a rebuttal, having cleaned up the article and its sources, so here goes:
 * text itself is promotional enough, really, to warrant a speedy nomination ➝ removed. Care to reassess?
 * sources were pruned, updated, most were removed.
 * one source establishing notability (according to Tokyogirl79 down the page, an opinion I concur with) was added
 * Brown university does not "apparently have a copy of an issue". This is a gross mischaracterization of the state of the world. It was almost a lie at the time you nominated this article, and with my providing a link to the elaborated library record, it is now refuted. Brown University clearly has every issue of Agnieszka's Dowry ever printed. Moreover, Brown University keeps it under lock and key, permitting only by-appointment visitation.  It is clearly thought by Brown University to be worthy of inclusion in a notable collection of small press Americana, and the fact that it is at Brown in this capacity is a mega-plus in establishing its notability on English Wikipedia. So, please take that mischaracterization back.
 * And that would be all, for now. Cordially, --Mareklug talk 20:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The text is still promotional. Most of it looks like it could have been cut 'n' pasted from the journal's website.  That said, you should probably focus your efforts on establishing notability.
 * At least two of the remaining need to be removed. See below.
 * "[P]ossibly help show notability" does not mean "establish[es] notability". We don't include sources that are only passing mentions.
 * Having done a fair amount of research in these kinds of archives, I can tell you from personal experience that they're filled with non-notable books. That's not a bad thing:  archival books can have immense value and significance independent of wikipedia's notability guidelines.  However, the fact that only six libraries hold the print version correlates well with non-notability.  Adding holding information to the references is not appropriate, and that cite should be removed.
 * Garamond Lethe t c  16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your level re-assessment. Could you explicitly say which refs are to be chucked?
 * Also, I agree about there being plenty of non-notable stuff in such Americana omnibus collections, and a cursory perusal of random entries that come up when one clicks the collection link, bears this out, so no special knowledge or having used them is required. :)
 * However, independently of that, I still argue that Agnieszka's Dowry is notable among librarians (the Brown reference establishes that, showing the full 13 volume collection), critics (we have Sara Russell and Annette Hyder, both not fly-by-night critics, unlike the references removed already), reviewers (the Kansas academic book appears to be one -- I need to get my hands on it; but interlibrary loan timeframe will exceed the AfD window surely), and of course, notable poets, some of whom 20-10 years ago placed their early work in it, and today are famous. Caron Andregg comes to mind. I can easily produce others. Don't be discouraged by their red link status on English Wikipedia. Our poetry coverage is a tad less complete than our Idols (TV series) or pokémon ones...
 * I will indeed try to unearth RSes that incontrovertibly establish notability.
 * At any rate, if and when you delete this lovely part of Wikipedia, or perhaps userify it as a subpage for me to keep hacking at (leaving behind gigabytes of dross in main space coming not even close in merit to the social value and encyclopedic value of Agnieszka's Dowry article), it will have been in the best possible shape, far better shape than when put on AfD a few days ago, for which I thank everyone -- and fit for future undeleting. :)
 * I also disagree on your promotionality assessment pertaining to the present state of text, its style, content, coverage. By now it is all itemized, dispassionate facts, only the salient ones. So what if the write-up on Wikipedia may fit the official website. I take that as a compliment, having written the official website content eons ago. I hope that the official website does not contain garbage. Truly.  I took out all the adjectives out of the Wikipedia Agnieszka's Dowry article. I redacted all the fluff, and the frankly sloppy writing of mine, unworthy of me, on Wikipedia or off Wikipedia.  If facts left behind are promotional, Dear Goddess, what is not? --Mareklug talk 09:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As to promotionality: Prairie Schooner has been around since 1926 and (according to worldcat) is held in 618 libraries.  UNebraska put out a history back in 1955.  It's a big deal in literary circles.  For all that, the meat of the article is all of five sentences.
 * Another example: The News Letter of the LXIVmos.  Very obscure, didn't quite last three years.  Yet it was important enough that both an index and a facsimile edition have been published.  That article is all of eight sentences.
 * You're proposing a far larger article for AgD. That's fine, if you had the sources to back it up.  You don't, so the article comes across as having been written by a student who forgot to study for the exam and so will fill up the empty page with as many facts as she can recall.  We're supposed to be summarizing reliable sources, not duplicating them.  If I was going to make this article AfD-proof, the first thing I'd do is cut it down to 200 words and only add to that when I could source each additional sentence.   All of the lists should be cut, as well as the ephemera ("No thank-you notes.").
 * Hmmm.... ok, I've got 30 minutes before my first concall. Let me take a stab at rewriting it....
 * Garamond Lethe t c  15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete&mdash;The case isn't quite as simple as Drmies makes it out to be, but I agree with the conclusion. The citations include a two-paragraph notice at the Poetry Magazine Review and a more in-depth article at Poetry & Chapbook Review (urls are via wayback machine and blacklisted).  In my opinion, that's two substantial reviews away from notability.  If the article is kept, the promotional tone ("Idiosyncratic submissions sought" as a header?) needs to be removed.  Garamond Lethe t c  00:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find the PMR review--it's not linked in the article, is it? I didn't see the other one, true, but those references are a bit messy. Anyway, that Poetry & Chapbook Review article is very friendly, to put it mildly, and I have some questions about reliability--you know, I'm sure that a certain amount of, well, what shall we say, mutual backscratching has been known to allegedly occur. Anyway, thanks for digging into it. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The URLs are spelled out in the citation in the article. They're the last two or three.  Garamond Lethe t c  16:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as essentially unsourced promotion of non-notable periodical. BMK (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Vindictive, piling-on, ignorant Wikipedians don't deserve to have this article. I am sorry that years ago I tried in good faith to add meaningful content to Wikipedia on this particular score, way before the idiotic COI thing came up in an ill-conceived and witch-hunting way became an albatross around all our necks -- I added here an article about something truly original and well-regarded in the literary community.  Non-notable, eh?  What the blip do you know about literary presses? What do you know, technically, about the historical significance of constructing hypertext that on one hand presents an almost inscrutable graphical experience in the GUI, necessitating hunting with the mouse for clickable links, and on another, has been cleverly tuned for the Lynx textual browser to never need a keystroke other than space bar tapping, interrupted occasionally by an "enter/carriage return" -- two keys! -- to traverse the entire multi-page installation, thanks to the topology devised (linked circular lists, one per room, several rooms to an issue, an issue under construction aka a partial editorial artifact available for viewing as part of the magazine, comprising a published part and a in-the-processs part? Or, what do you know about AgD's literary reputation and standing for its content and selectivity? Anyway, just delete Agnieszka's Dowry and let's be done with it. As for the editor being in hot water, the editor is about to hang a "retired" sign on his user page on at least one if not four WMF projects at once, thanks to the steward Vito. The editor just needs to tie a few lose ends such as provide promised sourcing for the first (and only) BLP of a Hopi silversmith on any Wikipedia. Probably just spam and self-promotion -- the nominator wrote as a DYK comment about not wanting to put it on AfD just now (!).  Whaaaa?  In the words of a The Smiths's lyric, "Frankly Mr. Shankly", I sing in your general direction :) : and sometimes I feel more fulfilled/making Christmas cards with the mentally ill.  Carry on. --Mareklug talk 03:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Could not resist doing a quickie 4-minute Google search, an operation that clearly eludes all of you Dear Wikipedians:


 * ➞...sources which were never added to the article:
 * http://www.heelstone.com/ilef/mdetails.html
 * http://www.artvilla.com/plt/poetnewsmay99.html (Poetry Life and Times (ISSN 1752-3265) was a literary magazine based in England that has been engaged in the promotion of poets and poetry since its establishment in 1998.The magazine has featured several poets and their translations from Greek, French, German, Dutch, Italian, and Spanish, as well as English.  ➞ http://www.artvilla.com/plt/index.htm)
 * http://www.poetrylibrary.org.uk/magazines/onlinemagazines/ (see: http://www.poetrylibrary.org.uk/about/)
 * http://agnieszkadowry.wordpress.com/tag/agnieszkas-dowry/ (yeah, a blog)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=cmienMQNEUUC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry+review&source=bl&ots=Vn1l4iBzsv&sig=gLN0pYs2QKtLcR6YsnM3CrISglk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4iMEU7rhMcSEyAGimID4DQ&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=agnieszka%27s%20dowry%20review&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=EU8bAQAAIAAJ&q=agnieszka%27s+dowry+review&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry+review&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GSQEU5OWJKSuyQGWuIHQBg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwCA
 * http://books.google.com/books?ei=nyQEU7m3M8eEyAHYioCABQ&id=ifM8AQAAIAAJ&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry+review&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=agnieszka%27s+dowry
 * http://books.google.com/books?ei=nyQEU7m3M8eEyAHYioCABQ&id=7MUNAQAAMAAJ&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry+review&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=agnieszka%27s+dowry
 * http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=agnieszka%27s+dowry
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=ISVvAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA353&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyUEU8PGD8fQyAGl4oCwDA&ved=0CCAQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=agnieszka%27s%20dowry&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=WrMxZrPoMs0C&pg=PA6&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DyUEU8PGD8fQyAGl4oCwDA&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=agnieszka%27s%20dowry&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=iaHAt-GwA7YC&q=agnieszka%27s+dowry&dq=agnieszka%27s+dowry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cCUEU7_SEMOdyQGs1YCoCg&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBDge
 * ➞ and finally, this:


 * "A book on hypertext that has Agnieszka's Dowry in its own title Copy and paste a formatted citation or use one of the links to import into a bibliography manager. MLA Websites, Art. "Artcyclopedia, Pixiv, Art Blog, Deviantart, Net. Art, Paper Project, Gfxartist, Agnieszka's Dowry, Sagan 4, Art. Net." (2010).  APA Websites, A. (2010). Artcyclopedia, Pixiv, Art Blog, Deviantart, Net. Art, Paper Project, Gfxartist, Agnieszka's Dowry, Sagan 4, Art. Net.  Chicago Websites, Art. "Artcyclopedia, Pixiv, Art Blog, Deviantart, Net. Art, Paper Project, Gfxartist, Agnieszka's Dowry, Sagan 4, Art. Net." (2010)."


 * Over and out. --Mareklug talk 03:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH on behalf of others and be polite when trying to make a point. Sometimes people just miss things and sometimes they do see sources like these and they fail WP:RS in some form or fashion, which is why they didn't list them here or try to argue for a keep. Now offhand some of the sources do look usable, such as the Poetry Life & Times, but others such as the blog entry can't show notability. Most blogs can't, so this isn't a slight against the person writing it. When it comes to some of the book sources, the problem is that they're all trivial mentions that are either routine "thanks for the help" mentions or they're possibly an advert in a magazine. There are also some brief mentions in relation to something someone has done, but none of them are really the sort that would give notability. The only one I saw that could possibly help show notability was this book, but we'd have to know the context to really tell you if this is a good in-depth mention or just a brief one-off. There was another one that mentioned it insanely briefly, but it's a trivial mention at best. Now when it comes to this book, this series of books were part of a now infamous series of works put out by Books LLC, who tried to charge hundreds of dollars for reprinting Wikipedia articles. It's far from being a reliable source to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, no one has EVER lodged an ad on behalf of AgD or A Small Garlic Press. We just don't do that. One problem is that by Internet standards AgD is ...ancient.  There used to be a lot of interesting reliable sources, academic online ones, such as Walter Annenberg School of Communications at UCLA, which listed the "prestigious" literary magazines, and AgD was there.  Also, a University of Texas website that reviewed the AgD for its novel aspects and quality of poetry.  Where will we find these things?  Do note that AgD rejects more than 99% of all submissions it gets.  The current issue was started in 2008 and is barely 1/3 full ...in 2014.  AgD is a fossil, and no one at Wired or Salon will bother themselves with it. The thank yous from notable poets in their published notable poetry books are the best we can do, these are echoes. It is what it is.  An ex-parrot at Wikipedia.  Just like it's principal author. Cordially, --Mareklug talk 05:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither vitriol nor acting like a WP:DIVA is going to halp your case. BMK (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your true observations. The are so chez wikipedia it makes my heart gling gló. --Mareklug talk 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we vindictive, ignorant and mobbish Wikipedians are so darn cute and provincial. I'm surprised you don't jump through my screen to give me a big hug and bring me back to show me off to your friends. "Have you ever seen anything so utterly darling? And this one has even learned to use a knife and fork!!" BMK (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As Tokyogirl observed, many of the linked Google Book snippets are just not helpful--thank you notes and mentions (like the one in Haiku in English). The bit from A View from the Loft appears to be an announcement of sorts (I ordered it through ILL, just to make sure). The Literary Magazine Review snippet and the one from Choice are worth tracking down and I requested them through ILL--I hope they can get them, since Mareklug chose to give us Google results (and thus no article titles) rather than an actual list of Works Cited. As for the old "what the hell do you know about literary journals", well, one could counter with a. more than you think and b. what the hell do you know? But rather than respond with more acid, I'll see what comes in from ILL; until then, I see no reason to change my mind. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, one review is in: John Roche, "Poetry on the Internet: A Survey" (Choice (2003) 40.8: 1287ff. The magazine gets three sentences--on the one hand, only three (which is about the average for the few dozen sites of all kinds that are reviewed); on the other, they're really positive sentences. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Mareklug's sources and reasoning and Tokyogirl's careful dissection thereof. --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article making it a) not promotional in tone, b) more lucid, c) shorter. I hope to do the same to the sourcing before the article gets deleted. --Mareklug talk 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I pruned the refs, added one that Tokyogirl79 endorsed as maybe affording notability (I think so too), and updated the most substantial reference, Brown University with a link to its catalog entry corroborating AgD as being a *notable* American Poetry collections holding, comprising of all issues, viewable by appointment only. That library record specifies where each issue is located, and provides a link to online version which is accessible to anyone searching the library with “Agnieszka’s Dowry”. Such searching is open to the public. If that does not make AgD notable, I don’t think there is anything out there to be found that will be more substantive. But let me look some more. As for the existing interview link, this is what the “about” link says about that literary publication: "Poems Niederngasse is based in Zürich, Switzerland, and originated as a small English language print magazine in 1996. In August 1998 PNG began its online presence with no other purpose than to give one more opportunity for poets to be heard.” The last published issue appears to be Issue 84  January/February 2008, and the magazine in its Swiss incarnation, which is when Annette Hyder was active there, interviewing, was published simultaneously in English, German and Italian. More here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090529081900/http://www.niederngasse.com/Departments/staff2.html --Mareklug talk 19:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Holdings are rarely considered signs of notability, unless a couple dozen or hundred academic libraries, for instance, have copies of a certain book. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You may be mistaken about this for the case of specialized collections, and this is one. As far as Harris Collection of American Poetry and Plays (Brown University). Periodicals treats it, we are talking about 13 books that Brown asked for, paid for, and locked away.  The library does not make any of them available under interlibrary loan, and neither can one order any online, to be readied to be viewable at such and such place at such and such time at such and such library. One must petition the special collections librarian, and make an appointment well in advance.  There are not many specialized collections of Americana held across the world; this is one.  LOC has all the volumes too, also non-circulating. As does Utah State Library. And not to put a too fine point on it, but you wrote "rarely are", and this is the very "rarely'" when they are. Then there is the American Haiku Society with its own specialized library collection at one university only, and Agnieszka's Dowry is explicitly listed for that: http://www.worldcat.org/title/specimen-collection-of-haiku-periodicals-titles-a-g/oclc/58949187 Anyway, I sternly suspect you had no inkling what you were really deleting, after all this came to light. --Mareklug talk 09:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If all this is true it is rather surprising that one can't find a mention of that special status anywhere. I suggest you keep your stern suspicions to yourself. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Special status at Brown? Click on the link next to BY APPOINTMENT, and it tell the story as I quoted it above, listing categories of access, and what BY APPOINTMENT entails. I suggest you improve your online research efficacy. --Mareklug talk 09:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "By appointment" means it's a smaller archive without enough users to justify full-time staff. Larger archives (such as the Harry Ransom Center at UT Austin) are large enough to support multiple full-time staff and appointments aren't necessary.  The non-loan provisions are due to the difficulty of replacing the material, not (necessarily) its value.  None of this has anything to do with notability, of course.  Garamond Lethe t c  15:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

First cut
I've made a pass through the article removing what I considered to be promotional language and non-encyclopedic detail (as showing was going to be simpler than telling). I have not addressed the WP:RS issues. Please feel unusually free to revert these changes if they're seen as impeding the discussion here. Garamond Lethe t c  15:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, if your drastic cut saves the article from deletion, so be it. But you only wrote about the topology and briefly sketched the content.  Content that you did sketch omits any mention of "Letters to Agnieszka" which synthesize/conjure Agnieszka as the author sees fit.  That seems important enough to retain, even if only in a very very very pithy way.  Moving along, the software engineering that went into the design is completely omitted.  Nothing about being able to traverse the thing in a textual browser without hitting a tab or using a mouse, essentially via repetitive 2-key stroke.  That is completely, ridiculously idiosyncratic.  No one has ever implemented such a way to browse a heavily graphical web installation, ever, poetry magazine or no.  Finally, on a formal point, LOC was very interested in our application for an ISSN for the web installation and reusing it for paper issues.  No one has ever done that.  We talked to them for weeks about it, and in the end they reached deep into their own requirement bag and told us how to make that happen -- through the Created timestamp.  Again, no one has ever done this in 1995.  LOC has never before given out an ISSN that is reused for web and paper (paper also gets ISBN ).  So, you tossed all that.  Unfair.  If the article is ever EXPANDED to a GA or, gack, an FA/, all that would have to be re-added, by the very definition of what constitutes a GA or an FA . So, help me see it some other way, but basically you lobotomized a decent version of a longstanding Wikipedia article to save it from an asshole process.  Sorry to be frank, but it is what it is -- political expediency. --Mareklug talk 01:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Asshole process or not, Garamond Lethe and I have been editing such articles for years. All the stuff you say isn't of any kind of relevance here unless reliable, secondary sources make it so. Garamond's edits actually makes it a lot more likely that the article is kept because--may I speak frankly? you usually do--an enormous amount of fluffy, self-promotional, excessively detailed, and frankly wankerish detail has been trimmed, and now we can finally see the forest for the trees. Garamond trimmed a list of God knows what, and you're unhappy, but now we can finally see that there are in fact a couple of possibly reliable, in-depth, and helpful references. Your magazine will not become notable per our definition because of all these really cool ISSN blah blah thingies; it will be deemed notable because we have found reliable sources that mention it as important. So, I added a reference with some information from a highly reliable publication, Choice. You're welcome! I might even change to "keep", depending on what ILL delivers to me--but if I do, it won't be because of your arguments; it will be in spite of your words and your attitude. Political expediency my ass--this was good editing. Asshole process my ass (and mention of "FA" really shows you don't know what you're talking about): you should thank Garamond on your bare knees for what they've done for your article. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hereby thank Garamond on my bare knees, my bare ass, and my bare whatever. And I thank you, Drmies, for finding Choice ref. --Mareklug talk 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />

Relisting

 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Comment: Relisted to allow editors to determine whether the cleanup and source addition by Garamond Lethe changes what would otherwise be an unanimous "delete" outcome for lack of notability.  Sandstein   08:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * n.b. Drmies did the legwork of tracking down the new source, not me.  <tt>Garamond Lethe t c </tt> 19:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've cleaned up the article a bit in regard to formatting, but I'm still not convinced that it passes notability requirements. I am, however, cognizant that poetry is a rather under-appreciated and marginalized literary form, and that outlets which are notable in the poetry world would look paltry and un-notable in a more mainstream genre.  For this reason, I'm checking with a friend of mine, who happens to be a published poet and also a presenter of poetry in New York City, for his opinion. BMK (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Based upon the comments of my friend: "AgD is a literary product looking for readership. I can’t really tell if there is any substantial readership. No sizeable following on FaceBook. No reviews written about it show up with a Google search. No Amazon reviews. I don’t know what Wikipedia’s criteria for listings are but, at least at this point, AgD’s listing seems mostly promotional." BMK (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - coming to this fresh, basic notability seems to be lacking here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.