Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor of Metaphysics


 * 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 no consensus. The discussion has ran out of steam, and has started to descend into classic arguments to avoid. (No prejudice against nomination). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  20:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Doctor of Metaphysics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article's references do not discuss the subject of the article, degree is only offered by unremarkable institutions, appropriate coverage of the subject in independent reliable published sources seems to be lacking. A loose necktie (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Bruxton (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator describes a cleanup not deletion. The degree is notable even if it might be a pseudo-science. It is very easy to find references. Chicago Examiner 1913, Associated Press, Casper Star tribune, Fort Worth Star Telegram if this is not kept a redirect is more appropriate than deletion, and a target is Metaphysics. Bruxton (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a fake degree churned out by diploma mills. The sources present in the article do not establish notability. Three of them are from organisations offering this degree, and therefore don't meet GNG's "independent of the subject" criteria; one, the University of Georgia source, doesn't refer to the article topic at all; and the Windsor Star source is a passing mention. The sources provided by Bruxton are also passing mentions, along the lines of "person X claims to be Doctor of Metaphysics" or "institution Y offers Doctorate in Metaphysics", which doesn't give us any useful information about the subject. It would not be appropriate to redirect this to Metaphysics, because that article is about a legitimate branch of philosophy, which is not what is studied by these so-called "Doctors". Dan of La Mancha (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, I hadn't even considered that. A loose necktie (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: We include articles on Wikipedia when there is WP:RS to WP:V and we have that. We also evaluate a topic based on WP:NEXIST - and there is an abundance of references on this topic which are not in the article. Notability is not diminished when a segment of the population does not believe in something. We have articles for all manner of absurdities in relation to religion, spirituality and Pseudoscience. And let me define Metaphysics - this so called "legitimate" branch of philosophy: it involves "abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space." Finally, people have claimed to be a Doctor of Metaphysics for centuries. I believe that we would do a disservice to our readers with a deletion. Bruxton (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education (see discussion below) : lack of significant coverage - sources provided above only give trivial mentions. Alduin2000 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Although there is some coverage, not convinced the independant coverage meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

*Delete and preferably shred and burn. Aside from the failure to meet GNG with reliable sourcing, is correct that this is a fake degree offered by diploma mills, and this article serves to promote such illegitimate degree. The University of Georgia definition is fine, but it has no bearing on the "doctorate" described in the article, which is available for cash amounts from the University of Metaphysics ($990 if you prepay in full), or from the Esoteric Theological Seminary ($890, a bargain!). Wikipedia should not be in the business of providing advertising for diploma mills. See the George Gollin article for a respected academic's experience taking on one of the larger diploma mills, or check our St. Regis University, which he helped to close. Now I need to take a shower. Gah. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * this article serves to promote such illegitimate degree yikes. We create articles for all subjects. Definitely not promoting. People have claimed to be a Doctor of Metaphysics in 1843 - long before diploma mills existed. I imagine some snake oil salesmen also claimed the title. I thought a redirect might help our readers who come across articles with the title, as I did when writing the Helen Hadsell article. Thanks. Bruxton (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The first problem is that of the five sources currently in the article, only the University of Georgia source is reliable, presenting a definition of metaphysics of traditional philosophy. However, it does not even mention a doctorate in metaphysics. The second problem is that the four remaining sources in the article amount to sales pitches or passing mention such as in the Helen Hadsell piece. Three of these sources describe "doctorates" without the benefit of a curriculum or dissertation, presenting only a price list for various documents printed on parchment. Referring to these sources in Wikipedia's voice is the very definition of WP:PROMO, in the section on Advertising, marketing or public relations. I suggest if we need a redirect, appropriate targets might be to Charlatan or Diploma mill, or even to your example above,  Snake oil salesman. In my view, though, deletion has more integrity. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume this is an Unaccredited degree? Insufficient sourcing is a reason to delete, but if some rewording is needed to clarify it's a fake degree and remove promo that's more like clean-up and WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment and suggestion. I would welcome any effort you can make to assist in a cleanup. It is difficult to see how people began taking on this title, but perhaps it has always been hucksters. At present it is a unaccredited degree because I have not found a university who offers this as accredited. Bruxton (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * and, sourcing is the central problem in this article. Two of the sources (metaphysics.com and universityofmetaphysics.com) are part of the International Metaphysical Ministry (IMM), so essentially count as a single source that is an unaccredited religious organization. None of the other sources provide significant coverage of the topic.
 * IMM actually offers advice about using their degrees legally: "Your own legal right to teach, counsel, or heal in the contemporary field of Metaphysics today is determined by having an ordained ministerial status, not upon a doctoral degree in Metaphysics. The primary purpose of the doctoral degree is to establish a highly professional image..."
 * I have found no reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide significant coverage to meet WP:GNG — the article is not a good candidate for clean-up. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think anyone is going to convince you. You already needed a shower after your first visit here. I am going to stub this so that these offensive references are removed since you keep referring to them as problematic. Bruxton (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is one description we can use Other references exist as well but for now I will add this one to the stub. Bruxton (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This book is self-published - Lulu.com is a self-publishing book company. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * yes - it was noted in the edit summary. This subject is much like religion. It is not science, there is no proof of God or miracles either. The author of that book refers to the organizations which award the degree as "so-called" institutions of higher learning. Bruxton (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I was pointing out that this source doesn't contribute to notability because only reliable sources contribute to notability and self-published sources are generally not considered reliable. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * See also counterfeit degrees 1938 book US Department of the Interior Bruxton (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Source seems ok but this is another trivial mention. Alduin2000 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, none only one of the sources added contributes to WP:GNG, which specifies significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Feel free to add your comments to the source assessment table above. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As per source analysis by Dan of La Mancha and Grand'mere Eugene. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, a makeover is in progress. I just added Predatory Doctoral Programs: Warnings for Social Workers from the Journal of Social Work Education. I hope you will check back. Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete or Selective merge Referenced text can be incorporated at Diploma mill, however I agree with the concerns below about having a standalone article for this fake degree. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Added "delete", which I now think is also an appropriate action here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment It is a real thing. A meaningless degree you can order online cheap.  I think it'd be more useful to have an article about all unaccredited useless degrees, if news coverage about these could be found.   D r e a m Focus  12:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have an article for Metaphysics. Do any accredited colleges teach it by a different name or include it with another class?  We have an article for Diploma mill.  This article could be redirected there if significant coverage can not be found.   D r e a m Focus  12:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a thing. But the "degree" is of little or no value.  See, e.g., Quora.  We do have articles on Ponzi schemes and Trump University; that one does not like it doesn't make it disappear, and may not be a reason to delete it.  Available sources seem to be thin. User:Bruxton did a good job with the newspaper archives, and I think they should be added to the article.   Thank you.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I updated the source assessment table to reflect the current sourcing. One source, Mail-order training in psychotherapy Full text version via Wikipedia Library is a 1960 survey and analysis of 24 institutions, including nine described as institutes of metaphysics offering doctorates by mai including Doctorate of Metaphysics, Doctor of Philosophy in Metaphysics, and Doctor of Divinity in Metaphysics. So it's a 60-year-old reflection of the state of mail-order hack degrees available then. I've also looked at sourcing on newspapers.com, which shows 1000+ hits on the search term "Doctor of Metaphysics", all so far mentions in obituaries or wedding announcements. Still no current sources with significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added other sources, which are available through Google Scholar. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

*Delete and redirect to Diploma mill, I think. I think by keeping the article we risk giving credit to fakery. The article is without much worth keeping, so I think the best thing to do is to redirect it to make it clear it is a fake degree. I'm open to being persuaded if anyone can persuade me that there is an ethically better path. CT55555 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That almost sounds a more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. WP:GNG is what should be considered. If there was a WP:PROMO issue (it's better than it previously was to be fair), then WP:DINC applies. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand why you say that, but in the context of this initially appearing vague about if this was a real thing or not, I hope you understand my initial motivations. If the homeopathy articles suggested it cured diseases, I would also vote to delete that. Anyway, I only just saw your comment as I searched for mine, in the context of the WP:HEY comment below, so sorry for delay. CT55555 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Preserves the content and the work. WP:Preserve.  Addresses the ethical concerns, and avoids WP:UNDUE.  A win/win.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 23:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , and, perhaps I lack the imagination to understand how a merge would work. I think a !delete and !redirect would be better... Would you redirect to a new section to Diploma mills under sub-section Accreditation_and_authenticity, perhaps a sub-sub subsection like "Dubious degree titles"? or "Sure-fire fake degrees"? Or, more seriously, "Degree titles offered by diploma mills"? If so, the article, "Mail-order training in psychotherapy" from 1960 has a start in the article's abstract and a table in the full version with titles typically used in fake social sciences programs, which is a bit dated, but it's a start. In other words, would a merge include more than just the "Doctor of Metaphysics" degree title? Or did you have a different idea? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, that's a good question. The choice of which text is retained (and where it gets located in the target article) is typically a decision made through normal editing processes in the target article, which occurs after the merger decision has been made. So we'd be getting a bit sidetracked here if trying to work out those details before the outcome of the AfD is known.
 * The benefit of a merger is that the edit history of Doctor of Metaphysics would be retained, so any editor in future can extract any useful content from the pre-merged version. I hope this explanation helps a bit. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep we have WP:BARE and it is over the course of many years. I had never heard of it and this was a primer for me. It should not be deleted, a redirect to either Metaphysics or diploma mill will preserve the history. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I contemplated moving most of the text and references to a section in one of the articles. But I have limited experience doing that, so I would defer to my learned colleagues.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 02:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment I want to emphasize again, since a couple of people have mentioned it, that the Wikipedia article on Metaphysics describes a different topic from that which is studied by a "Doctor of Metaphysics". See Wiktionary metaphysics: the subject under discussion here is not definition 1 ("The branch of philosophy which studies fundamental principles" etc.), but definition 5 ("The study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world"). The Metaphysics.com source links the two together to give more legitimacy to the latter, and the article follows this in conflating the two subjects. I think this is causing confusion.For the record, I stand by my delete !vote, or at least I don't agree with a merge or redirect to diploma mill as that article currently stands. I don't see how any of the text from Doctor of Metaphysics could be incorporated into diploma mill, or why this one degree should be discussed at length in that article when so many other fake degrees exist; and I don't think a redirect is appropriate while the target article doesn't include the phrase "Doctor of Metaphysics". That said, if someone plans to expand diploma mill to include a discussion of various types of fake degrees, I'm okay with redirecting to that article for the time being, to preserve the edit history. Dan of La Mancha (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Reading over the arguments, it still doesn't seem those advocating a redirect or merger outweigh opinions that this article should be straight out deleted and maybe redirected later. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, even though I acknowledge that the Doctor of Metaphysics article is less a WP:PROMO problem now. The list of suspect degree titles from the 1960 study is not comprehensive, as it is derived from the social sciences area by distance learning only, and besides, it is 60+ years out of date. In the intervening years, online diploma mills have invented plenty more fancy-sounding diplomas, so for regulatory agencies it is a continuing problem of whack-a-mole. Listing all known fake degrees would be 1) WP:OR and 2) overwhelming the content of the current Diploma mill article. Here's the list of known fake degree titles offered by 24 diploma mills from the 1960 "Mail-order training in psychotherapy" article:
 * TABLE 1
 * DEGREES AND DIPLOMAS OFFERED
 * Doctor of Philosophy
 * Doctor of Psychology
 * Doctor of Metaphysics
 * Doctor of Science
 * Doctor of Psychotherapy
 * Doctor of Bio-Psychology (BPD)
 * Doctor of Philosophy in Metaphysics (PhDM)
 * Doctor of Divinity in Metaphysics (DDM)
 * Doctor of Divinity
 * Doctor of Naturatics (NaD)
 * Master of Psychology and Scientific Truth (ScTM)
 * Master of Psychic Science (MPsSc)
 * Licentiate in Hypnotherapy (LHy)
 * Psychic Reader
 * Metaphysical Counselor
 * Master Metaphysician
 * Ordination
 * The above list only includes degree titles for the social sciences circa 1960! In the intervening years, diploma mills have continued to invent fake degrees in the sciences, engineering, medicine, religion, and other professions that pay decent wages to credentialed professionals. In the U.S., only about half of the states have laws prohibiting the use of these fake degrees to gain employment in a profession (just think about that the next time you need a nurse, engineer, or architect), and two agencies have historically maintained lists of the thousands of diploma mills selling phony parchment degrees: the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, and the U.S. Department of Education. I thus oppose merging phony degree titles to the existing diploma mills article as an impractical solution to resolving this AfD. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment— The tally so far:

Keep: Delete: Merge: Comment only: — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (nom)
 * (weak delete)
 * (delete and redirect)
 * (weak delete)
 * (delete and redirect)
 * (delete and redirect)
 * (selective merge)
 * (merge and redirect)


 * Please see WP:!VOTE. It is the (unenviable) job of the closing admin to consider the relative strengths of the arguments presented, rather than simply counting the votes. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, seems they missed a relevant part of the tally because it is within the ivote.
 * Bruxton Redirect
 * Dream Focus Redirect is mentioned
 * 7&6=13 redirect
 * Lightburst Redirect
 * CT55555 redirect
 * MrsSnoozyTurtle merge and...
 * (I am assuming a redirect so people can find the topic in the merged material) see WP:MERGE A merger is the process of uniting two or more pages into a single page. It is done by copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page and then replacing the source page with a redirect to the destination page. Bruxton (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the corrections. I understand the rationale of preserving the edit history if there is valuable content that could potentially be used for other articles, but I'd still like to understand what content should be merged from the existing article, assuming the target article for the proposed redirect would be Diploma mills? — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Although relisted twice before, there is ongoing active discussion with alternatives being actively discussed, so another go around may be useful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, no, diploma mill is not the correct redirect (even if the degree, as granted, seems to always come from a diploma mill). The correct redirect is almost certainly metaphysics, even though the meaning of the degree is rather far from the actual subject-- so that anyone typing in "Doctor of  metaphysics" will be taken to a related topic.  Much as I'd rather see the topic deleted altogether.  But so be it.  If a redirect, then the correct redirect, please. (Since I am a Doctor of Naturatics, I should know.) Thanks! A loose necktie (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I truthfully don't see problems with the article as it is, rather than trying to merge it into other articles on other subjects. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 05:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unfortunately, only one of the sources for this article presents significant coverage of the subject. There are multiple passing mentions and sources that are either unreliable and/or self-published. Added together they still fail WP:GNG. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do appreciate the WP:HEY efforts of editors who have improved this article since its nomination — It is no longer promotional and has more clearly identified the link with diploma mills. The sourcing remains the problem, as individual bogus degrees are seldom discussed at all, let alone in significant depth, in articles about diploma mills. So it occurs to me Wikipedia may need an article similar to List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, perhaps by draftifying this article as "Draft:Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education" and developing it with sources that discuss the labels that unaccredited institutions offer as degrees? In other words, this subject is not notable enough to have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, but there are enough good sources that list various other degrees promoted by diploma mills and/or legit religious organizations that are unaccredited. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would also support this as an alternative to deletion; I don't think the other suggested redirect/merge locations would work as well as this considering that it would probably give the degree undue weight to give it space in any of them (e.g. diploma mill should be about diploma mills in general, metaphysics definitely shouldn't mention it and might even give the degree an image of legitimacy to anyone clicking through the link if it redirects there). On the other hand, something like List of degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education would naturally mention it alongside a short description. Plus, there seems to be adequate sourcing to suggest that NLIST for this grouping is satisfied even if Doctor of Metaphysics doesn't pass GNG. And this would also address 's concern below that information on this degree would be useful to readers. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Even without additional sources I think this squeaks by. I'm going to go slightly WP:FORUM here and I apologize up front. Sometimes Wikipedia helps society by providing information about a subject which is obviously dubious. By deleting this, I think we give readers less information about the dubiousness of the subject, as sold to modern buyers. I'd prefer keeping it. I have a suspicion this article might eventually gain support from classic sources from a pre-enlightenment era in which this degree was better regarded and sometimes granted by notable institutions. BusterD (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I went WP:Bold and created an article that I believe is the right place for a redirect, so Deleted and Redirect to Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've changed my vote to support this option. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has adequate sourcing and asserts notability. riffic (talk) 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, asserting notability is not enough for WP:GNG. We actually require multiple sources with significant coverage, not just passing mentions of the subject. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is this conceptually really greatly different from any degree purporting a study of matters from the nonscientific magisteria? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , yes, this is conceptually different from legitimate nonscientific degrees because it is offered exclusively by unaccredited Diploma mills, and is a fake or bogus degree. Diploma mills have no scholastic requirements, only the payment of a fee for the parchment. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect (optionally also delete) to Degrees offered by unaccredited institutions of higher education. No clear indication of notability, and the new article covers the topic more usefully than many articles on the various individual fake degrees would.  Sandstein   12:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep accurately describes the subject as quackery/has appropriate criticism and has appropriate references. No one reading any segment of this article is going to think it's a legit degree, so it isn't misleading. I see no problem. Buffs (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has good secondary sources that clearly and directly discuss its illegitimacy, giving it notability for being illegitimate.  Pinguinn     🐧   11:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent RS, then it passes WP:GNG. It's quite clear that it does and, while it might be offered by quacky institutions, that the article subject is itself a degree that's kinda odd is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON. There are whole dissertations that have covered diploma mills and treat this topic significantly, and this sort of degree has been discussed since the 1960s and continued in discussions through modern times. I think that there's enough to meet GNG, and that the article can be improved is not a reason for deletion. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this nonsense. The sources have too little to do with the subject matter. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.