Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Schlossberg (5th nomination)


 * 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. I don't think we can quite call it a consensus to keep, but that's the clear majority opinion, and the chance to obtain a "delete" consensus in any future nomination appears remote in the extreme.  Sandstein  17:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

John Schlossberg
AfDs and DRVs for this article:
 * Deletion review – 3 November 2013
 * Deletion review – 23 February 2014
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been brought up many, many times at AfD, and having read through the arguments of past listings, there are sources, but his coverage is because he's a Kennedy, and so are his activities. Thus, this is WP:NOTINHERITED. Kennedy-related activities aside, Schlossberg is a non-notable college student. If he goes into politics, and makes something of himself therein, then we can consider an article, but in three years, nothing has shown itself to meet either GNG or independent notability. MSJapan (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is an Essay in the series "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Has anyone made that argument? No. This is the 5th AfD and it's getting ridiculous. Schlossberg is notable because he has tons of sources available and easily passes the GNG notability guidelines. The mistake the nom is making is attributing "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" to the sources themselves. The nom is also ignoring the many reliable sources that cover Schlossberg and making a personal judgement that being a college student is non-notable regardless of how many sources the person has. The nom says he must "make something of himself" before he is notable. This is a bias and/or misunderstanding of how notability works. -- Green  C  01:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply - Sorry, it makes a big difference. From that section: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."  So it's not at all "an argument to avoid." Would Schlossberg be hosting Profiles in Courage or be at the Kennedy Library for big events if he wasn't a Kennedy? No, because those are Kennedy family events. Anything he does for or with the Kennedys is therefore not usable to ascertain GNG.  Having read what the result of that section is, it seems like a pretty valid line of argument - I'm not sure why it's in there as an argument to avoid. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The argument to be avoided is the notion that notability is inherited just from having notable relatives. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As written, nothing here satisfies any of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion tests. I'm sure that he'll eventually qualify for an article on his own merits, probably WP:NPOL (duh), but nothing in this article convinces me that he warrants one now. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future when an actual notability rule can actually be met. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability is inherited outside of Wikipedia; thus, the considerable coverage given to someone simply for being related to someone highly notable. He passes the GNG. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat, MSJapan, and WP:BIOFAMILY, which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person". Nothing notable about him outside of family affiliations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He's notable because he has been frequently covered in RS. It's not our place to decide he's not notable because his coverage is because of who he is related to. Do you understand the difference? —Мандичка YO 😜 17:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability (people), the notability criteria for biographies, indicates that who a person is does affect to an extent whether he/she is notable. See the WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:BIOFAMILY sections for more. The sheer number of references (regardless of reliability) in this case existing that mention him is entirely moot since family affiliations alone are not enough to warrant an article and he isn't noted for anything significant on his own. WP:NOTNEWS also states that people or events simply being mentioned in the news aren't always notable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BIOFAMILY says "mention their family members in passing", these sources are full on about Schlossberg and his accomplishments, they are not "passing" mentions, they extend over years. Your contention that he has done nothing notable is your opinion, but one the press evidently disagrees, as do I. He has done things. -- Green  C  18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember that WP:BIOFAMILY also states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person" as I previously noted, and was trying to emphasize that family affiliations alone aren't enough to make someone notable. As for "the press evidently disagrees", see WP:NOTNEWS, which states the following:
 * "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be"
 * "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."
 * The number of sources and detail on him is therefore entirely moot since they're on things that are family-affiliated (i.e. JFK's 50th death anniversary ceremony) and/or trivial (i.e. Yale activities). Meeting WP:Notability (people) is more nuanced than simply being covered in reliable sources. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 22:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Who ever said he is notable simply for being a Kennedy? He has done things (writer, presenter, NGO founder). There are sources that talk about those things. But it doesn't even matter, people can be notable *for no reason at all*, there is no requirement they "do" something. The rule your quoting is a general guideline; when a person has so many sources devoted entirely to that person over many years in many magazines and newspapers, is internationally known, it defies imagination how they could not be notable. As has been confirmed over and over in these many AfDs and DRs. Also worth mentioning the article has been visited 10,269 times in the last 30 days and is linked by 190 articles, though I know if other people derive utility from the article is not your concern. -- Green  C  01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Schlossberg has still done nothing that was notable. He was involved as a minor player in some endevors that even the leading figure in is not quite notable. He is not notable. The fact that he has been mentioned in some news stories does not make him notable. He is not notable. Some of the past arguments have been that he will inevitably do notable things in the future. Well, it has been a few years and he has done nothing to make himself even a little notable. His most notable accomplishment is graduating from Yale, and for someone from the socio-economic background and family he is that is no accomplishment at all. Being a member of award committees, writing for hiscollege paper (even if he had been editor that would not make him notable) and being a guest at a celebration of the 50th anniversary of something related to his grandfather in no way make him notable. If you read the criteria about what makes someone notable, nothing about Schlossberg makes him notable. Anything that might be worth including in an encyclopedia can be mentioned in the article on his mother.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well we disagree that he has not done something notable. I think he has. In cases of disagreement it would nice to stick to the core Guideline which is stated at WP:GNG. The sources are the arbitrator. -- Green  C  18:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What notable thing has Schlossberg ever done? Name one.Being a college student is in and of itself never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He is a writer for which he has been written about in the press. He is an awards presenter, for which the press has written about him. He co-founded ReLight, for which he was written about in the press. The sources should be the arbitrator of notability, the sources clearly believe him to be notable per WP:GNG. -- Green  C  01:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He writes for a college paper, which is not enough to be notable. He has presented minor awards, which is not enough to make him notable. Relight is not notable, and his involvement in it was even more minor. Wikipedia is not news and everyone who gets mentioned in news sources is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Winning awards at times makes people notable, presenting awards almost never does. He is an award presenter as a default due to his family connections, not because of anything he did himself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability established, neither in the article nor in the responses here.Jeppiz (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As I mentioned in previous AFDS for this and the deletion review, he gets significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passes WP:GNG just fine. The article currently references plenty of sources in it.  The fact that they briefly mention his famous grandfather is irrelevant.  That isn't the only reason he is getting coverage.  People magazine, and Today  both have articles that list information known about him, seeing him as notable enough to do that.  The New York Post gives a lengthy article about him.  Just look through the sources references in the article already.   D r e a m Focus  13:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * New York Post is not a reliable source, just saying. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 14:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been reliable in previous AfDs and DRs. There is no consensus at WP:RSN that NYP is unreliable. Wikipedia link to it thousands of times. -- Green  C  14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - many of the !voters here confuse "notability" with "importance". It's not necessary that somebody do something notable, WP:GNG says that somebody must be the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Note that the sources are not required to be reliable, they are required to be independent (which makes the haggling about the NY Post moot). If there is much speculation about the subject in the press, which is deemed interesting to their readers, then the subject attains notability without actually doing something. I'll cite again Prince George of Cambridge who is much talked about in the press and thus passes GNG without having said a word yet. Kraxler (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sources actually DO have to be independent AND reliable. Don't overlook the necessity of reliable sources for articles. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 01:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out, I must have got confused too. (That happens when one continues to edit Wikipedia until after midnight...) I corrected my statement. But my !vote stands, the sources in the article, and more found in web searches, being reliable enough. Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep He has also written opinion pieces for the New York Times, USAToday and the Huffington Post. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not policy, and states This is why notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent: inherited and inherent notability claims can't be verified with evidence which is not true in this case as notability can be verified by third-party sources. These sources should not be dismissed because of the activity Kennedy was involved in as notability is a property of a subject and it doesn't matter if editors consider the activities covered by those sources not to be notable in themselves. Also, WP:FAILN, which is a guideline, states For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
 * As for assertions that Keep votes are advocating including his article simply because he is a Kennedy, arguments for deletion might also advocate deleting this article because he is a Kennedy. Either consideration is based on fame which is different from notability. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has written opinion pieces, but those are not "third-party independent sources." Also, they are written because they give a "Kennedy perspective", not because the subject has achieved a level of knowledge in an area.  The NYT piece is about "JFK's legacy as seen by his grandson." Therefore, if he was not that relation, he would not be writing that article. The USA Today piece is about two people receiving the Kennedy "Profiles in Courage" Award, and the HuffPo is just a verbatim copy of that same article.  That's why just posting links is not automatic notability.  I'd also note the last part of Schlossberg's mini-bio on the HuffPo article is "grandson of JFK."  So again, these sources are related to his family connections - he didn't write the "Profiles" pieces as an independent person - he presented the awards.  So effectively they're not independent of the subject, and again, are related to something he does because of his family, not because of himself. MSJapan (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Liz, Kraxler and DreamFocus. There is more than enough coverage in reliable sources out there to prove he is notable. Calidum T&#124;C 14:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America1000 15:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and John Pack Lambert. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, and not renominate for 2 years at least. I am not really sure about the article, but I incline to keep on the basis of likely increasing notability, but that's a weak argument. More important, "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability." (my italics) says very clearly that it sometimes will be. In the case of this close a relationship to a truly famous person, it probably is. Most important, that repeated renominating an article until it happens to get deleted is wrong. Considering the variable participation in afd discussions, almost anything can be removed that way regardless of the merits. We need some degree of stability--if something repreated deleted cannot be kept without DelRev, then there's a case fora stable keep also.  DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I second a 2-year moratorium on future AfD nominations of this article. Enough time and effort was wasted already. Kraxler (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:EFFORT and WP:NOTAGAIN, which are both discouraged arguments for AFD discussions per WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 04:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAGAIN says "This is a good argument in some circumstances" and this is one of them. But Kraxler wasn't even making a !vote argument, rather voicing his frustration with so many AfDs. WP:EFFORT is about work on the article not the AfD as Kraxler clearly says. Essays are not rules or policy, they are not black and white, they leave plenty of room for other interpretation and POV, they are generic by design. And when overused they are irritating :) -- Green  C  05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support a two-year moratorium on future nominations. It is absurd this is now in the fifth round of AfD. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually this is already the 7th round, including two at DRV. Kraxler (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry for the wall of text, but...I read every AfD before I nominated again.  Plenty of time has been given to find sources for this article, and yet nothing has appeared to meet notability.  As a matter of fact, there is nothing new or significant in any of his coverage - even the People article consists of "5 Things To Know about Jack Schlossberg," one of which is that he has "Kennedy hair."  Nevertheless, the same policy-based arguments came up to delete, and now we've even got "likely future notability" (WP:CRYSTAL?) as a keep statement now.  No matter how many times this is kept, there's nothing there to improve the article, because that is absolutely typical for an 18-year-old who then goes to college for four years.  We know college students are not generally notable - can anyone even name me anyone from their college paper?  Every source I located and read indicates that Schlossberg's entire notability at this time is based on the fact that he is a Kennedy, and particularly JFK's grandson.  Nine of the eleven sources mention JFK or the Kennedy family directly in the headline.  Of the other two, one is People (already mentioned as a puff piece) and one is Today.  His own written articles are either about presenting the (Kennedy-presented) "Profiles in Courage" awards, or writing about "the legacy of his grandfather." That's the extent of thr three articles he has written, and one is a copy of another.  Both People and USA Today, and even NECN, emphasize that he is a Kennedy - that's what makes him coverage-worthy to them, and WP:NOTNEWS might apply here.  He simply has done nothing to meet GNG; we are forgetting that there is no "significant third-party coverage" - it extends to "EMT trainee at Yale, does Kennedy family stuff, grandson of JFK."  That's literally all we know about him after three or four years of trying to do an article.  So we have a choice - delete due to no notability, or admit that, contrary to policy, simply "because he's a Kennedy, he's notable."  That's what we're left with here. MSJapan (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether he meets GNG or not, there is no doubt that WP:NOTNEWS (which is policy) applies as I mentioned above. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 17:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to rehash it, but I pointed out already in my !vote that some !voters confuse "notability" with "importance" or "achievements". notability is sometimes attained by achievements (like holding an important elective office, under WP:NPOL; or playing in pro football, under WP:FOOTY; people who qualify under these rules don't need any over coverage, only the facts and their existence must be proven, possibly by primary sources), but mostly notability is established by being talked about (that's the essence of WP:GNG) . It's not necessary for the college boy to do anything, if the press (i.e. multiple reliable sources independent of the subject) talk about him, he becomes notable. WP:NOTNEWS applies to ephemeral mentions of news items that happen and pass, not to somebody who is the continued target of press coverage. Kraxler (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, but I think what you are missing is the causative. Schlossberg is covered, yes, but not because he's Schlossberg, but because he's "Grandbaby JFK."  Hosting the Profiles in Courage isn't independent - he hosts it because he's a Kennedy family member - it's a Kennedy thing JFK started.  When every headline about him mentions JFK or his connection to JFK, then it's reasonable to think that JFK is the point of interest, not Schlossberg.  It's not "what did Schlossberg do?" it's "what is JFK's grandson up to today?"  The point of interest (and therefore his notability) is not Schlossberg as an individual, it's what he is and what he does as a descendant of JFK.  If you don't believe me, read the sources.  Ignore the headline, even; they all start the same way in the text. Then compare it with, say, George Clooney, who is often identified as "the actor," not "the son of Rosemary."  In spite of a famous relationship, that is an example of personal notability.  Schlossberg hasn't got that at all, because nobody cares what he does aside from being a Kennedy.  Is there any coverage of his EMT training?  No.  Has anyone critiqued his Yale articles, or commented on his academic work?  No.  Are they certain that you need to know who his grandfather was? Definitely. MSJapan (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are most surely about Schlossberg, and in-depth. Yes of course they all mention JFK's grandson (or "Grandbaby JFK" as you put it). That can't be avoided he will always be seen in that light even if he becomes President. Ignoring INHERIT which is an essay, the only real guideline that says anything directly on this is WP:BIOFAMILY which states "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." That would be true if there were no or few sources directly about Schlossberg, where he was only mentioned in passing or listed as a relative. The guideline goes on to confirm this: "Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." It does not say or imply that to become notable they must achieve something spectacular. All that is required is WP:GNG and that is easily done here. The argument that he doesn't meet GNG because the sources are nullified by BIOFAMILY is circular reasoning and illogical, nothing in the guidelines says to ignore reliable sources. --  Green  C  23:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The notability criteria for biographies (see WP:BIO) is actually more nuanced than simply the GNG requirement of being significantly covered in reliable secondary sources; one must also be noted for something on their own a.k.a. not based on family affiliations. Not sure if they have to be "spectucular" per se, but it has to be something they alone are noted for. As previously indicated, he's pretty much only noted for being Kennedy, which isn't enough on its own for a separate article. Additionally, being mentioned in the press doesn't always make one notable per the policy WP:NOTNEWS. We have specific notability criteria for specific types of articles for a reason, so WP:BIO should be put to use. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 23:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO is a Subject-specific guideline. According to WP:NOTE (top of page #1): "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". So yes it is simply about meeting GNG, though you are free to request otherwise if you can get consensus for it. The issue of NOTNEWS was correctly addressed by Kraxler 4 replies above. I believe we are spinning wheels here and repeating the same positions. -- Green  C  00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've oversimplified it. First of all, "presumed to be notable" doesn't automatically mean "is notable". Secondly, there's more on the page that talks about instances where a bio isn't notable enough (such as WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:BIO1E, though it is WP:BIOFAMILY that applies here). I mention NOTNEWS because much of the pieces in the press are just for trivial things (i.e. Attending ceremony for 50th anniversary of JFK's death). <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You've oversimplified things. First of all, WP:BIOFAMILY doesn't automatically means "is not notable". Secondly, there are things on that page that don't apply here.  --  Green  C  02:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Snuggums, it doesn't matter if some of the coverage in trivial. The coverage mentioned as passing the WP:GNG is all that matters, and that proves he is notable.   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't "all that matters", especially when a person is only noted for family affiliations. Also, I wasn't saying every possible scenario listed in BIO applied; my point was that WP:BIOFAMILY indicates family affiliations by themselves are not enough for someone to have a separate article. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He is getting ample coverage on his own. How he first got attention is irrelevant, he is now getting attention for achievements he does on his own.  He has two sisters, but they don't get the coverage he does.   D r e a m Focus  03:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Liz and DreamFocus, the borders are crossed on WP:BIOFAMILY when the coverage focuses on the PERSON instead of just having articles ON someone with a "Foo's brother Foo exists too and he has nice hair"! Seriously people can be the heavy focus of coverage just by having relations with highly notable people, his sister's don't get this kind of coverage so they fail WP:BIOFAMILY, sick of this new trend of removing people that are in real life encyclopedias just because they are the sister or daughter of someone more notable then them. Atleast this one went to AFD. GuzzyG (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please show me Schlossberg's entry in a "real-life" encyclopedia? I'm also not sure why the apparent overall quantity of coverage (regardless of depth) also seems to be outweighing quality (and depth) of coverage, when the latter is the underpinning of WP policy. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for the 6th and 7th nomination, then delete on the 8th. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Up to eleven. -- Green  C  04:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep iVote based on the well-known WP policy: Don't Cut Off Your Nose to Spite Your Face. ;-) I do understand all of the policy-related arguments for deletion.  And shudder to think how may spotlight-seeking grand-children the Karsashians might collectively produce. However, in this case the article is well-sourced, it get upwards of 500 hits a day - all, I assume, wanting to know what JFK's only grandson is doing with his life.  I simply fail to see the purpose of deleting the article.  WP is here to offer reliable info about things people want to know about.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Schlossberg is notable. He has dozen of sources available and easily passes the GNG notability guidelines. Katerina dunaway (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep After examining the appended cites and running his name through search engines, there is no question that he possesses clear notability in his own right. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:17, 28 July 2015 (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.