Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of family relations in American football (2nd 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

List of family relations in American football
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete This is an unreferenced list about people who have more than one person in their family connected to football. Aside from that, there is no organizing principle. This list was previously discussed at Afd a year and a half ago here. This topic has not been the subject, so far as I have been able to discern, of any secondary works. There is a reason why the article remains unsourced, it is inherent in the lack of connectivity between the pieces of information. At best one could find references that say the X is the son of Y, but nothing to relate the package of information together. As such, compiling this list is original research. Even if the list had a footnote for every individual fact, the composite would be lacking notability under the guidelines. The topic lacks notability. Notability cannot be inherited from the individual players. Lists are not exempt from article requirements. This is not a navigation list. This is essentially a trivia list, without notability. To paraphrase WikiProject Laundromat, it is nonnotable, nonencyclopedic, and nonfunctional. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do note which is not so much about the topic, as it is a father's day lead-in to discuss three rookies. However it does mention the topic in passing. --Bejnar (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This was clearly notable last time and nothing has happened to make it "un-notable" (which is not temporary anyway). I agree that sources could be added and the list could be cleaned up significantly, but those are editing issues and not deletion issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wow.  Notwithstanding the previous AfD in which 5 or 6 editors expressed a split opinion, it would appear that this article has serious original research problems per WP:OR, notability issues per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, and fundamental living person issues per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS.  If we are going to keep this article, someone better get busy addressing these issues.  If not, my ultimate vote in this AfD will be a strong thumb's down.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question How is this original research as a whole? For example, there's tons of coverage in the media about Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning... or the Bowden family... or Lou and Skip Holtz... or Bo and Carl Pelini...  I agree that the article needs work, and there may be some OR in the article for specific links to family members, but the whole list?  Maybe it should be modeled after List of association football families or maybe List of family relations in the NHL... --Paul McDonald (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also how do you get "5 or 6 editors expressed a split opinion" in the previous AFD? I count 3 keeps, 1 delete changed to neutral (which was me), 1 editor made a comment, and 1 more suggested a "severe re-write" ... ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, there are exactly ZERO sources for this article. That presents a serious BLP violation.  As the article presently stands, anyone could delete virtually 100% of the content because there are no sources in an article about living people.  That means you have to show a source for every family cluster where one of the family members is still living.  Those are the basic BLP rules; no source for a statement about a living person, then it's subject to immediate deletion.  There are dozens, if not hundreds of living persons included on this list.  Show me the sources.
 * Notability must apply to the list topic as a whole, not individual family clusters. Individual notability, or individual family notability, does not impart notability to the group or list.  Multiple independent, reliable sources must be included that discuss the topic of football families; not individual football families, but multiple football families.  I assume these sources can be found, but it may take some work.  In the absence of such sources, this list is not entitled to any presumption of notability under any SNG I'm aware of.  It must satisfy WP:GNG: again, that means show me the sources.
 * Original research? In the absence of an independent reliable source, telling me that Skip Holtz is the son of Lou Holtz is OR.  How do you know that?  No Wikipedia editor's personal knowledge can serve as a "source."  Show me something in writing.  Again, show me the sources.
 * Bottom line: we cannot continue to accept these editor-compiled list articles when there is no sourced evidence for the subject's notability, nor can we accept any article about living persons that is completely lacking in footnoted sources. Let's stop making excuses for the editors who create these sourceless articles, and hold them to our basic project standards.  Come on, Paul.  You know better than this&mdash;you would never personally produce an unsourced article like this and expect it to survive AfD.  It's ridiculous.  If this article survives this AfD "as is," I am inclined to simply delete every unsourced statement about a living person per WP:BLP.  If you or any other credible editor wants to work on it, I would be willing to give them a reasonable time to cure the BLP problems&mdash;after we have properly established the notability of the article's subject (i.e. "American football families").  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" -- note that it does not state that all material must be sourced.  Is it a good idea to source it? Sure.  Do I want to have it done?  Yes.  Would it make the article better?  Of course.  But only contentious material that is unsourced should be deleted.  I don't think anyone (other than you maybe) would argue that the Manning family is not related or that the Holtz family is not related.  How do I know this?  I've watched ESPN once or twice in the last decade.  Yes, broadcast television news shows generally count as reliable sources so we can dig that up and post it as a source.  A friendly word of caution: if you blank this article now during after an AFD that passes keep as you seem to assert you want to do, that would probably be considered a bad faith edit and could lead to... well... bad stuff.  So I hope you don't take that route.  As to your other arguments, I'm going to wait for you to go back and read WP:BLP first and then tackle the rest.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, Paul, I would be grateful if you would not put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested that I would start deleting unsourced sections of this article during this AfD.  Please do not suggest otherwise.  It's not what I said, and I would be grateful if you would strike through your comment above that suggests otherwise.
 * Your reading of WP:BLP put the emphasis on the words "contentious material," even helpfully providing a link to the Wiktionary definition of "contentious." My reading of WP:BLP puts the emphasis on "any material challenged or likely to be challenged."  Please consider the numerous family relationships asserted in this article as challenged by me.  In the absence of a reliable source for most of the several hundred family relationships asserted in this article, there is no basis for you or any other participant in this discussion to assert any such family relationship.  I'll spot you Lou and Skip Holtz, as well as Archie, Peyton and Eli Manning.  Do you have sources for the rest?  If so, please add them to the article.
 * ESPN television sports news is a "reliable source?" That's news to me (if you'll pardon the pun).  I have just re-read WP:RS, and it specifically mentions "reliable, published sources"; it makes no mention of any verbal sources, live or recorded, anywhere within the four corners of the policy.  The word "published" generally implies something in writing.  If you have authority for your proposition that television news is a reliable source per WP:RS, I would be grateful if you would provide it.  If you're correct, I will have just learned something new about Wikipedia today.  If you're asserting that a published written transcript of ESPN sports news might be considered a reliable source, that's an entirely different kettle of fish, and would be more consistent with my current understanding of WP:RS.  Of course, you would need to produce that written transcript.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Citing sources. Also, you might want to read the article on Publishing--it's not all "print media".
 * I was wrong and mis-read what you wrote, your threat was to start deleting stuff after the AFD was cleared and not during. That could also be considered disruptive, but I'll strike and modify my comments to more accurately reflect what you did write.
 * You are challenging everything on the article except the Holtz's and the Mannings? I guess you can, but that seems disruptive to me.  Unless there's a reason, I like to assume good faith in my fellow editors.  But if you insist, please feel free to discus that at the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, the section you cited is titled "Film, TV, or video recordings." Note the word "recordings."  If you have a recording of a particular episode of an ESPN news program and can cite the name of the producer, the date and time of production, you may have a source (even though the section cited does not mention TV news, only "film, TV and video recordings").  A video recording is simply the audio-visual version of a written transcript.  However, you cannot rely on Paul's memory of unidentified ESPN programs which you have watched over the years; Paul's memory of various unidentified ESPN programs is not a reliable source by any stretch of the policy cited.
 * If demanding that we source BLPs is now considered "disruptive," my friend, Wikipedia has far bigger problems than this little old list article. It's not a matter of assuming the good faith of my fellow editors; it's a matter of providing an actual reliable source to support the facts asserted.  For every good-faith editor, there is at least one bad-faith vandal, and good-faith editors make mistakes and include inaccurate/untrue/false information in at l;east one of Wikipedia's four million articles every minute of every hour of every day.  It's not a matter of good faith per WP:AGF; it's a matter of verifiable accuracy of content per WP:V.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Film, TV, or video recordings" is different from "Film recordings, TV recordings, or video recordings" Broadcast journalism has long been considered reliable sources (although present-day political activists would definitely argue that).
 * Demanding reliable sources is not disruptive. Unnecessarily demanding sources upon threat of deletion of content could be though.  You're really going out on a limb here to claim that the whole page was a bad-faith compilation of incorrect data.  That seems to be your assertion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, cut the bullshit. Please.  As the article existed at the inception of this AfD, it included precisely ZERO references of any kind.  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  By my rough count, the article, as it existed at the start of the AfD, included over 250 individual persons, over 60 percent of whom are still living.  The article made various assertions of family relationships among American football players (fathers, sons, brothers, twins, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc.), but without a single source to substantiate any of those relationships.  BLPs created after March 18, 2010 are now subject to deletion by the new BLPPROD procedure applicable to sourceless BLP articles.  No sources in a BLP?  It can no be prodded and deleted after 10 days (if it was created after March 18, 2010).  Other sourceless BLPs are subject deletion by AfD; WP:BLP expressly states that sourceless BLP articles that are not subject to BLPROD are subject to AfD.  My personal take on that is a list that includes multiple BLPs requires at least one source for every living person included.
 * Contrary to your assertion, I have not assumed that the entire article is a "bad-faith compilation of incorrect data." Again, please quit putting words in my mouth and please stop mischaracterizing my arguments.  At some point it feels like a political campaign.  Frankly, I don't need to assume anything; undeniably this list was an unverified compilation of data unsupported by reliable sources.  This list, as it existed at the start of this AfD, included 150+ BLPs for which there was not a single source for any one of them or the article as a whole.  New BLPs without sources are now subject to being prodded and deleted; and sourceless BLPs that were created before March 18, 2010 are subject to AfD scrutiny.  This is not a matter of assuming the good faith or bad faith of my fellow editors; it is a matter of producing reliable sources for BLP articles.  And, Paul, you need to get used to it.  Every time Wikipedia has another BLP controversy, the BLP rules are going to get tightened.  Wikipedia is not going to retreat to the days of accepting unverified and sourceless BLPs.  In case you missed my point (or chose to ignore it again), the "good faith" of the editors who create a BLP article is irrelevant in this context.
 * As for broadcast news shows being reliable sources, that remains unclear under WP:RS, because WP:RS makes absolutely no mention of broadcast news, TV episodes, films, or other A/V recordings. Not one.  You have cited a section for the proper citation format for such recordings.  The existence of a proper citation format for films, TV episodes, and video recordings does not necessarily imply that they are treated as reliable sources under WP:RS.  Furthermore, the point is moot in the present context.  Neither you nor anyone else has produced an ESPN news broadcast episode, or any similar TV source, that would satisfy the citation format you referred to.  Until someone does, we are arguing about an interesting hypothetical with no direct bearing on the present AfD.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If your intent is to badger me out of the discussion, you've succeeded. I leave any interpretation of this to whoever closes the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Paul, my intent is not to badger you out of the discussion. You're a big boy, and I know that you can deal with a robust discussion of policy.  I can and will object when I believe my own arguments are being misconstrued.  That having been said, I respect your article work, we have worked well together on other WP:CFB concerns, and I can say with complete sincerity that I only want your honest, but informed opinion in these discussions.  None of us are, or realistically can be, experts on every element of the applicable Wikipedia policy and guidelines.  Everyone brings something to the table in the way of knowledge, and you bring a wealth of knowledge and informed opinions to the table.  I apologize if I "badgered" you, and I respectfully ask that you rejoin the discussion.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per comments of editor Cbl62 in the last AFD on this, which I quote:  "The article needs sourcing and could use some clearer criteria, but such familial lists strike me as being notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic.  There are similar lists for many other sports.  See List of family relations in the NHL, List of rugby league families, List of association football families of note, List of second-generation Major League Baseball players, List of boxing families, List of family relations in professional wrestling, List of professional sports families, and even List of chess families. Rather than deleting these lists, some thought should be given to determining how to improve them, perhaps taking the best elements from each to develop a good template for a sport-by-sport family lists. Or perhaps limiting the lists to siblings and direct lineage (children, parents, grandparents) or participants in the sport at the highest level.  For example, here's a well-sourced list of 187 sets of fathers and sons who played in the NFL.  And here's another well-sourced list of 335 sets of brothers who played in the NFL"..... and..."As for the notability of the topic, I recall seeing many articles over the years discussing the prevalence of family relations at the top levels of athletics.  While I don't have time right now to search for them, here's one such article from The New York Times: Dad-Son Duos Run Up the Score. See also Greatest father-son combos from ESPN.com." (quoted from Cbl62's comment in last AFD about this article).  -- do  ncr  am  22:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doncram, notability is only one problem of several. This list is one giant BLP violation.  In the absence of footnoted sources, every statement about a living person is subject to deletion.  It's been 20 months since the last AfD.  When are we going to enforce our core Wikipedia policies?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dirtlawyer1, I will assume you are correct that there are sourcing problems. This is not appropriate for AFD.  I suggest you could proceed by giving notice at the Talk page that you believe there are sourcing problems, and that you could proceed to remove items from the page.  I suggest you copy those items to the Talk page for further discussion, so that the information is not lost from view by editors, who may well come up with adequate sourcing for removed items.  This AFD forum is not appropriate for your complaints.  You don't get to punish transgressions by having the topic deleted.  It has already been decided by consensus that the topic is notable / valid for an article.  You seem to have valid concerns, but AFD is not the way to go.  By the way, I am cooperating somewhat with a parallel effort by editor Mootros, who disputes the sourcing/inclusion of many items within another list article, where I appreciate he is merely removing the items, after long notice, to the Talk page.  Cheers, -- do  ncr  am  23:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Doncram, please see my comments to Tagishsimon below regarding whether AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss this article's various issues. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I concur with Doncram's advice, even though I came to this AfD with delete in mind. I've now added the first reference ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep going, Tagishsimon, and add at least one source/reference for every living person in the list. Then there will probably be very little to argue about.  (Sorry about being facetious.  But you get the point.  Adding one source that does not include every living person on the list does not solve this article's sourcing problems.)  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do get the point, yes. But a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step, as someone once said. IN the same way, I take it that you get the point: AfD is not for articles which are notable but within which there is nothing but unreferenced stuff. Although that said, AfD is a great way of bringing such problems to a head, and so though I think this should not ave been brought to AfD, I very much support you having brought it to AfD since that action looks as if it is leading to a solution. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tahishsimon, a couple of clarifications are required . ..
 * First, I did not initiate this AfD. Editor Bejnar filed this AfD.  I did not know the article existed until it popped on the American football-related list of AfD articles.  I have simply commented on the obvious issues.
 * Second, there was a previous AfD 20 month ago in which a total of three editors affirmatively voted to "keep," and the nominator was an implied "delete." Several other editors expressed various concerns.  As I'm sure you know, consensus can change, and 20 months is a long time in Wikipedia.  We are not bound by the previous AfD; this AfD will determine present consensus.
 * Third, this article has had a multiplicity of unresolved notability, original research, BLP, reliable source and verifiability issues since its creation, and AfD is an entirely appropriate forum to address them, including the BLP concerns. In fact, under the new WP:BLPPROD policy, any BLP article created after March 18, 2010 may be prodded if it completely lacks sources and deleted after 10 days.  Any article that can be prodded may also be more fully discussed at AfD.  While this article was created in 2008, the new BLPPROD policy would seem to imply that BLP issues may be appropriately raised at AfD, too.  Furthermore, WP:AfD expressly states that notability, original research and verifiability are valid grounds for deletion.  This is not my tilting at windmills to make a point.  Bejnar was perfectly correct in bringing this second AfD when the article's notability is in doubt and these other problems have not been addressed.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't care - I do have two major problems with it. The first is that it is incredibly unreadable.  For example, with the entry on the Garretts, you really have to hunt to find the second name in the list because there are so many teams.  A table might work better, but as it is, it's just a sprawling assortment of data.  My second major problem is the lack of citations.  I'm sure that many or even most of the relationships are cited in the articles about the people themselves, but there are some redlinked people who are just plain non-notable.  I would bet that just about every NFL player has a relative somewhere along the line who played football ... so this is potentially a very big list. --B (talk) 04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you'll allow me the time, I'll try and overhaul it this weekend. Add sources, convert to table form, add some criteria (i.e. had to play as a pro) - what do people think? GiantSnowman 07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Giant Snowman, I think that is exactly what is needed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * it has begun... GiantSnowman 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, in the article, provide sources that relate to the notability of the topic and not just a laundry list of X is the son of Y type citations. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Call for close AFD is decided, pretty much all parties agree the topic was and is valid;  this should be closed. IMO, assertions that the AFD was "justified" are simply wrong; AFD is not the forum for complaining about individual BLP concerns within an article. Obviously the topic is valid and appropriately sourced material is available for the article. It's a waste of time for more people to consider this. Someone please close this. -- do ncr  am  18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Reject call for early close. Sorry, Doncram, but I disagree, and my disagreement is based on the applicable AfD policies and guidelines. This AfD was opened only two days ago on October 17, 2012. Currently, there are a total of three "keep" !votes, and one "delete" !vote&mdash;not exactly an overwhelming majority after 48 hours of discussion. Numerous problems regarding notability, original research, verifiability, reliable sources, and, yes, the application of the sourcing rules to BLP articles, have been raised and remain to be addressed in the article (which is now in the process of being rewritten). Contrary to various mistaken assertions in the comments above, let's review the applicable guidelines and policies regarding early closure.

Per Deletion process, "In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors ample time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe.  Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the full seven days." There is no reason to close this AfD early; discussion is still under way and the article is now being rewritten to address the several valid concerns raised in the discussion above.

It has also been asserted above that once the article subject's notability is established, AfD is not the appropriate forum to address the article's other problems raised above, and in particular, that AfD is not the appropriate forum to address BLP concerns. That is simply incorrect. Per Deletion policy, here are several deletion criteria relevant to this particular AfD (text is quoted from the linked original):


 * "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)";
 * "Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons";
 * "Any other use of the article . . . that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace."

Furthermore, Guide to deletion specifically mentions "original research" as a basis for AfD (again, the text is quoted from the linked original):

"All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.

"This guide deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are often listed or 'nominated' on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. . ..

"When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly."

Doncram, I'm sorry to be the skunk at the party, but AfD is appropriate not only for notability problems, but also those related to BLP violations, original research, and anything else "that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace." As I have attempted to impart in my comments above, I am not crusading for the deletion of this article. I am advocating that the article be fixed and these perfectly valid concerns be addressed and the article be kept, but if those concerns are not addressed, I see no reason why it should be kept.

Frankly, rather than an early close, I would recommend that the article be relisted to give Giant Snowman, who has volunteered to undertake a major rewrite and restructuring of the article, the time to do so. I have volunteered to help him do so to the extent my available time permits. It would be a gesture of collegiality and evidence of commitment to upholding the applicable Wikipedia policies if the other the "keep" !voters would also volunteer to help with that rewrite effort. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We're just repeating ourselves. I disagree, AFD is inappropriate:  any BLP concerns can be resolved, have been resolved i think, by removing the vast part of the article already.  The guideline ""Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" is about biography articles.  This is not a biography article, it is a list, there is NO WAY this is going to be deleted, it has already be considered in 1st nomination.  It is a waste of time for AFD to be used to further a complaint campaign about the quality of a valid-article.  I think it is wrong to use AFD to attempt to force something that is not appropriate for AFD.  I accept however, that given your disagreement, that the 7 day AFD clock will run.  I am not motivated to help develop the article by your/others attempt to force development inappropriately.  Let's stop any back and forth, though;  I won't respond any further. -- do  ncr  am  22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are repeating ourselves to a large degree, Doncram. Having made your opinion known about the "appropriateness" of this AfD, I respect your desire to disengage.  Having said that, however, I cannot let your misreading of WP:BLP immediately above go uncorrected.  WP:BLP specifically states that it applies to all articles, not just those that are primarily biographical in nature: "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."  (Please see WP:BLPSOURCES.)


 * Keep Notability of the topic is shown by the sources mentioning family ties, although more would be better; Notability of the people is shown by blue links & sources on their pages. Sources actually showing the relationship would be nice, but I doubt are necessary, as they shouldn't be contentious, for most players with the same last name.    Th e S te ve   05:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as I hope my edits have shown, the list has definite potential, and it's not a trivial topic - I feel it needs improving, not deleting. Help always appreciated...! GiantSnowman 14:26, 20 October 2012 (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.