Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities


 * 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. I was close to calling this one no consensus, but in spite of some arguments that the delete !votes were unfounded in policy, the same holds true for many of the arguments for keeping, which seem to be based on claims that it is useful or citing the WP:ITSCRUFT essay. In the end there were no answers to the concerns that this list did not pass key guidelines and policies such as WP:V and WP:LIST. As there are no major objections to userfication of the material, I will make it available upon request. Shereth 21:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable list-cruft. ukexpat (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Rejectwater (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   —Rejectwater (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see more reasoned argument for deletion than "Non-notable list-cruft". This list will compile information that users would otherwise have to dredge through multiple articles for. The fact that there is only one entry in the table now points to the article's stub status, not any lack of notability. Currently only a couple of the university pages have listings of fictional alumni. Those alumni can be rolled into this article and it can be expanded to contain information that is not currently available elsewhere on Wikipedia, providing an article with worthwhile and convenient information for the reader.

I think that this is a case of: Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. and I hope that I have successfully rebutted the claim that this article is not related to human knowledge. --John (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I sort of like this list. I can think of a lot of fictional characters which should be added, if I had the time. Didn't Inspector Morse go to Oxford? (Can we include Jimmy Carter and Robert Redford as fictional alumni too? Oh dear, my bad.) Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - no content --T-rex 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not "no content"... stub content. Just because one user does not have access to all information needed (or time needed) to write the article does not mean that the article does not have merit.  That is why we have the "stub" designation so that we can get others to help flesh out the article.  I'm not sure why some people seem to be ready to throw out an article without even thinking about it.  There is *lots* of content out there for this article.  The content is about notable characters and notable schools and notable authors and notable sources.  Anyone interested in finding this information now has a bear of a time doing so, if they even can.  That means this article needs to be *written*, not deleted.  Unless someone has something more convincing that a two or four word unsubstantiated conclusion, perhaps it would be best if they gave their response more thought before posting it.  --John (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the time I made that comment the article had only one eighth of the very minimal content it currently has. Still the topic is not notable, and even after being nominated for deletion, nobody has made a serious attempt at giving the article a reasonable start. Despite the above (unsigned) comment this is still also "Non-notable list-cruft" and as such should be deleted.--T-rex 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At present, this list is biased to the USA. My concern is that if it is given a global viewpoint, it will be very long. For example, some research on all the links in University of Oxford in popular culture, would add hundreds of people to this list. University of Cambridge would add a whole lot more. That is just two universities. I am yet to be convinced that this list is a sensible project, so delete for now. --Bduke (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have a point. This list may be such a solid topic that it may have to have some lists broken out because they are too large for the main article... just like most of the other healthy list articles that are currently in Wikipedia.  Why that makes it worthy of a "delete for now" is not clear.  --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - this strikes me as synthesis that strays into the realm of Original Research. Yes, you can source every character and their school, but the topic itself was invented for the sake of the entry. "The content is about notable characters and notable schools and notable authors and notable sources"- this is true.  The authour has taken the knowledge of many of these otherwise unrelated notable topics, found a common thread, and made that thread the topic for an article.  Hence, Original Research.  Rejectwater (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So... let me make sure I understand this. If the information exists--in print even--but has never been synthesized into an article before, the the article should be deleted because it constitutes original research?  What you are saying is that unless the article is a copy of some other preexisting article, it is too original for Wikipedia.  I think that you are making a rather extreme interpretation of the text when it comes to the originality rules.  Taking material that is there already--especially if it is already on Wikipedia itself--and making it more easily found and read is *far* from original research.  How this rates a "strong delete" based on this reasoning certainly isn't clear.  --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have described is, in fact, original research. The information exists, in print, as part of information from separate topics, and you have synthesized it and turned it into a new topic.  A+B=C=>Original Research.  See my recent comments below for further detail on this.  Rejectwater (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the sources listed on the page are other Wikipedia entries. Rejectwater (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are. You've just refuted your own argument that this is too original.  The idea for the page may be original, but the information was already present in Wikipedia, and was ready to be synthesized.  Hopefully others will know sources other than Wikipedia, and add to the content here, presuming it is not deleted due to the quick succession of overly impulsive "delete" votes.  --John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The nominator proposed this article for deletion as "non-notable".  Lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources is proof of said status.  See my recent comments below for more detail on this.  Rejectwater (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete / Userfy The idea isn't bad, but this article is nowhere near ready for prime time in its current state. Townlake (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Um... when did it become a requirement for an article to be absolutely complete and "ready for prime time" in order to avoid deletion? If this was the criterion for deletion, we could save a ton of time by simply deleting every stub article in the system now.  How does this justify a vote of "Strong Delete" rather than a vote of "Improve the Article?"  --John (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

John (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC): (Edited 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

This is getting ridiculous. Every vote for deletion here is more based on personal taste than on reading the rules for adding material to Wikipedia. Even the one that sites a valid reason (original research) pointedly ignores the commenter's own observation that it is simply bringing together information that was already on Wikipedia. The only arguments I see for deletion so far amount to:
 * I don't like this material. I think it's cruft, and don't think it belongs (obviously unsubstantiated opinion, and moot to this discussion)
 * This article is a stub, and I think we should delete stubs because they aren't complete yet (ridiculous and should have been better thought out before being suggested)
 * Pulling together information that already exists into a new article is "original research," and as such the article should be deleted because it has never been written before. (Again, ridiculous.  If this was true, no new articles could ever be added to Wikipedia)
 * This article will have so much notable material--just from what is already on Wikipedia--that it will be too large. (This is really a reason to argue *for* the list, and for the breaking off of sub-lists if it gets too big--as occurs regularly here)

For goodness sake people, please think about what your argument really means before you cast your vote. Read Lists, Categories, lists, and navigational templates, Don't worry about performance, Summary style, No original research, and (most importantly) Deletion policy--and understand them--before deciding that your particular issue supports deletion of the article.

One critical thing to remember when voting (quoted from Deletion policy): If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. This article is already in compliance with this by virtue of having been tagged with and  ; therefore, arguments that it is too incomplete do not contribute to this discussion, but ignore points already addressed.


 * Comment WP:CIVIL. Townlake (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my comments above seem uncivil. It was not my intent to insult the authors so much as to put an end to ill considered votes to eliminate a valid article.  If someone can provide an unbiased and appropriate (as per Wikipedia rules, not as per opinion) reason why this article is not valid, then I would like to hear it, but I was getting frustrated with responses that voted "Delete" without citing a valid reason to delete the article rather than simply improve it. -- John (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I second that Userfy is appropriate for this article. Rejectwater (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NOTE. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."  Please provide links to reliable third-party sources that discuss this topic in order to demonstrate that it is notable.  Wikipedia is not a reliable third party source.  Note that the discussion is not whether Iron Man, Chuck, and/or Stanford are notable.  The discussion is whether the topic of the article, Fictional Alumni of Real Universities, is notable.  Also, WP:NOR.  ""Original research" is material for which no reliable source can be found. The only way you can show that your edit is not original research is to produce a reliable published source that contains that material."  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary (i.e., the discussion of this topic in reliable third party sources), I stand by my contention that the authour has taken knowledge of a variety of different notable topics, found a common thread among them, and turned that thread into a Wikipedia entry that is itself original research and not notable.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I dunno about the OR argument, seems to me something could be cobbled together there. Character development in fiction often involves inclusion of details that will either resonate or purposefully not resonate with the reader... using real universities as background elements would have some interplay with that.  This issue can probably be addressed; what I don't think can be addressed is the fact the criteria for inclusion in this list are so undefined, it may well include any fictional character anywhere in the world who even went to one day of university.  (The list table also includes irrelevant trivia right now in the last column, further confusing the list's purpose; and in fact the article currently contains multiple lists.)  Userfication for improvement and eventual re-introduction as a workable, editable list simply seems the best course of action at this point - I think this COULD work, but right now it fails LIST. Townlake (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NOR: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is a classic example of synthesizing information into original research.  You take Tony Stark who went to MIT (A), then you take Chuck who went to Stanford (B), and you realize that there are any number of fictional characters whose back story includes attending a real university (C). Once again, WP:NOR: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C."  Where is the third party source that discusses this topic?  Find one reliable third party source that discusses the topic of Fictional Alumni of Real Universities as an independent topic and you will prove this is not OR.  Rejectwater (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:NOT.  I would further contend that this article falls under the category of Wikipedia is not a directory under the heading of both Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics and Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

John (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC):

Link for block of text is here. Sorry to edit someone else's comments, but we need to be able to read the entired afd page. If you think this is out of line, revert or change it, but I feel that the block of text doesn't help. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC) I apologize if I am sounding frustrated here, but I have begun to feel like you are trying to justify your initial vote by "quoting scripture for your own purposes," and without keeping an open mind that your initial opinion may have been in error. Please... PLEASE... read the entire policy or guideline that applies before jumping to the conclusion that it supports deletion of the article. --John (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was considering doing that myself, but was unsure as to the protocol for changing what has been said in a discussion--at least by that much. This is the first time I've been involved in this process, and I hadn't read the guidelines for how to use this page until I had already responded.  Thanks for your help cleaning up. --John (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's totally cool. I appreciate your passion.  Have you checked out some possible secondary sources on these things from the library (granted, you'll need a good ILL system to do so).  Marvel and DC both have had numerous secondary compilations produced which may cover the issue at hand (though not explicitly).  Check out some omnibus Marvel or DC histories to see if they don't cover this sort of thing in any way.  Sources may exist for this.  Just because people !vote to delete doesn't mean that the article/list is hopeless. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment John, the way in which you're block-responding to notes here could be perceived as tendentious editing. I assume you mean well, but it is very difficult to engage in a conversation given the length and inconsistent formatting of your comments. Townlake (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Townlake. That is not intentional.  I'm new to this, but I'll try to keep it more succinct in the future and follow the bulleting guideline for responses.  I simply find that so often the rules cited are being taken out of context, and want to ensure that the context is brought back into the discussion.  It is getting frustrating to have people use one sentence out of a paragraph to justify a delete vote when the next or previous sentence explicitly contradicts their point.  I am also afraid that this discussion may be getting artificial stress put on it by someone who makes a hobby of Cruftcruft (i.e., Rejectwater, who explicitly claims an interest in that and in prolonging deletion discussions).  I don't really have the time to be spending defending this, and while I feel that it is an article worth keeping, people with more time and less diligence (in reading the rules) seem likely to get it killed.  At this point, I'm about ready to just let them do it and just bag the whole idea of expanding Wikipedia.  If it's this easy for someone to hijack my time and throw out my work then I'm not going to bother.  --John (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Lists of notable things in a fashion that is useful for t he reader are appropriate for the encyclopedia. Its a good way or organising material. i think that's what John wanted to say. I agree with him it's time that people stopped nominating article like these. The basic policy that lists are acceptable is quite well accepted. If one wants to change it, try the village Pump, but I think it wil be treated there too as a throughly -rejected proposal. DGG (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As has been said before, this is OR. The points about which primary sources apply aren't germane.  We are obviously not trying to use WP to promote Iron Man (or other fictional alums), so it might be appropriate to use primary sources to augment an article such as this.  Likewise the discussion shouldn't hinge on whether or not wikipedia is a reliable source.  The issue is not the reliability of the information or its truthfulness but the independence.  furthermore we are NOT making a WP:SYN argument.  It is not being asserted that a new viewpoint is being stitched together from originally disparate sources.  The question is simple.  Is the creation of a list like this original research in the sense that it generates a novel conclusion, concatenation or piece of information?  The answer is yes.  The letter and intent of the WP:OR policy (or guideline, or pillar, w/e) is to prevent wikipedia from being a place of first publication.  In the case of lists or compilations where no substantive creative or transformative effort exists, WP:OR allows them.  So a list of countries in the UN (even if it were not available as a whole in a secondary source) would be acceptable while a list of the wealthiest families in history would not be acceptable.  The lists LOOK the same, but the former requires no more effort from an editor than to ensure completeness and accuracy while the latter requires research and judgment.  A list of fictional characters who matriculated from real universities would fall into the latter column.  In order to populate this list (absent a secondary source), an editor would have to dig through primary sources and validate the information herself.  That is PRACTICALLY the definition of research. Protonk (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing this up. Well put.  Rejectwater (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (edit conflict), while I certainly think this is a good faith effort, I believe this list does fail some of the guidelines already pointed out above. It is not a topic that in and of itself has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, failing WP:N and WP:V. As per WP:LISTS, "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." While some of the characters may be notable (and most of them are not), the topic as a whole is not a notable one. There is no extensive reliable, significant coverage discussing the actual topic of "fictional alumni from real universities." I also must agree that with its current name and context, the list does not have enough focus. Notice in the "Characters to be added to the table," three of the items listed are focused lists or topics around that single university, rather than every university. Many university articles do not include this information, as it is generally considered to be trivia/trivial, rather than a notable aspect. The topic itself could also be considered an incorrect one, as most fictional works are set in fictional versions of the universities, based on the real world university, particularly those where the school may be featured in the series itself. All that said, if the list is kept, please fix the name to follow Wikipedia naming conventions (i.e. it should be List of fictional alumni of real universities. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had thought of the verifiability issue myself. Did Tony Stark go to the real MIT, or a fictional university of the same name?  How do we know?  Rejectwater (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Jut for grins, a source: The American College in Fiction Protonk (talk) 03:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the topic of the essay is the subject of the way colleges and college professors are portrayed in fiction, i.e. the use of colleges as a subject in fiction. As such it would not be relative to this discussion.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one: PRINGLE DAVID Imaginary People: A Who’s Who of Modern Fictional Characters (1987) Protonk (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject matter here is fictional characters. While what university each attended may be mentioned in a discussion of that character it is not the focus of the work.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not dismiss it out of hand. If a work like this has even a category for each fictional character with their alma matter on their, that is justification enough for this list to exist, some day.  I'm not saying the existence of this book (which I have no idea if it has such a category) means that the page can't be deleted on face (I'm still weak delete), but it means that the topic could easily be recreated from any work which has a list of characters including their education. Protonk (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Less presitigous, but more to the point: Famous TV Characters Who Went to College Protonk (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a blog. Blogs are not usually accepted as reliable sources.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From Forbes: Thurston Howell III Protonk (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Protonk. At the least, you seem to have addressed the issue of notability, since those sources seem likely to have covered the concept of universities attributed to fictional characters.  My main problem is that I didn't really have the time to own this list in the first place.  I only started it because I had seen the lack of it several times while trying to look up the attributed alma mater for a given character (even when I remembered seeing it in print/on screen, it was not always mentioned in the articles).  I had been hoping that I could start the stub and then let the community flesh it out, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.  I've already spent more time trying to save it than I could comfortably pull away from my studies, so I am going to have to bow out at this point and hope that someone with a better grasp on this process (perhaps yourself) can save the list.  I've made every point that I could and cited text verbatim from the policies and guidelines as to why this article belongs, and those points and citations have been brushed aside based on what seems to be a traditional interpretation of what the rules mean (one that ignores the actual text of them, sadly).  You and others who understand the traditional interpretations, and what people want to see to meet them may have better luck.  May good fortune follow you.  --John (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think categorizations befits this topic very well. Perhaps I'm not thinking about this intelligently enough but I see each alumnus having a category tag for each school and each school has a category page. That means that for fictional characters we would have to have a 'shadow' category for every school they attend. Maybe that is in line with what we would want to do, but I think we might be better off userifying this and checking some of the possible source material for some secondary coverage (not just the ones I linked, those were mostly sources for the fictional characters themselves). 12:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time or the inclination to own this list either. What I CAN suggest is that you have the closing admin move it to your userspace.  That way you can hang on to it until you feel it is up to snuff (and the edit history gets maintained).  As I understand it, there isn't a time limit on user sub-pages (I might be wrong) like there is on the sandbox.  And don't presume too much blindness of editors unwilling to see things your way.  If you hang around articles for deletion long enough you will see that there is no shortage of people butting heads over exact text versus interpretation.  My hope is that you will see that most of the editors who disagreed with you did so in good faith.  Recognizing this doesn't mean that you have to admit that you were wrong, just that their position may be legitimate.  Protonk (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just one Parthian shot based on your last link... Lara Croft. =)  --John (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The last two are biographies of the individual character, not a look into the topic under discussion. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The content of my user page is intended to be humorous and has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. At no point have I ever referred to any work as "cruft" and my intention is that I never will, and furthermore I have never created any list of any kind, nor proposed any for deletion. The purpose of the discussion here is to serve the best interest of Wikipedia.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'll delete the offending passage as a sign of good faith. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Still fails notability. No coverage of the topic in reliable third party sources. Rejectwater (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - John has brought up an interesting point. Maybe this can work as a category like Category:People by educational institution or Category:Fictional characters by occupation?  Category:Fictional characters by educational institution?  As much as I don't like the idea as it's own article, I have no problem with it as a separate category.  It brings up the problem of fictional vs. real educational institutions, perhaps.  Rejectwater (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Fictional academic institutions is already a category just like the already mentioned Category:Fictional characters by occupation.  Category:Fictional characters by educational institution could be a sub-category of Category:Fictional characters and Category:People by educational institution.   The sub-categories of this new category would be "Fictional MIT alumni", "Fictional Stanford alumni" etc.  The universities themselves would be found somewhere in the other sub-categories of Category:Academic institutions.  Categorization keeps the ability to sort the characters by educational institution, is easy to maintain, and it's easy to add a quick tag at the bottom of each character page to get it listed in the category.  The thing with this is, it's not a topic, it's just categorization, which is what categories are for.  Rejectwater (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Converting this to a category was exactly what I was going to suggest. Livitup (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason to delete as well as per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Also, keep per Give an article a chance and Don't demolish the house while it's still being built as the article is but days old and is a work in progress.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth, I would cheerfully switch my opinion to "Keep" if there were clear criteria that define and limit what is included on this list. Right now, we don't have that.  What's the list's SPECIFIC purpose?  There simply isn't one yet; the listed criteria are sort of a trivia potpourri.  The question is whether that's curable.  It should be, but hasn't happened, and that's puzzling. Townlake (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Personally I don't see how the age or condition of the article has anything to do with it. Saying it should be kept because it's new is just as arbitrary as saying delete for the same reason.  Also, if you keep every nominated article someone calls "cruft" it would be pretty easy to avoid the deletion of any article, just call it "cruft".  "Hey, someone called it cruft, we have to keep it".   Rejectwater (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ITSCRUFT -- "While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential." I think the list has good potential for organization, and allows citing sources better than a category does (as I just did for Lord Peter Wimsey).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2008 (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.