Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional swords (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   no consensus. Leaning towards keep. Many think this is an overly broad, indiscriminate and unmanageable list, while others assert that aggressive removal of unsourced and unimportant entries is all that's needed. Time will tell, I'd say.  Sandstein  17:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional swords
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous nomination was determined to have not been conducive to a proper deletion debate. A Deletion Review determined that the debate should be relisted. Probable reasons for deletion include the list's indiscriminate nature, lack of coverage of the topic, and the possibility for original research. I have no strong feelings either way and I am relisting this purely to get a new debate on the subject. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't really a "relisting" if everybody gets to !vote again. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup - All the arguments on the previous AfD not withstanding, the original nom comments about this being "retarded" and "unencyclopedic" fail to address the issue that, unlike most inanimate objects, swords in classic literature often take on the role normally filled by a major character, and in doing so, they embody symbolism and archetypes critical to the story being told. Thus, a valid literary argument can be made for keeping the list. The current state of the list, however, could use some vast improvement, with references to how the listed swords figure in the fictional works that feature them.  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to this nomination, the 'original nom' comments shouldn't matter. They were rejected as uncivil and unhelpful. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Another listcrufty piece of unencyclopedic trash. Every entry to this list can be adequately merged into the articles for the piece of fiction that they have come from (if that's even necessary at all... I mean what's next? List of fictional armoires?) Every list such as this is a crass violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trusilver  18:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- Sure it needs cleanup, but then again, i'd wager a lot of articles on wikipedia do. I see no problem with this list that can be solved with deletion, or that can't be fixed with cleanup. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up - As it stands, the article is terrible, but I'd be willing to help clear it up. (First task: get some proper references for Excalibur - I have these. Second task: Include Durandal, Joyeuse, etc.) The idea of a named sword with a distinctive character and history is a highly notable feature in fiction and legend, and a reasonable number of these items have been written about extensively in books on literature, mythology and mythography. As with other superficially indiscriminate lists, it's easily possible to work out rigorous and non-indiscriminate criteria for inclusion. As for the list of fictional armoires, if there isn't already a List of fictional furniture, there possibly should be, including the Siege Perilous, the Wardrobe, and the Procrustean Bed. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion! Throw in the marriage bed of Odysseus and Penelope. Drmies (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I strongly suspect the list is not maintainable and likely to be enormous, despite proclamations to the contrary. The fact is, swords have been around for millenia, and notable fictional swords exist in just about every culture that progressed to some form of metallurgy, to say nothing of the role swords play in the modern fantasy genre. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, that fit this list. It also seems that despite enormous attention in the previous AfD, there are swords on there that do not have citations in multiple third-party sources. In fact, the citation section in general seems pretty thin, which backs up my point about the difficulty of maintaining. Ray (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and yes, clean-up. A list of fictional swords can be useful and informative. Types of swords is also quite huge and needs clean-up but they can peacefully coexist. -- Banj e  b oi   21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I previously tended to think that a category can perform this function better and more cleanly, but now I think there might be some value in a well-trimmed list.  The list should be limited to those swords notable enough to have their own articles or a specific section heading in another article (such as Drizzt Do'Urden's scimitars did at one point); explanatory text should be limited and not just rehash plot.  But a proper article could certainly be salvaged, and keeping strict inclusion criteria keeps it from being an indiscriminate list.  Powers T 19:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I might be willing to change to a keep position should this actually be done. Because right now the only criteria that seems to exist for this list is: "It's a sword" and "It's in a piece of fiction." Trusilver  20:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's no reason a list has to be only of notable examples - the main problem with that thinking is that it is somewhat subjective and often is ruled to only including those who have an article already. This is faulty logic in that many notable items have yet to have an article written - this doesn't make them any less notable. Agree that it would be nice to have have someone who's in the know figure out a good organizing structure and some sort of intuitive inclusion criteria but these are all clean-up issues. -- Banj e  b oi   21:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. and such is exactly why I said delete. There are way too many people on Wikipedia who think that WP:V only applies to other people. Trusilver  23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you check the edit history of the article, you will find that I already did this. I cleaned up the article as best I could without actually doing real research, and I'm still displeased with it.  No it doesn't have to be notable examples, but it does have to have some inclusion criteria.  I arbitrarily picked that criteria because in similar articles, I've found it has worked better than anything anyone else could think up.  If a better one can be thought of, it should be discussed on the article's talkpage. -Verdatum (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Fictional artifacts in general are impossible to research and should only be discussed in context of their own private fictional universes. Listcruft. How to decide membership - is the Singing Sword that Bugs Bunny used against Yosemite Sam a candidate? How about Inigo Montoya's 6-fingered sword? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Inigo's, sword wasn't 6-fingered, his enemy was. As for how to include, I've seen this dealt with successfully many times before: if it's notable to either warrant specific mention in an article on the story, or if it has an article itself, then it should be included. Inigo's, btw, is very central to the story line.  AK Radecki Speaketh  21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Fictional swords are a mainstay of fiction going back literally thousands of years and across a variety of different cultures. There exist examples both in classic mythology and in modern fiction. Swords are thus a unique example and are not "cruft". Nor is there any no issue of original research. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (btw, good move to relist this, Protonk). To rebutt against the arguments of "it just needs cleanup", I did a cleanup of this page to only include entries that I felt reasonably could demonstrate notability a la the WP:GNG.  The reason why I believe the page should be deleted is already showing itself, here are two unjustified edits that either merely link to the to article about the work of fiction, or are redlinks.  No attention was paid to the inclusion criteria stated at the begining, and we could add magical blinking inline comments that dance and sing showtunes, and they will still be ignored.  No one has undone these edits yet; no policy-aware editors appear to have interest in maintaining the page.  Yes, i know about the "No one's working on it" argument to avoid in deletion discussions, but I feel that essay is only appropriate for articles that genuinely show theoretical potential to exist as a good article.  I see no evidence that this could exist as a good article.  this doesn't mean I want to banish all information on all fictional swords, just this list with the cumbersome scope.  I'm perfectly fine with someone finding articles talking about the importantance of the sword as a plot or literary device within works of fiction, and then writing a non-list article discussing Swords in fiction.  I'm also perfectly fine with someone splitting off list of mythological objects into list of mythological swords or creating a new swords in mythology page and having a detailed article about that.  I have no doubt there are books/TV specials on that, in the least for specific regions of mythology (e.g. "Swords of Norse mythology").  Lots of people write about mythology, such that people would write specifically about the swords involved in multiple myths.  I don't believe people write about the swords involved in random modern fiction (read: fiction of the last century or two) very often.  The best I'd think you'll find are articles like "voter poll, top 10 swords in video games" or blogposts about "coolest anime sword designs".  The fictional swords that actually are worthwhile either already have their own articles (e.g. the lightsaber is inarguably engrained into popular culture), or can have articles created in the future when appropriate.  I feel this brief list should be sufficiently able to be represented in a category.  Maintaining articles like this in a good state is equivalent to the task of sysiphus.  Every time you delete entries they just come back the next day.  It's bait for new/inexperienced editors to make poor edits.  The title just sounds too much like a list that wants to be an exhaustive one.  and excited editors feel it is crucial that the object from their favorite work of fiction is included.  If instead, there came to be articles like I suggested above, it would be more evident that their favorite work of modren fiction does not belong in mythology, or that the swords in fiction article is prose discussing the overall topic, and exhaustive lists are not appropriate.  Both of these actions have nothing to do with this article, and thus I feel it should be deleted. -Verdatum (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The overly-broad criteria for inclusion violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  Narrow down the subject and you could have several notable lists but an appearance in any fictional subject isn't notable in itself.  A List of swords in Arthurian literature is an example of a notable list of swords. Themfromspace (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't that Keep but split rather than simply Delete? --Ant (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Undoubtedly it needs weeding and pruning and undoubtedly it will need effort to keep it free from new weeds, but is nonetheless a useful reference — albeit maybe more "propedic" than encyclopedic. Agreed that there should be a Swords in fiction article, which might subsume this list, and the "Swords" article in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy would be a good model. But absent that, this list should stay, as a (temporary) home for the vigorous growth — rather than throwing all the content on the bonfire. If it it doesn't stay, where's the rationale for keeping, say, List of magical weapons. Actually... that lists overlaps with this, and with List of mythological objects, so attention should be given to unique inclusion criteria. In this list, notability means that the sword should be singular (thus light sabres are out) but not necessarily named (tegeus Cromis's sword had none). --Ant (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC) (originator of this list!)
 * Keep an obviously central element in fiction of various genres for many centuries now, as shown by the articles about specific swords. Those articles make it clear that such a class of objects can be notable. But an item does not have to be sufficiently notable for a separate article to be in a list. Its enough that it be important and relevant content. A clear criterion is needed, but the obvious one is named swords used in significant ways in the action of a  notable fiction. (They will usually, but not necessarily be used by the hero). This is the sort of material that people can reasonably expect to find in encyclopedias. Even if limited to those with articles here, it would still be justified, giving more information than a category--because if  can specify the fiction, thus facilitating identification for reference, and also browsing, both good reasons to use an encyclopedia. The comprehensive discussion by Gene above is a appeal to deleting articles that  cause editing problem or that are susceptible to vandalism, in which case we should remove most of the articles in Wikipedia. There are quite enough people here with interest to monitor the article. I note Gene's criterion is "worthwhile"--I agree that this is a good criterion, but its much less than notable, thus disproving his point that only swords with articles should be included. To say that a potentially parallel article on something else in fiction would not be justified is no argument at all that this particular one might not be justified.--its like saying that because some football players are not notable, we should have articles on none of them. DGG (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: No references, there's been no any attempt to remedy this while the article's been up for AFD, so I can't see it being fixed if the article's "kept". Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting the article is not how to contest included material. Please read WP:LIST which quotes WP:V. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This articles does have two references, so it's incorrect to say no references. Weak or insufficient references is not a valid reason to delete per WP:DEL, which says in pertinent part: 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. AfD is not cleanup, so there is no requirement to clean up during an AfD, although it would be a good idea. — Becksguy (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Two references is also not enough to say the article is referenced. If you, or anyone else, improve the article then I'll happily change my delete. Ryan 4314   (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup. It sounds like your !vote is actually a keep but cleanup. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  11:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I put Delete didn't I, don't try and put words in my mouth, it's perfectly normal practice for people to change their vote if an article is improved whilst at AFD, they've even set up a wikiproject for it. Ryan 4314   (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is not normal practice to base a delete solely & purely upon an article needing a cleanup. That train of though tends to rely on an IDONLIKEIT argument. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  19:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn, another day, another accusation of IDONTLIKEIT, it is perfectly acceptable to nominate an article for a lack of references, especially when it's obvious they're never gonna be added, goodbye. Ryan 4314   (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename and rewrite- there is a decent article to be written about Swords in fiction and this is not it. What is needed to do the topic justice is not an indiscriminate accumulation of single list entries and accompanying unreferenced cruft, but a logically contructed and organized article that heavily refers to the concept of fictional swords in a real-world context. If it does end up containing a list, it should be a carefully selected shortlist of perhaps half a dozen of the most important examples. Reyk  YO!  03:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep - not WP:IINFO, if a bluelink exists, then it is perfectly reasonable to have a "List of..." Article. Thoes following the process know my feelings. nuf' said. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per excellent argument by DGG and others that argue keep and rewrite. This is a example of what WP does so well. Yes, it needs an overhaul; many articles do. I don't see this list as indiscriminate, as membership in the class of fictional swords is unifying in a very valid way and is useful to our readers. For those that seem to dislike fictional lists, see Special:AllPages/list_of_fictional. BTW, I'm very happy this was relisted. That was an good decision.  — Becksguy (talk) 07:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – as it stands, fails WP:NOT. Items in the list have no correlation with one another besides being a sword in a fictional work. A list of all fictional swords in existence is inappropriate for Wikipedia. An article discussing swords' role in fiction in general is appropriate (i.e. Swords in fiction per Reyk's argument). — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Woudln't a list of all extant fictional swords be empty? =)  Powers T 14:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm hearing a lot of arguments based on the 'centrality' of these objects to the works of fiction they appear in. This is the kind of argument that will come up under the proposed WP:FICT and I'm not heartened by its use here.  Who says, aside from editors here, that swords are central to any work of fiction?  Short form reviewers?  Critical analysis?  Author or director commentary?  How do we move that debate beyond having the people who vote "keep" say swords are central and the people who vote "delete" say swords are ephemeral? Protonk (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * in the case where they have individual articles that discuss their role in the fiction, the question of centrality or importance has been answered. In other cases, there's a talk page. My own guideline would be if they either a/have an actual role in the plot (e.g. Sword of Griffindor) or b/are repeatedly referred to by name in the fiction. If it's just that someone says it's the name of his sword, and nothing about the sword is further mentioned, it's not central. DGG (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm just demanding some evidence from general claims that swords in fiction are central to the plot.  For specific swords, you are absolutely correct, that evidence would come from reviews or comments and would probably result in that sword having its own article.  For the rest of them I find general claims unpersuasive. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, yeah &mdash; Excalibur, Vorpal Sword, Sword of Truth, The Sword of Griffindor, Glamdring, Lightsabers, Buster Sword, Gunblade &mdash; nobody has ever heard of those, I'm sure. Give me a break. How is the list "indiscriminate"? Is it a sword? Is it a real sword? Did you just make it up? What work of fiction does it appear in? Has anybody heard of that work of fiction? It's not that difficult, people. --Pixelface (talk) 17:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this encyclopedic article per WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-argument never being a valid reason for deletion and nor is calling a discriminate list (only swords, only fictional swords, only fictional swords covered in reliable sources) indiscriminate valid. As far as editors adding content that should not be added to the article, well, any article we have is going to attract editors adding nonsense or unreferenced material to articles. Should we not have an article on Dictatorship, because comedians are going to add this nonsense?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * split and reduce?: merge extant swords to Famous_swords, mythological swords to List_of_mythical_objects, contemporary fictional swords with majical properties to List_of_magical_weapons, swords that are famous because they're wielded by someone in a famouse story but with no other special properties (the sword from kill bill, for example) to a 'famous fictional swords' sub-heading in Famous swords, and fictional types of sword (light-sabres, those hooked swords from LotR, etc) to a 'fictional' sub-heading in Types of swords. Then, split Types_of_swords to the above places too. finally, make the list of fictional swords article direct to the above lists. basically, there's too much duplication going on. you can't avoid some duplication in the above articles, or sanely merge them into one, or split the fictional swords from the above articles without punching strange holes in them, but list of fictional swords duplicates too much and can go, so should imo (well, be replaced with just a 'see the following' section, or maybe turned into a category?). --Dak (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously notable central topic of fantasy and mythology. There will be references. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Protonk's reasoning. Having looked over the article, I believe that for it to be properly split into separate articles on encyclopedic topics (ie. Swords in Norse mythology) rather than being a largely indiscriminate list (the attempt to make it discriminate via the lead sentence is weak and entirely ignored), a vast majority of the content would have to be scrapped and rewritten from scratch. Should there be articles about the use of swords in fiction? Absolutely. Should there be independent articles about notable fictional swords? Of course. Should there be an article which attempts to list every sword ever used in fiction? No, that is indiscriminate. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Poorly organized list that isn't really notable on its own. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weakest possible keep, and add sources: I'm not sure, but there might be coverage of "fictional swords" out there. That said, I'm not confident it justifies a list of every fictional sword ever imagined. Literally every "keep" vote insists sources are out there, and that this article just needs some attention. These editors should be given time to WP:PROVEIT. But if efforts fail, we should be ready to admit proof doesn't exist, and re-nominate. Basically: "give it time, but no prejudice against re-nomination." Randomran (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff between when the article was first put up for deletion back on November 24th and today, December 12. The only difference is that a chainsaw was put to much of the article and it was organized a bit more clearly. Only two sources  have been added verifying the existance of the entities on the list (and one was for Excalibur, a no-brainer).  Most importantly, no sources have been added that prove that a collected list of swords in fiction is notable.  For all the time and effort people put into arguing that this list is notable, it's shocking that nobody has bothered to do any research into it. Themfromspace (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep! First of all, the editor above suggests there is not much difference between the two versions singled out--that's incorrect. That chainsaw was very effective, and the sword of She-Ra (or whatever that was) should never return. An article full of NOTABLE swords is a great idea. Of course it needs to be monitored, of course the entries need to be cited. Just to make the case I've added Durendal--I find it amazing that such a sword was NOT in there, but the thing was full of Manga swords. OK, the article as it was was not very good, to put it mildly, but there is no reason an article like this should not exist (in fact, it's one of the very things I think Wikipedia is good for). So keep it! And let's keep working at it. I'll be glad to wield my unnamed axe--in which case the article will quickly be a third of the size, before it grows into a beautiful reference article, sure, with pictures. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think Protonk makes some good points in his !vote that relate to your points here. There is not necessarily anything wrong with having lists of notable swords, but a "list of fictional swords" is not the best way to go about it; the scope is impossibly broad and leads to a mess of an article that has narry a snowball's chance of ever becoming a FL. Now, separate lists such as List of fictional swords in Anime, List of fictional swords in medieval literature, and List of swords in The Lord of the Rings series might, if properly referenced and asserting notability, be more discriminate lists. A parent article on Swords in fiction could point to each of these. However, given the current state of the article and its lack of references, it would seem that the best course of action is to delete and start over, creating the main Swords in fiction article first and working from there. This may even be a subject that a WikiProject or task force could take on. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't think the scope is automatically impossibly broad. The standard that you would apply to 'swords in LOTR' should apply to the current list also--I'm not quite sure I understand some of the discussion above, about not-notable entries: not-notable entries shouldn't be in any article. No, I would propose a rigorous standard here--no reference, no entry. Now, it may well be that "list of swords in literature" is a better title (more easily findable), and I wouldn't be against that. I don't know--maybe a parent article isn't a bad idea. I'll go sit on the fence perhaps, with my thinking cap on. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do feel, rather strongly, that it is impossibly broad. It's all well and good to say "only list swords that are notable, or that have been covered by secondary sources", but notability is applied only to article topics, not content. In other words, WP:N only says we have to show that the topic "swords in fiction" is notable (which isn't hard to do). It doesn't say that we have to prove that each entry in the list is independently notable (which would be far more difficult to do). All one would have to do to justify a particular sword's inclusion in the list is to verify its existence with some type of source (primary, secondary, or tertiary), and that isn't nearly discriminate enough. How many thousands of swords have there been in works of fiction? Tens? Hundreds? This isn't any more discriminating than a List of fictional vehicles or List of fictional cities would be. (Oh my, there actually is a list of fictional vehicles...can someone bring that to AfD next please?) By Wikipedia's own standards, any sword ever used in a work of fiction could be listed, as long as it could be verified that it did appear in the work (ie. even swords with no significance or name, like "sword used by Malcolm Reynolds in the fourth episode of Firefly". One wouldn't have to justify any particular entry, so long as the main topic "swords in fiction" can be shows to be notable. This makes the whole thing little more than a list of trivia. Now, being more discriminate by splitting into individual lists by branch/work of fiction would be a much more organized approach, and would show how swords are relevant to each field of fiction. Few would argue, for example, the importance of swords to works/franchises like the Lord of the Rings, Beowulf, Final Fantasy, or Arthurian legend. Lists for those particular fields of fiction would be appropriate. A single list, however, that makes the impossible attempt to catolog every sword ever used in a work of fiction, is indiscriminate. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read that paragraph a little differently--I read, for instance, "But the term "notability" is still used in the sense of "importance" to describe the level of detail that is appropriate for an encyclopedic summary." That, in my opinion, gives editors the freedom to judge what level of detail (i.e., which swords, for instance) is appropriate. That leaves Excalibur in, and removes Dragonslicer (I would hope). And setting those parameters, the parameter for instance of having to have an entry on Wikipedia, is possible--look at list of death metal bands, which is monitored actively. Now, what use might such a list of swords have? If one of my students decided to write on weaponry, they can browse that list to see parallels, get an overview of the breadth of the topic, etc. I really don't think it's such a bad idea, though I'm not too thrilled about the name. Changing 'fiction' to 'literature' would already be a big step. Yes, I am aware that one can dispute what's what, etc., but that's beside the point: Durendal produces hits in the MLA database (though Naegling doesn't--but Beowulf does), and the MLA is an authority. Forgotten Realms (whatever that is) produces nothing. There are six hits for Saberhagen, but if they don't contain mention of the importance of his 12 swords, then we have a criterion for weeding him out. A list of meaningful swords in literature would not be a bad thing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:28, 14 December 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.