Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhuri Guin


 * 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 of the debate was all talk and no consensus, kept by default, then userfied to User:Mrhyde as there is minimal support for keeping this as an article. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  17:00, Dec. 23, 2005

Madhuri Guin
nn bio. She is a famous cloth doll artist according to the article. While the name generates 401 hits on google, some of them are forks of Wikipedia. Also, most of the hits lead to essays written by her on various Hindu Gods on some web sites. The creator of this article User:Mrhyde has been adding those links to the Wikipedia articles on Hindu Gods such as Nandi bull, Garuda, Narayana, Brahma, Trimurti, Shiva, Vishnu, Draupadi, Ganesha and Radha. This means that either Madhuri Guin herself or a fan of hers is editing these pages. Also, some 20 days back, the number of google hits was in double figures, now it is 400+ because of the figuring of her name in the eponymous article and at least ten other articles in external links - Combined with the abundance of Wikipedia forks, my guess is that these actions have increased her presence on google by a staggering 300% at least. Gurubrahma 09:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

*Userfy - I'd so love to say keep, and my personal beliefs are that something like this does Wikipedia no harm. It is a very well written article. If the author can come forward, then perhaps it can be userfied, and I see no harm in doing that. Whilst the fact that she is from a non-English speaking country (at least not exclusively English), that being India, and hence google, being an English-speaking search engine may be misleading, it seems that from the information that we have that she is not suitably notable. I could see no valid claims to notoriety, was unable to find a single review on her or her work and from what I can gather she just makes really nice dolls. As the nom suggests, this was likely written either by her or someone who personally knows her. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) I am withholding my vote (See below).
 * Also you should look at contribs: . I personally do not think that any vandalism has taken place.  But it may be advertising of some kind. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Just adding a bit more. Here are some of MrHyde's contributions:
 * To Nandi bull: (using Madhuri Guin as a reference source for info) - although note that nobody has removed the link
 * To Shiva: (using Madhuri Guin as a reference source for info) - again note that nobody removed the link
 * To Bhairava: (adding info - no link)
 * To Vishnu: (adding lots of info, using Madhuri Guin as a reference) - yet again the link has not been removed
 * To Bhagavata purana: (added a link that is not Madhuri Guin)
 * To Narayana: (adding info, using Madhuri Guin as a reference) - link not removed
 * To Garuda: (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
 * To Brahma: (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
 * To Trimurti: (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
 * To Avatar: (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
 * To Mirabai: (info, Madhuri Guin as reference) - link not removed
 * To Vrindavan: (info only, no links)
 * To Radha: (info, 2 Madhuri Guin references) - not removed
 * To Gita Govinda: (minor)
 * To Draupadi: (minor)
 * To Ganesha: (lots of info, Madhuri Guin reference) - not removed

Now, the thing is that Madhuri Guin is being cited as a reference regularly. This is not the same thing as suggesting that Madhuri Guin is famous - I see no evidence in the other articles that anyone is trying to advertise Madhuri Guin in other articles. And this poses the question - are these references, as written by Madhuri Guin, reliable?

Now, I have looked at them, and they are well written, well researched, solid references. They look genuine. Indeed, they look like good references.

Perhaps there is an issue whereby we might suggest that this is all a big scam to try to increase Madhuri Guin's popularity. That is one way to look at things. Alternatively, however, if Madhuri Guin is famous and knowledgeable, then she would be able to write such insightful things, thus making this page notable.

I think that this is something that needs to be looked in to a bit further. If it is found that they are all nonsense, then we will have to revert all of the edits from all of the other articles as well. But if it is valid, then I think that there is a very good chance that this article is suitably notable to be kept. I would appreciate other opinions. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, and these are the references that need to be checked: Shiva, Vishnu, Brahma, Mirabai, Ganesha. Others might disagree, but from what I can gather, if we agree that those links are all valid to be used as references, then we should be voting keep.  If not, then major editing needs to be done. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as advertising. I just read on the main site http://www.dollsofindia.com/gallery/Dolls/.  "All dolls in this section have been crafted by the award winning artiste, Madhuri Guin. Read about her in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.".  That's the final word as far as I am concerned. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment:My Afd tag was for the article Madhuri Guin. Personally, I'd think that the links also shd go as she is not qualified (in terms of eduacation) to write on the subjects. However, I'm indifferent abt those right now but I strongly believe that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising vehicle, either by design or by accident. That is the reason why I've nominated the article Madhuri Guin for deletion. --Gurubrahma 10:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting thought. Is there any reason to suggest that what she has said in her references is wrong?  From what I know of the folklore, they are all spot on 100% accurate.  Hopefully we can get someone who is a bit more expertised in the subject area to give a review. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * According to Alexa, this advertising isn't helping her site's popularity at all. There's no more people going there than before.  Actually, its gone down (although page views per user has increased). Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 10:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per Gurubrahma. Seems like a clear-cut case of advertising/spam (especially with all the links in other articles).  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I find as of now, the site displays that it is not available. Is this a coincidence or an orchestrated move to avoid further probing in the matter? It is also interesting that an artist famed for making dolls should find reference in a series of articles pertaining to Hindu Gods. While I am a firm believer of good faith, I am disturbed by the announcement in the site (dollsofindia) as quoted above by Zordrac. As such, in my considered opinion, the entire exercise appears to be a well crafted and well drafted advertisement in a veiled manner.  Unless evidences are presented to the contrary, the entry should be deleted/ unnecessary links should be removed – which I shall surely remove, once I am able to peer into the site, which is currently not available. --Bhadani 15:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Works for me.  Maybe it was down for a moment.  Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 17:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'll just make another comment here. Now, this all looks like its blatant advertising to advertise Madhuri Guin's web site "Dolls of India".  It hasn't worked in terms of unique customers though, but perhaps long term it would.  Deleting this page I think is a must.  If the web page says "Famous, as per Wikipedia", then thats virtually an admission of guilt of advertising.  Can't get much more obvious than that!  But then we have the question of the links in other articles.  Now, there is no reason to believe that anything that she has written is false.  It all looks 100% factual to me.  It is well written and seems to be reasonable.  However, Madhuri Guin's personal testimony is probably not sufficient as a primary source.  Besides which, all of those links have "Buy this vase", "Buy this doll" etc as part of the history.  To me, this suggests that it is true, but at the same time it is advertising.  It seems to me highly unlikely that she would make up history, especially religious history, in order to sell products.  Her site would be closed down and she'd be hung if she tried to do that.  So then the question is what do we do with them?  If we remove the links, then the advertising question is fixed.  But if we remove the content that was extracted from the links, then the articles that she improved lack substance.  She improved the Wikipedia articles, and is a good editor.  If we remove the links but keep the content, then we have verifiability issues.  So perhaps the best thing that we can do, and this is my suggestion - see if we can find other links that say essentially the same thing as her links do - add those links in, remove hers, and then rewrite the articles to suit.  Again, I can see absolutely nothing to suggest or hint that anything that she is saying is false.  Unless someone has some other evidence to suggest that it is untrue, I am going to go with the belief that what is written is true.  And this then means that we probably should talk to Madhuri Guin to see what her opinion is.  It might help if someone sent to her an e-mail to ask her.  As Mrhyde hasn't edited for a month, I doubt that talk messages will help.  Perhaps I can write her a little e-mail and see if we can sort this out. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 17:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just sent an e-mail. I am hopeful that we can sort this out amicably.  I am confident that Madhuri Guin/Mrhyde did not intend any malice with any of their activities, and that they will work with us to create articles that are not advertising in nature.  If I get a response by e-mail, I will write it here.  I am hoping that Madhuri Guin will come to Wikipedia herself to respond in person.  I think that we all should do a big WP:AGF over this issue, and if we do, I think that we can resolve this amicably. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 18:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay - the mail did get passed on to me (that's Mrhyde) by Madhuri Guin. She might come over in a day or two and write her own views regarding this. However, being the author of the article in question as well as the edits in question, I would like to air my response here. I completely understand and appreciate the apprehensions regarding the use of Wikipedia for advertising. Also now that someone's mentioned earlier that an article about a person should not be entered by someone who personally knows him/her, I suppose the article about Madhuri Guin merits deletion, since I personally know her very well. In fact we are a part of a very close knit circle of acquaintances. However this does NOT mean that her fame has been BUILT by me and then added as a link in her website by her webmaster. The dolls she makes are one of a kind and as already mentioned in the article, she HAS been formally recognized as a MASTER CRAFTSMAN by the Government of Delhi. Whether she is "famous enough" is something that I wholeheartedly leave to the judgement of all those participating in this discussion and the majority view is acceptable to me and I am sure, to Madhuri Guin as well, WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE at all. Regarding the links to this article which have been placed in her website (www.dollsofindia.com) - well I asked the webmaster to add the link there simply because I put up this article about her and I wanted more people to know about her and getting him to put up the entire article on that website would have been difficult. Anyway, if that is a problem, I can get the webmaster to remove references to the article in question on her website. Also, if this article is deleted, as has been discussed earlier, then that link to this article anyway is meaningless. But let me assure you, Madhuri Guin's fame is more than simply "being listed on Wikipedia". Now regarding the edits and external links that have been added to various Hindu articles, I would strongly defend my entries simply because I am NOT a part of dollsofindia.com though I personally know its owner and the author of the articles on her website, Madhuri Guin. I do NOT think trying to make money is a crime and she is doing it transparently by listing items for sale which are relevant to her article on her website. I thought her articles are good and extracts/information from the same would do good to the articles on Wikipedia and so I used them as references for doing my edits. Madhuri Guin knows of this and she had no objections. I did NOT have any "Advertising campaign" of any kind on my mind while doing what I did. Madhuri will herself write in this forum but she told me over the phone just now while mentioning that people are writing about her article that she has not used any formal source for the articles n her website. Most of the content in her articles are actually common knowledge amongst Hindus who have a bent towards the Hindu religion. I do not see WHY having a well written article with actual good content which ALSO sells things cannot qualify as a valid external link. If that be the case, we have a number of links (for example the external link Shiva - The Sensuous Yogi by Sri Nitin Kumar points to shiva.exoticindiaart.com in the Shiva article) that are actually e-commerce websites. The example link lists an article, in which if images are clicked they take you to a product page with "buy it" icons etc. I do not think what they are doing is any different from what Madhuri is doing, but as far as I know, this external link has been in existence for ages now. I think both should remain simply because they are good compiled sources of Hindu religious writings. To summarize, I would not strongly defend the Madhuri Guin article because I cannot be the sole judge of her fame but I would say she is famous enough, based on her recognition by the Delhi state government and her unique craft of doll making and having an article on her in Wikipedia is not mal-intentioned. Also, I think all my edits in the Hindu articles SHOULD remain INCLUDING the external links to her articles because her articles are the source of my edits and her articles have good content - mostly verifiable as local Hindu knowledge. Her listing items for sale on her article page does not and SHOULD NOT demerit her writings. Will await comments by both Madhuri Guin (hope she comes here soon !!) and others in this forum --Mrhyde 19:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you be able to provide a link to where she has been approved by the Government of India as a master craftsman, and also put in to context what this means in terms of the difficulty of being able to achieve it? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 05:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, while it is competitive to be recognised as a master craftsman, it is not very notable by itself; for several dying arts where there has been a family tradition of being engaged in such arts, it is much easier for those family members to get the status. It has to be noted that the status itself does not guarantee success; it generates contacts and international exposure - but it ultimately depends on the marketing acumen of the person. That is, the role of the government is more of an endorser rather than of a promoter. Also, about the links: the problem of WP:V remains and common knowledge, should be verifiable. One of the reasons I do not edit much with respect to articles on Hindu mythology is that most of the online sources are suspect and off-line sources are non-English. btw, not many editors seem to be active on the discussion as it seems to be long and disjointed at first glance. Zordrac, may I request you to re-arrange & re-format the discussion as you deem fit? ('coz some of my comments are also not in right places). It is surprising to note that Indians cannot access this website; but some 20-25 days back, when this article first came on my radar, I can swear that I saw it functioning and also through goole cache just before nominating the article for deletion. --Gurubrahma 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not think I, or for that matter, Madhuri will be able to provide a link for the recognition extended to her because I do not believe the governement keeps such a web page of any sort. However she must be having a copy of the actual award which I am sure she can provide through a scan. What Gurubrahma has said is true for several dying arts where there has been a family tradition of being engaged in such arts, it is much easier for those family members to get the status. status itself does not guarantee success; it generates contacts and international exposure - but it ultimately depends on the marketing acumen of the person. That is, the role of the government is more of an endorser rather than of a promoter. However regarding the first part of the statement, regarding dying arts and family tradition, Madhuri's art is something that she created herself, without inheriting it from anyone else in the family or outside it. Such form of cloth doll making is not present anywhere, at least in India. But yes, I understand Gurubrahma's statement about a recognition by the government not being sufficient proof of fame. Zordac, regarding the "difficulty" in acheiving the recognition, its like this: the government of Delhi selects a few craftsmen (I think about 15 or so) every year for the recognition they bestow and given the HUGE number of pretty skilled artisans present in India, it turns out to be difficult to be chosen amongst the select few. But then again, I understand what Gurubrahma is saying and I am kind of beginning to see reason in Gurubrahma's arguments regarding the article on Madhuri Guin and am feeling doubt about my conviction about the rightness of the article remaining in Wikipedia even though I wrote it myself. I leave it to your good judgement to keep it or remove it and like I said, I will view the decision without any prejudice at all. I wish, though, Madhuri herself takes some time out and comes and writes about the whole issue herself. --Mrhyde 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the edits and referencing links in other articles, I STILL think they should stay simply because what is common knowledge IS based on what is written in ancient texts - Mahabharata, Ramayana, Puranas, Vedas, Upanishads and commentaries by various sages. One can use these texts as references but it would be more like saying that Jesus Christ was born in Jerusalem and use as a reference, the Bible. Hindu mythology is after all mythology present in ancient epics and religious texts. I used Madhuri's articles as references and I presented them as external links on various articles in Wikipedia and I still cannot see how I am wrong. Also, as I have earlier said, I would not object to the deletion of the article on Madhuri Guin but I surely have a problem with deletion of my edits and the reference to her articles since I do not think it would be right to undermine my efforts and hers too, when they are in no way malafide. --Mrhyde 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Gurubrahma Madhuri has had the website blocked in India for a long time - almost 2 years, except for a brief period of about 20 days or so about a couple of months back. But since then all IP addresses originating in India are blocked by a "under maintenance" page. Of course the site should still visible through "google cache" as Gurubrahma has pointed out. There is nothing strange about having the site blocked in India - it is a commercial fully online venture and Madhuri does not feel safe about credit card transactions in India and does NOT want to cater to queries which do not result in sales. I think she reserves the right to show or hide her website in a part of the world that she chooses to. --Mrhyde 07:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Gurubrahma, you will not be able to view the website since you are based in India and Madhuri just now told me that the website is blocked in India because she "keeps getting trade inquiries she is not interested in, from all sorts of people". The site is available to people in India she chooses to give authorization to, and I, luckily, am one of those people :-) --Mrhyde 20:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a lot of words about borderline notability here which to me seems like a good indicator that this article needs to go. Ashibaka tock 06:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * My Rejoinder comments: I think that the links which cannot be accessed freely by all are certainly not suitable for inclusion in wikepedia pages, as wikipedia puts a premium on the freedom of the users and the editors, and non-accessibility of the site (dollsofindia) by the users located in India curtails the freedom of users/ editors of wikipedia. The natural corollary should be a consensus to remove such links. As regards, other commercial/ semi-commercial links, as and when spotted, should also be removed, as wikipedia is not a platform to promote commercial activities – directly or indirectly. --Bhadani 14:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thoughts - I've been thinking about this. I just got my e-mail back from Madhuri Guin.  So I've been mulling this over for a while.  Here are my thoughts:
 * 1) I am not convinced that being labelled as a master craftsman is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia biography. Whilst it is a great achievement and Madhuri should be proud of it, I am just not convinced that it is enough.  I am not sure myself as to what it means, and am trusting Bhadani's judgement here.  If someone else can convince me otherwise, then I might change my vote.  As such, that is the sole reason why I am maintaining my delete vote.
 * 2) I do not think that the links provided in other articles are advertising, and hence they should remain. However, given that they cannot be viewed by Indian users, I think that a note should appear on all sites which reference them to say "cannot be viewed by Indian users" and an effort should be made to have an alternate site to be listed.  I also have no reason to believe that the links are inaccurate in any way.
 * 3) I think that MrHyde is a wonderful contributor to Wikipedia and should be encouraged as much as possible. I think that this page should be userfied and not flat out deleted, so that it can remain on his page.  I also think that dollsofindia should be encouraged to copy the biography on to their own page, as it is beautifully written.  I think that having it on the dollsofindia site would be a great asset to their site, and a valid description of Madhuri Guin.
 * 4) I think that we should make every effort to be respectful of Madhuri Guin and not be harsh in our words here. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Further comments: Certainly, I agree with you on all points. And, surely, we all respect Madhuri Guin, and her contributions to the field of art and handicrafts. As a fellow Indian, and a citizen of the world, I wish her all the best. The matter as regards continuation of this article  is still open for evaluation, and further comments by other users shall be useful. I do agree that the article is beautifully written, and I am sure that we shall continue to have contributions from Mrhyde. --Bhadani 14:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Summarising votes and consensus so far
The consensus so far is that it has to be userfied and we wish Madhuri Guin the best in her endeavors. --Gurubrahma 14:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * nom for deletion - User:Gurubrahma (now - Userfy)
 * Userfy - User:Zordrac
 * Userfy - User:Bhadani
 * Userfy - User:Mrhyde (the original creator of the article)
 * Delete - User:Starblind
 * Delete - User:Ashibaka
 * Delete - User:Wikipediatrix

I am sorry I am about to go a bit off-track here but I really want to say this: It is wonderful how the people here uphold the policies of Wikipedia by trying to sniff out suspicious activity and YET do not get carried away by this very zest of theirs AND manage to give credit to those who deserve it. All this while maintaining dignity in their discussions. I am new to Wikipedia (just about a couple of months, I think) and it is simply wonderful how the system does self-policing without turning itself into a police state. Congrats to the human brain for being able to create technology and sharing it and ensuring that its misuse is limited without stunting the growth of technology itself.

Now that I have written what was on my mind, here's a confession: I had no idea what "userfy" meant so I did a search and yes - that's what seems appropriate in this case. Of course, I like the suggestion by Zordac about having the article featured on the dollsofindia website. I have talked to Madhuri and she will talk to her webmaster to have this page featured on their website. I have also asked her to get the webmaster to remove the link on her website to the article on Madhuri Guin as soon as possible since its now obvious that the article SHOULD and WILL go. I however have no idea how I can "usefy" this article on MY userpage? I mean its after all an article about Madhuri Guin. So how do I shift it to the userpage of MrHyde? Any examples of this happening in the past? Sorry if this is not the correct forum to be asking such a question but I would hate to simply have the article vanish without at least having it on my user page.

Finally, I am going to go to each of the Hindu articles I have edited and remove the link to Madhuri Guin article in the external link AND mention that the link "cannot be viewed by Indian users" as suggested by Zordac. Also, I would like to join Gurubrahma in wishing Madhuri Guin the best of luck. She said she would be visiting this page soon - hope that happens SOON!! --Mrhyde 20:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * An admin would userfy it once this voting process is closed. While both User:Bhadani and myself are admins, we would not be closing the voting as we have been involved in this discussion (to prevent seeming conflict of interest) - another of those wonderful guidelines of Wikipedia, if I may say so :) --Gurubrahma 06:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete in its present form. With passages like "It is here that her fine skills come out the best" and "her dolls have a flavor not available elsewhere", this completely reads like a press release or a sales brochure. wikipediatrix 14:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to note that this "cannot be viewed by Indian users" appeared quite misleading to me when I saw it in an article: I got curious what is meant: whether it is due to state law, moral law, or just a decision of the site owner ;). Only having read through this discussion I could finally completely understand this statement. Perhaps, a tiny hint on the reason of the unavailability would help avoid the emergence of the strange interest in the topic by the readers, as it happened in my case.--Imz 23:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Everyone, this is Madhuri Guin. I finally managed to get myself to visit this website and make known my views about the whole "controversy". MrHyde is very kindly sitting right beside me and helping me out write out all this since I am not very conversant with how these things work. I have read all that has been already written and I must say you all are doing a great job of compiling and disseminating userful and correct information to the masses. I have read MrHyde's article about me earlier and I was embarassed then and am more embarassed now, since it is a part of some sort of controversy. I completely agree to what all of you are saying regarding my "fame". I am not famous enough to be quoted in an encyclopedia - that is very much true. Yes, my dolls are slightly well known but even they are not famous enough to be represented in an encyclopedia. Having articles about me would mean many other people would be "famous" and there would be no end to how many people would want to get listed in your encyclopedia. I am thankful to MrHyde to have thought I am worth having a biography in an encyclopedia but obviously that view is slightly biased by our acquaintance.

Regarding what some poeple have said about my providing proof of the award - I do not think it is necessary anymore since the article is anyway not going to stay here anymore. But if it had to, I can have my webmaster upload scans of my award to where you want them. I shall get my webmaster to copy the article to my website, which anyway, is the proper place to have such an article. I do not know however when he will be able to get that done !!

I also read something about the website being blocked in India. Yes, that's true - my webmaster did that for another website (which, MrHyde tells me is ALSO a part of the reference links in some of the articles he has edited) and told me about it and I had him set that up for my website as well. Its not because I do not want Indians to view my website - I rather do - but my concerns about safety and commercial strategy has forced me to take this decision and stick to it.

I believe that is all that there is to say. Again, congratulations to you all for maintaining this huge encyclopedia. Thanks to Zordac for writing to me and apprising me of what was happening here. Thanks also to MrHyde for writing an article for me and for defending me, website and my efforts. Bye all of you !! .... Madhuri Guin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.61.29 (talk • contribs)


 * 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.