Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (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   delete. The issue here is about whether the sources provided meet the criteria required by Wikipedia's guidelines. Although a close call, I find that the arguments that the coverage is local and/or minor is a major factor in showing that the consensus just indicates that the shop does not meet the coverage requirements of WP:CORP. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Muir Skate Longboard Shop
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominating per deletion review of a previous AfD that was tainted by canvassing; the DRV closed as relist. Procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete unconvinced by the sources quoted in first AfD, that this shop is notable in wider context for WP article. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find the coverage to meet WP:N and WP:ORG and there's no reason why this article would warrant an exception from these guidelines.  Them From  Space  05:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into UCSD as before. Not enough coverage for WP:CORP.--Savonneux (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Am I missing something? Four sources, all reliable and independent and all covering the topic in detail. So I can't see why it should fail WP:GNG - but clearly everyone else can, and I'd love to know why. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (again). Still doesn't pass WP:CORP, and no evidence things have changed in the ~2 weeks since the last discussion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  11:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In what way does it fail WP:CORP? The requirement is "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". This article has significant coverage in four independent reliable sources, so it passes. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per clear consensus at the previous AfD and at the DRV. Reyk  YO!  12:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:CORP states that "attention solely from local media…is not an indication of notability", which in my understanding means that for purposes of establishing notability UCSD Guardian is not a independent source. That leaves two independent reliable sources: Transworld Business and Concrete Wave Magazine. Concrete Wave Magazine devotes a little over a third of a page to the store and covers a variety of different aspects of the store. This, in my opinion, qualifies as significant coverage. Transworld Business, however, is only two paragraphs, and discusses "bright orange swivel chairs" and what brands of products are offered. This, in my opinion, reads more as routine coverage of a store and does not qualify as significant coverage. So lacking any further sources turning up, I feel that a single instance of significant coverage is insufficient to establish notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that attention cannot be solely from local media, but it isn't as we have a non-local source. So a local one can be used as a second piece of coverage to establish notability without breaching WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have your interpretation of the guideline and I have mine. I don't see that it's firmly established either way. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up point, PÆon has said that "the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention" (emphasis removed). If true, this may amount to significant coverage which could convince me to change my mind; I, however, have been unable to find any confirmation that the linked article at Transworld Business is only a portion of a whole, let alone an actual longer article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per VernoWhitney's reason. Optakeover  (Talk)   13:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The UCSD Guardian is an independent source with a circulation of 10,000. Read their Wikipedia page. It's not just a campus newspaper, as it's funded solely by advertisements and is not formally tied to any academic program. It is a local source, so those three articles, the national article, and the international article meet WP:CORP. PÆon (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's going a bit far. PÆon (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Since they have yet to be listed on this page, here are the five independent sources; three local, one national, and one international (page 31).     PÆon (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lean Keep, and improve article: I understand that many consider this to be a marginal article, and it probably is, but it does have sufficient sourcing (in my opinion) that makes it worthwhile to keep, and I see the benefit of inclusion of this article in the project as outweighing any hypothetical harm (of which I cannot identify any).  VernoWhitney has a good rundown of the current sourcing, but for me that ends up in a keep.
 * This case is not much different than Two Brothers Brewing (Chicago area brewpub, which was kept 3 times in 3 AfDs), or the infamous Mzoli's (See ). (Any who wish to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF without comment regarding those other discussions should remember that citing similar past experiences on the project "can be a strong argument that should not be discounted").  I don't see a valid slippery slope argument that the existence of this article will cause the creation of articles on every surf shop.  Such articles are necessarily confined to those with sufficient coverage, which is a limited number.--Milowent (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right about that, it does need a lot of work. Luckily, there are enough sources to create a much larger article, so it won't be very hard to work on. PÆon (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I said to endorse at the Deletion Review, on the basis that the first AfD was an example of technical compliance with GNG trumping common sense, and the closer cannot be faulted for doing that. But here the guidelines applied literally give a result that seems most of us think unreasonable. All guidelines inherently permit of exceptions; with respect to notability, the interested part of the community can decide on exemptions in either direction. (The alternative way to get reasonable results is to quibble on what sources account as adequate. The ones here are of borderline reliability and discrimination, and I can see how to argue whether or not they are sufficient in either direction. I could pick the result I want to achieve, and argue for that, for I do not think it's actually notable. But I think it's essentially advertising and would not belong in the encyclopedia even if it is notable.  I do not think we should make decisions according to who can argue technicalities the more skillfully. In topics where I was the most skillful, those topics would go the way I wanted; in topics where someone else were the more skillful, the decisions would follow them. that would make a pretty strange encyclopedia.  DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This "are local sources sufficient?" and "is one source enough?" questions can be answered by applying GNG for what it is: a guideline and not a rule; and a guideline that creates a presumption not a guarantee of notability. When seen in that way it allows us to bring common sense into the process rather than applying formulaic approaches that are unsuitable for subject matter like this. This article is about a shop. Shops aren't usually notable. Nothing sets this shop apart. End of story. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What about it's cultural influence? It was the first longboard shop on a continental US campus and brought skateboarding to many UCSD students. Now, it hosts large events like the Gravity Slidefest. Muir Skate is not just some shop, it's a large part of the longboarding community. PÆon (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the reliable sources to verify this cultural influence. In any case "bringing skateboarding to many UCSD students" doesn't sound particularly significant to me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Muir Skate offered free skate lessons to students. That increased the amount of skateboarders at UCSD. How much has the Harvard bookstore done for their campus' culture? Plus, what about the events they host? PÆon (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you have it out for Harvard Book Store, just put it up for AfD and we'll see if the community thinks it meets the notability guidelines. I'll also note that you didn't reply to the (implied) request for reliable sources supporting your assertion of cultural influence. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to go, but there's an article that's probably somewhere in here about an event they had. They brought out a bunch of boards and taught students how to skate. If it's not there, I'll be able to look for it tonight at 9:00. PÆon (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment generally individual shops are not notable enough for WP article. if they have really special or unique features it would be reflected in significant coverage which this shop fails to get. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:GNG, so no reason to delete. The comment of Mkativerata explains what is wrong with the delete !votes: Shops aren't usually notable. Nothing sets this shop apart. - Wrong : the fact that it is covered by several RS sets it apart. Shops aren't usually notable, but this one is. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you think it's a bit strong to describe those as "RS", Cyclopia? They're hardly peer-reviewed journals.  Other editors call those "independent sources", which is nearer the mark.  They're better than usenet postings or blogs, and I wouldn't go so far as to say they're un-reliable, but RS has a specific meaning on Wikipedia.  Personally I'm in total agreement with DGG:- I endorsed King of Hearts' close at the DRV, for much the same reasons he did, and I think this has to be deleted, for the same reasons DGG gives.— S Marshall  T/C 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the Guardian only has a circulation of 10,000, it's reliable. As for the other sources, Concrete Wave and Transworld Business are very big magazines. Do you even know what Transworld is? They are THE board sports magazine company and are owned by the huge Bonnier Group. Concrete Wave, although not as giant as Transworld Business, is the Time or Newsweek of longboarding magazines. You need to do your research before making a decision. PÆon (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be the judge of what I need to do, PÆon. You say the Guardian is reliable, but I don't see any evidence that this is so. As far as I can tell it's a local, student magazine.  That doesn't make it un-reliable, but it also doesn't indicate the kind of editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking that's inherent in Wikipedia's definition of a RS.  The same applies to Concrete Wave and Transworld: they're glossy special-interest magazines with a high proportion of their pagecount devoted to photographs and advertisements.  Again, this doesn't make them un-reliable, but it doesn't put them in the same category as, say, the academic press.  In short, I think there's more to RS than a simplistic, binary state of reliable or unreliable; I think there are shades of grey and degrees of reliability.  On that continuum, Concrete Wave would be more reliable than a blog, but not as reliable as the BBC. What we're looking for here is the enduring significance of the subject, and, I'm deeply unconvinced of the enduring significance of the Muir Skate Longboard Shop.— S Marshall  T/C 11:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need the BBC being the standard of RS. In fact, such a high bar is present in no guideline. Nor we need to judge "enduring significance"; we need to document sourced knowledge, and that's what this article does. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We do need to discriminate between different levels of reliability in sources, and such a high bar is mentioned in WP:RS. The phrase "enduring significance" is a paraphrase of WP:IINFO (which actually mentions "enduring notability"). But, I do recognise that you and PÆon have an arguable case in terms of guidelines.  I disagree with you rather on a matter of editorial judgment.— S Marshall  T/C 12:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I believe that the sources demonstrate that this shop has "significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject", and thus meets our General Notability Guideline. Others may interpret the GNG more strictly (is the coverage given really significant?  It's certainly debatable, but I think that it is), but to me, this article clearly, if only barely, meets our notability criteria. Buddy431 (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Insufficient non-local WP:RS to allow it to pass.  Also there is nothing special about this store that would allow for it's inclusion in Wikipedia on those notability grounds either. --  RP459  Talk/Contributions 23:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when we need RS to be "non-local"? -- Cycl o pia talk  01:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the rationale CORP "on the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three local, one national, and one international... That is definitely not "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest." PÆon (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * RP459, thanks for pointing that out: that section of WP:CORP is in contradiction with WP:GNG (and itself, see first paragraph). I'll look into amending it. -- Cycl o pia talk  08:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when did "look[ing] into amending" a guideline involve unilaterally changing it without even trying discussion? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when WP:BRD exists. Of course the "RD" part is more than welcome. For the record: I am not using my edit to WP:CORP to argue in this deletion debate -for me it is enough that the topic meets WP:GNG ; that there is a separate problem with WP:CORP consistency is another problem. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rescue This article has multiple sources: three local, one national, and one international. It meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP and for this reason, it is deserving of a rescue. PÆon (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PÆon (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep again As I said last time, Google news search for its original name Muir Surf & Sport gives one result  Plus the coverage in the Concrete Wave Magazine counts, and other sources in the article as well.   D r e a m Focus  01:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:CORP. The coverage I'm seeing is not very significant. "Concrete Wave"? Yeah, so? Notabilty just because it was on a campus? I'm sure there is a maintainence shed near the athletic fields too, but I doubt it's notable either....If this looks like the same thing I said the last time, it is. My opinion hasn't changed. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Save for the users who have already participated in this AfD, I have notified the participants of Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop and Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12 about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not exceptionally adamant about it since there are only four sources in right now and this might be not be enough depending on your wikiphilosophy. In response to a few of the things above:
 * GNG does not specify that local coverage + international coverage is not sufficient. If someone is changing that they shouldn't be. WP:CORP also does not since it is easily interpreted as coverage being only local would point to it not being notable.
 * Transworld is obviously only a snippet since it reads "He was introduced to the right people within the UC system, and it wasn"(emphasis mine). I am actually surprised someone disputed that.
 * The Concrete Wave write up is fantastic for our purposes. It provides details that are more than trivial and assist in the article being created without any original research.
 * Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."
 * Delete – Still fails WP:CORP. This quote is from that page, and it sums this up very nicely:

- Notability (organizations and companies)


 * Basically, no significant coverage in secondary sources can be found. I also cannot find anything when I do a Google news search on "Muir Skate Longboard Shop". — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  02:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I think the problem is basically this. If I was to open my town's first Widget Shop next week, I'm pretty sure I could guarantee some coverage in the two local papers, and probably even the one that covers the city near my town.  I'm also pretty sure I could get some coverage in the online presence of Widget Buyers Monthly, and perhaps even in a few business-oriented sources - let's face it, mine is the first Widget Shop in the area.  Is that coverage in reliable sources?  Certainly is.  But is it significant coverage. No, it's just another few space-filling stories about another Widget Shop which is no different from all the others in the country.  The important part of WP:CORP is this - "Neither do the publication of routine communiqués (count as substantial coverage) announcing such matters as ... facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.". Black Kite (t) (c) 10:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:GNG gives us a guideline or framework to keep in mind as we consider the issue of notability. It's not a formula.  If people are trying really really hard to split hairs to make it appear that the guideline is met, it doesn't meet it.  GNG also says that "multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability," so please consider the three UCSD articles as one source.  This means there are three sources... hardly notable.  Maybe in six months or a year there will have been more coverage, but it's just not there right now.  ~  Pesco  So say•we all 10:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Three sources is more than enough for WP:GNG. There is no 3-sources threshold anywhere. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of sources is irrelevant. You can have significant coverage from a single source, but equally you could have twenty other sources that added together don't constitute significant coverage.  I would argue that the only source that's even approaching significant here is the Concrete Wave one, a half-page interview in a niche market magazine with, according to its article only a circulation of 20,000.  Local papers have larger circulations than that. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The circulation of most scientific technical journals is way below 20.000, yet nobody denies they are extremly good RS. Specialized coverage is still good, third-party coverage. We don't need the BBC being the threshold. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need the BBC, but relying on a single low-circulation niche publication doesn't say "significant coverage in reliable publications (plural)" to me. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have been more clear. Yes, sometimes few sources, depending on the source and the content, are enough to establish notability.  Based on these three sources and their content, it's my opinion that notability has not been demonstrated. ~  Pesco  So say•we all 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems as if to you, "it's just a stupid skate shop." You need to be unbiased when you look at it, along with other articles. For this reason, Harvard Book Store hasn't had a problem, but a skate shop is getting trouble. It was groundbreaking, a skate shop on a U.S. campus. UCSD is a large research school, so a skate shop being opened due to public demand is an incredible thing. Now that they're off campus, they're one of the largest retailers of longboards on the internet and host the biggest longboarding events in the country. PÆon (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable, bordering on spam. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up with proper references. Stifle(talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice essay, which contradicts deletion policy. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a pretty bad idea. All that will do is get someone to put work into an article that might be deleted. As soon as this AfD is over, if the article is still standing, I'm going to use the 5 reliable sources to create a much larger article. There's a lot of information in those sources, so I don't think I'll have much of a problem cleaning it up and expanding it. PÆon (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Important A business needs to meet one or more of three requirements to establish notability: 1. WP:CORP alternate criteria 2. WP:CORP primary criteria 3. WP:GNG Many of the "Delete" voters mentioned WP:CORP only. However, if the article only meets one of these requirements, it is indeed notable.

Comment WP:GNG states that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." All five sources are reliable, secondary sources. Even if there were five local sources, not three, this article would meet WP:GNG. Therefor, although I believe it meets WP:CORP, it does not need to. To anyone who thinks it doesn't meet WP:CORP, ask yourself if it meets WP:GNG. Remember, according to WP:GNG, local sources are considered reliable, independent sources. Because Muir Skate meets WP:GNG, it would be against the rules of Wikipedia to delete it. PÆon (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just also remember the GNG does not guarantee notability, it only presumes it. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it guarantees notability (otherwise it wouldn't be the GNG!). What is not guaranteed is that the topic is suitable for a standalone article, since we can judge it is best merged somewhere else, or that it clashes with WP:NOT for some other reason. But this doesn't seem the case. -- Cycl o pia talk  22:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below..." Yes it is a guideline - that's why it doesn't guarantee anything because guidelines are not black letter law. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I just looked up the only citation that might have given credibility to this article, Citation #3:  Muir Surf & Skate". Concrete Wave Magazine: p. 29. Winter 2009. http://www.concretewavemagazine.com/magazine/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=139. Retrieved May 9, 2010.  Unfortunately, it appears to be a hoax.  The winter 2009 edition of this magazine (correctly cited as Volume 7, No. 4) has a full-page advertisement for retroskateboards.com on it. No mention of this hokey little shop.  The other 3 references are a student newspaper and a blog.  Not a snowball's chance in hell of passing WP:CORP.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a hoax, they just mis-titled it, it should be Vol. 6, No. 4, Winter 2008. On page 29, bottom of the middle and all of the right column are about Muir Surf & Skate. In the viewer it's page 31 since it doesn't correspond with the page numbers of the actual magazine. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Still wrong. I tracked it down and it's Holidays 2008. After reading the portion of the article that mentions this shop, I wouldn't say that is significant coverage. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability, so my delete still stands. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What is going on with this? It says "Winter 2007 CONCRETE WAVE 29" at the bottom of the article. Is there a second write up in another issue? Cptnono (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the link again. It says Holidays 2007 at the bottom of the page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I've seen, I think it's just a sloppy editorial staff at the magazine. When I look at it the cover says "Winter 2008" and the bottom of the page says "Holidays 2007". Either way, the magazine is still just one source. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about the editorial sloppiness. Given that, I think that pretty much rules this Concrete Wave Magazine out as any sort of WP:RS.  If they can't even get the date of their issue straight, what can they be relied upon to get right?   Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know the definition of a reliable source, Todd. A good website is not indicative of the reliability of an international magazine. It's circulation of 20,000 speaks for itself. PÆon (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Read the link again." D'oh! Anyways, there isn't another one is there?Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And it is still RS just because we are getting thrown off by the date. Tagging it seems a little manipulative. It may not assert enough notability but it looks like perfectly fine magazine with an editorial vetting process and some decent circulation.Cptnono (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: couldn't find sources for this... probably self promotion... Arskwad (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Five sources have been supplied. Have you even read them? The three local sources are secondary, so along with the national (snippet) and international source, there's no denying that it meets WP:CORP. Before anyone says local sources aren't secondary, please look it up first. The type of source has nothing to due with a publication's size. There is enough information in those five sources to create a much larger article, and it deserves a chance to become something much better. Yes, "other stuff exists," but if this store was an Ivy bookstore, five sources wouldn't be a problem. This whole AfD seems like discrimination against skateboarders. PÆon (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (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.