Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes


 * 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 redirect to War crime. There wasn't a consensus to keep this article- the decision was between merge and delete. A lot of people said delete/merge, which is not possible. To preserve authorship history a merged article shouldn't be deleted. As some sections have already been merged a redirect is more appropriate. If this was a merger into one article a redirect to that article would be obvious, but in this case I'm redirecting to War crime, which contains links to the other articles per comment by Nihonjoe below. Petros471 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes
This page was created with the sole attempt to try to attack Japan by comparing it unfavourably to Germany's post war attitude. Although it has been later changed, the article remains highly POV with no hope of later improvement. This is because it compares only Germany and Japan. It would be like creating an article comparing US and Swedish foreign policy. You could try to make it neutral, but because the choices were originally made to look the US look bad, the US will always be portrayed especially unfairly.

If the article had a general scope to look at how the Axis powers reacted to the war, or all the major powers on both sides, maybe it could work. But I don't think such an arbitrary comparison should be allowed to stay on wikipedia. No one is willing to put the effort in to change the slant, only minor edits. So hope of change would be vain. John Smith&#39;s 11:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment so would you then be happy if it were moved to Responses of Axis Powers to World War II war crimes? WilyD 12:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moving it wouldn't be sufficient, because the entire slant of it is to compare Germany and Japan. Although some parts could be used, it would need to be completely re-written from scratch. And no one is going to do that - they won't even try to improve the current format. John Smith&#39;s 13:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I realise the article has huge WP:NPOV problems, but they're not irredeemable. Which means this isn't an article for deletion, really, but an article for improvement.  Unfortunately there's no WP:AfI.  Hmmm.... WilyD 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If the article were deleted, but the content saved/archived somewhere, it would actually provide motivation to write a better, more balanced article about all the Axis powers. Or indeed one about all the WWII powers - I think the latter would be better. Keeping it as it is with the tags won't make anyone sort it out. Sometimes you have to force people to do what is necessary. And if no one actually does write another article, it will show that they were never going to improve the current one, nor that it actually matters to them. John Smith&#39;s 13:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's Cleanup, which is exactly that. Uncle G 13:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would that make a difference? The article has been tagged for ages. Besides if I move it, someone will just revert it. I think a clean start with a new article would be better and this one being deleted. John Smith&#39;s 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, roughly speaking "Needs improvement" is not really accepted as a criterion for deletion, unless "but can't be improved" follows. WilyD 13:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I already pointed out, the entire premise of the article is POV and thus against wikipedia policy. Why not have an article comparing George Bush to Ghandi? Or the US' consumption of oil to Sri Lanka's? If those articles were created, they'd be deleted very fast, even if valid points were made. So why should this one get special treatment? If someone said, "well the points are valid and it could be expanded" that would not cut any ice. The call to expand/improve the article has been made many times. It has been ignored at every turn.
 * If someone wants to start a new article, they can go right ahead. But this will never be improved. It is completely POV and designed to attack Japan's "failure" to account for its past actions. Thus it should be deleted. John Smith&#39;s 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of those analogies fail because you're trying to relate unconnected things, rather than related things - see, for example Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American health care systems compared, Canadian and American economies compared, or generally Category:Comparisons for some examples. WilyD 13:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The comparisons you mention are not like the one we're talking about here. They're on domestic issues which are fairly uncontroversial. Certainly looking at the start pages, there was no malice intended when they were created. I know the comparisons I made were arbitrary, but I'm having difficulty in finding an unacceptable comparison where you can understand how it's unfair. I don't know, what about comparing Catholicism to Buddhism in terms of sexual child abuse claims? They're both global religions, so why not make a comparison? If you can't see what I'm getting at, I'm not sure what to say. John Smith&#39;s 14:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly (and mostly as an aside) I'll say: If you think comparing the Canadian and American Health Care systems is fairly uncontraversial, then you have been toking too much, and passing too little. But while your point is okay, there is a very strong grounds for a comparison in the germany/japan response to World War II dealies - specifically, that they're allies in WWII (and really, the only important ones), and we're comparing their actions during a time in which they (marginally in practice, but very much in theory) acted together.  An article like Comparison of Canadian Internment and American Internment of Japanese during WWII would be pretty reasonable, I think - if the Buddhists and Cathlics teamed up to molest children, then such a comparison might be appropriate. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it, but there needs to be a "connectedness" for comparisons, not just a "relatedness"  WilyD 14:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the US-Canada comparisons are more fair, because there are good and bad things to say about both sides. HOWEVER, if someone picked an area where Canada or the US appeared completely and utterly disgraceful compared to the other, and it was virtually impossible to argue against it because people had got it into their heads that was the case, would that be fair? No, it wouldn't. John Smith&#39;s 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to believe its unfair based on the outcome of the comparison. If the comparison is appropriate, then it'll be appropriate whether the two parties come out looking equivilent or one comes up roses and one comes up pig shit, it doesn't matter.  WilyD 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? With that logic, you're saying it's ok to use wikipedia to attack things/people if they're hidden in a comparison. That's ridiculous! John Smith&#39;s 14:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true at all, and it really applies apart from comparisons. Our article on Tommy Douglas is far more flattering than our article on Pol Pot, but this isn't a problem.  WilyD 14:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pol Pot was an individual, so that isn't relevant. His page also discusses his entire life. This is a comparison between entire nations on a specific issue. Now you're making improper comparisons. John Smith&#39;s 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your very specific point that because an article makes one person/group look bad and another look good, it's untenable. WilyD 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not respond properly then. Those two people are not compared. I am talking about where someone makes an article to compare things purely to attack one party. John Smith&#39;s 14:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You said if someone picked an area where Canada or the US appeared completely and utterly disgraceful compared to the other, and it was virtually impossible to argue against it because people had got it into their heads that was the case, would that be fair? No, it wouldn't - which I took to imply that the outcome of the comparison is relevent to whether it's an appropriate comparison to make - an idea that's false. WilyD 15:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've already explained, I'm talking about where a comparison is made purely to discredit/attack/belittle/etc one of the parties in the comparison. Move on now, please. John Smith&#39;s 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If your point is only that the article needs to be cleaned up, I think we've already discussed that at reasonable length. WilyD 15:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't my point! Look, I've tried to make you understand. You can't/won't. Just leave it. John Smith&#39;s 15:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're making an unclear point, its worth expounding it. I'm not the only one reading this discussion.  Other people will attempt to help the discussion come to concensus, and they're also likely to consider your arguments if they're well presented. WilyD 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to explain it one more time. You have already made your points, so if you feel I am repeating what I have said, please do not try to confuse readers by complaining again - let them make up their own minds.
 * The article is too biased in its remit. The comparison was crafted to purely attack Japan by making an unfavourable comparison with Germany. It is not possible to make the article NPOV, because it focuses on this specific comparison which is automatically squeued against Japan. Also the points are mostly discussed elsewhere already - there is no need to repeat what has already been said. No one knows how to actually address and improve this article because however they do it, the squeued nature of it keeps making it NPOV. So it has to be deleted, with the content merged/moved elsewhere if necessary. John Smith&#39;s 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge/Rename &mdash; There's already a Japanese war crimes which covers part of this topic. For some reason I can't fathom, there's no corresponding German war crimes or Nazi war crimes page or redirect. (Although there is a Nuremberg Trials page.) The German-specific material could be used to seed a corresponding war crimes page. (But it would also need to cover WWI.) &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment &mdash; Yes, it is true that the Japanese bit repeats a lot of things that are said elsewhere. I've already said that I think the information could be used elsewhere, but this page itself needs to be deleted. John Smith&#39;s 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have created a German war crimes page and merged the relevant information from this article there. John Smith&#39;s 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks John Smith. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per John Smith's and RJH into the articles on the war crimes perpetrated by each country. It is hard to see exactly what this article provides that separate articles could not, and the numerous controversies relating to Japan's attitude to the atrocities it has committed are already discussed to death in dozens of other POV-magnet, revert-war-ridden articles. There's no need to waste time cleaning this up when doing so would merely be duplicating effort that is already going on elsewhere. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have already merged the part on Germany. Assuming that the content on Japan is already present in the Japanese war crimes page, or any extra content is merged, what happens then? Do I have to list this page for deletion again, or what? John Smith&#39;s 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I could vote for merge, but this article is best deleted. Evidence gather is interesting but it really (now) reads like a social article. As this article continues to find neutral ground the author(s) are best advised to publish on paper. Once on paper, then it can be included.


 * To that, it also follows along the line of original paper. Wikipedia as an encycolpedia should chronical what we see as conclusions reported, not what "we" think. In that, the article quotes NO sources that outline or discuss the theme directly. Hence, delete. Respectfully meatclerk 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge per various comments above. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it would be best to redirect the existing page to War crime as that page links to both Japanese war crimes and German war crimes in addition to many other useful pages. Since the appropriate content has already been moved to the appropriate pages (per comments above), it seems this discussion is now less about deletion than it is abotu where to redirect this page. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  23:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, a redirect sounds like a sensible solution. I'm open to suggestions if people don't like "war crime". Personally I think it sounds fine. John Smith&#39;s 23:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concure with Smith's meatclerk 04:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, or move to Responses of Japan to World War II war crimes. "Response to event X" articles are common in wikipedia. "World War II war crimes" is an important topic, and Germany's and Japan's responses over the last sixty years are notable. The article just need a cleanup and have references added. Japanese war crimes is already 51 kilobytes long. Merging would be against Article size guideline. --Vsion 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There are loads of articles larger than 50kb, so that argument is invalid. Second most of the information discussed in this article is already in Japanese war crimes - why must it be repeated? Third no one has taken any interest in sorting out the article for ages. There was plenty of time to sort it out before. Merging any excess info is much simpler. John Smith&#39;s 14:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * AFD is not for cleanup. Most of this information in this article is not in Japanese war crimes or any other articles. This article needs cleanup, not deletion. --RevolverOcelotX 18:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything below this line was said after the 5 day discussion period and thus not relevant to the final decision. From the above opinions, it appears there was a consensus for merger. If an admin would like to confirm that, I would appreciate it. John Smith&#39;s 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * John Smith&#39;s, Read the AFD rules, discussion can continue on AFTER 5 days if it has not been closed.--RevolverOcelotX 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, "Response to event X" articles are common and a very valid topic. There is no need to add on the the already large Japanese war crimes article. This article needs to be cleanup, not deleted. --RevolverOcelotX 18:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're a bit late - the debates last 5 days, so I'm not sure your opinion will actually count. John Smith&#39;s 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Read the AFD rules, discussion can continue on AFTER 5 days as long as an admin has not closed it. --RevolverOcelotX 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From the above opinions, it appears there was a consensus for merger. If an admin would like to confirm that, I would appreciate it. I do not believe Revolver's opinion would count for the decision because it was made after the 5 day discussion period. However even if it was counted, then there would still be 5 votes for a merger and only 2 for keeping it. So I think an official merger is the correct decision to be made. John Smith&#39;s 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's: AFD discussions can last longer than 5 days, and there are many that do. Any and All comments made before an admin closes the disucssion are valid and considered in the final decision made by the closing admin. Additionally, removing other editor's comments is considered vandalism, so please do not do that again. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  21:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. John Smith&#39;s 21:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are currently 3 votes for merge, 1 vote for delete, and 2 votes for keep. There is currently no consensus to delete this article but rather to cleanup the article. --RevolverOcelotX 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me count the votes for you. Two keeps are you and Vsion. Merges are me, meatclerk, Joe, Haeleth and RJH. meatclerk changed his vote. That is five. And let me remind you that a listing like this can state the article should be merged - it doesn't have to be deleted or kept. John Smith&#39;s 21:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * meatclerk's vote was to delete, not to merge. The consensus seems to be that this article needs cleanup, not merge or deletion. --RevolverOcelotX 21:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He changed his vote. "Concure with Smith's meatclerk 04:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)" He was concurring with my agreement to merge. John Smith&#39;s 21:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * AFD isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Other editors have supported cleanup instead of merge or delete. --RevolverOcelotX 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was away traveling to research a different article. I want to verify that I originally wanted delete, but will redirect or merge whichever is most appropriate at this time. meatclerk 07:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. A while ago, I made a strong effort to neutralise this article. Then, the treatment of each side was fairly equal and an effort to compare and contrast their actions was made. Now the Japan side is *way* too long, and some parts (like the "conclusion", which seems like someone's personal conclusion) need to be removed entirely. Nonetheless, the article should stay, perhaps being expanded to include all Axis powers (Bulgaria, anyone?) Acegikmo1 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, right and who's going to do that? No one - that's who. It's going to stay completely lob-sided, because no one is going to put the effort in - like they didn't do for God know's how long before. John Smith&#39;s 21:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments civilized, John Smith's. There's no reason to indirectly attack anyone or deride another editor's comments just because an article sat dormant for a long time. It happens to articles all the time. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  22:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is alot of references and sources in this article. Alot of human resource have already been devoted to improve this page. We cannot waste it. --RevolverOcelotX 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you going on about? All these things are well discussed on the Japanese war crimes page - I also created one for Germany. There is no need to discuss these things separately and in such detail. John Smith&#39;s 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is a very valid topic and is different from Japanese war crimes. There is not another pages addressing most of the issues brought up by this page. --RevolverOcelotX 22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take this discussion to the talk page of the article as this is not the place to discuss anything other than whether or not the article should be deleted. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  22:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Wikipedia shouldn't have an article with this name. The article is starting from an unstated conclusion (that there is something specifically interesting in comparing these two "responses")  -- this is an essay title, not an encyclopedia article.  If there is verifiable information in this article that would be helpful to add to some other article, there's no reason not to do that, but that's not a deletion decision.  Jkelly 23:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge (Prefer to Delete) &mdash; Apparent violations of WP:NPOV. Japan and Germany have been isolated out as the only 2 nations that are to be blamed for World War II.  There are other countries which were involved as part of the Axis Powers, such as Mussolini's Italy, Vichy France, Austria under Anschluss, and Korea under Japanese rule.  The responsibility of the modern nations which survive them, have curiously been omitted.--Endroit 10:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV is generally not a criteria for deletion. The article is valid and it could be expanded to include the other Axis Powers. This article is clearly a notable comparison article. There are many other similar comparison articles such as Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American health care systems compared, Canadian and American economies compared, or generally Category:Comparisons for some examples. --RevolverOcelotX 22:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As Jkelly said, the comparisons and analyses of the 2 nations violates WP:V as well. And you've got so much negative material against (only) Japan and Germany already.  How do you suppose you can salvage this article by adding more negative material about other surviving "Axis Power" nations?  You're just asking for more trouble, and this is a disaster waiting to happen.  Just delete the article already.  And if any of the currently existing material is any good, it may be reused in other "valid" articles.--Endroit 23:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is a valid article as shown by the sources. Having negative material about Japan and Germany is not a good reason for deletion. There is already alot of references and sources in this article. Alot of human resource have already been devoted to improve this page. We cannot waste it. --RevolverOcelotX 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the article becomes "a valid article as shown by the sources", because RevolverOcelotX fails to give a convincing case. Most of the sources talk about Japan only or Germany only.  The connection between the 2 countries seem to be made superficially by a handful of Wikipedians, which amounts to a violation of WP:NOR, if not WP:V.  Also, the current title and content of the article assume that MODERN Japan and MODERN Germany should be blamed for all the crimes in WWII, which, I repeat, violates WP:NPOV.--Endroit 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Endroit fails to give a convincing case. WP:NPOV issues are NOT valid reasons for deletion. Other editors have supported that this article needs cleanup and references added. Japanese war crimes is already 51 kilobytes long. Merging would be against Article size guideline. RevolverOcelotX


 * Endriot, that is an excellent point. The entire page is personal research, because the sources generally talk about the individual countries. However it's a comparison page, so the sources should be comparing the two, yet that isn't what happens. John Smith&#39;s 00:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * RevolverOcelotX, whether I convince you or not, WP:NPOV can and WILL be used as one of the reasons to delete the article, per AfD procedures, if we have consensus here.--Endroit 00:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While WP:NPOV may be used in AfD, this is not a strong reason for deletion, as such articles can be salvaged. RevolverOcelotX
 * Usually you're right about that. However in this case, the article has had WP:NPOV problems for over 2 years, and a review is in order.  Also, we have this WP:NOR problem comparing the 2 countries.  RevolverOcelotX and others are encouraged to come up with a failsafe idea to salvage this article despite these problems.  If we fail to do that, I don't see why the article should be kept.  I'm all ears.--Endroit 00:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm changing my mind - Delete/merge. Delete primarily, merge if that is the only option other than keeping it. John Smith&#39;s 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You nominated this, so there's no need to indicate "keep" or delete" in your comments. Also, AFD isn't a vote, it's a discussion. RevolverOcelotX


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- Neier 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The nominator wrote that "The entire page is personal research, because the sources generally talk about the individual countries. ... " I think the nominator has failed to notice these two sources in the article:
 * Sebastian Conrad. "Entangled Memories: Versions of the Past in Germany and Japan, 1945-2001." Journal of Contemporary History 38, no.1 (January 2003), 85-99.
 * Ian Buruma. Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany & Japan. New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux, 1994.
 * Aren't these two sources comparing the responses of the two countries? If the nominator had misrepresented the case for deletion, then this Afd nomination should be dismissed. --Vsion 02:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "Aren't these two sources comparing the responses of the two countries?" As Endroit points out below, they're only two sources - I said "generally", not all. Besides I didn't make the point until recently, so your complaint is irrelevant. Please don't try to make up reasons to stop this Afd. John Smith&#39;s 08:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These 2 sources mentioned appear to be Europe-centric, but their use do not violate WP:NOR....
 * Sebastian Conrad. "Entangled Memories: Versions of the Past in Germany and Japan, 1945-2001." Journal of Contemporary History 38, no.1 (January 2003), 85-99.
 * Ian Buruma. Wages of Guilt: Memories of War in Germany & Japan. New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux, 1994. ISBN 0374285950.
 * But there are 8 OTHER sources which have been introduced. Those 8 other sources and the contents of the article itself are NOT true to these 2 sources just mentioned.  Hence the added material being used to compare Germany versus Japan amount to original research, in violation of WP:NOR.  Since the added material (80% of the source) is central to the article, we are voting to delete the whole article as proposed.  There are other problems relating to WP:NPOV, which I clarified above, and that alone is enough to vote for deletion as well.--Endroit 08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Those two books are listed under "Further reading," not bibliography or works cited. The entire article is exactly what is called "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position." --Saintjust 10:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No need to have an independent article for comparison. It suffices to write on the two issues on the articles of Japanese history and German history respectively. Comparison with Germany may be mentioned on Japan's WW2 article as it's a common criticism of post-war Japan, but presenting it as if it's a legitimate and objective topic is not npov since the way it presents the issues itself is highly politicized. --Saintjust 08:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research with Wrong motive, no reasonable source... --Ypacaraí 15:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Poorly written, POV nonsense. L0b0t 17:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete/Merge per Endroit. World War II and postwar crimes and responses and Category:World War II and postwar crimes which also include the Allies, such as US, UK, China, Dutch, France, and especially USSR in addition to the Axes will be a nice summarization, and comparison within the context is pretty fine but picking up just two countries out of them from a view point that the Allies always have the justice is enough POV. --Jjok 14:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only link between German and Japanese war crimes is that they happened to take place at roughly the same time. Japan and Germany did not fight side-by-side; the war crimes took place completely independently of each other, in different parts of the world, against different victims, while other countries were also committing war crimes (Soviets?) Furthermore, the type of crimes committed is completely different. So a comparison is as relevant as comparing Russia in Chechnya to Israel in Gaza today. Also, counting Japan's crimes against Korea under "WWII War Crimes" is simply incorrect as A) Japan and Korea were not at war, it was colonial rule, which B) started in 1910, long before WWII. Responses of Japan to colonial rule and war crimes is a notable topic worthy of an article but is lost here in an attempt at meaningless comparison. Phonemonkey 14:11, 26 August 2006 (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.