Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy


 * 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. -Docg 01:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump Controversy

 * — (View AfD)

Non-Notable. How can this possibly be considered encyclopedic? Their spat is hardly a controversy, it's a feud and this page is all "he said, she said". There have been much bigger celebrity feuds and the only reason this one is noted is because both are among the most ridiculed "celebrities". There's no Tom Cruise controversy page, no Brad-Angelina-Aniston controversy page, no South Park and Barbara Streisand controversy. The page creator cited the Mel Gibson DUI incident when defending this page, but at least the Mel Gibson page is well cited and well written. It also has a much larger scope and affected his entire career, this feud will be over or forgotten in a month. This article has templates for not citing references, not being wikified and not being neutral. This feud is only "big" because the talk shows make fun of it and the tabloid news shows (like ET) make a big deal of it. I'm probably going to end up nominating this page for deletion, which I don't like doing, but this page is pointless. It also sets a dangerous precedent, because if this feud can become it's own page, why not all insignificant celebrity gossip? -- Scorpion 15:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and the fact that Rosie and Donald are just throwing insults at each other like 3rd graders. This is the sort of thing that belongs in People magazine, not Wikipedia. PTO 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if they wind up killing each other, then I might actually care. As of now, this is unencyclopedic cruft. No reliable sources cited to affirm notability, WP:V and WP:RS problems. Moreschi Deletion! 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - and WP:V and WP:RS and perfectly gopod reasons to delete something right now, especially with an article like this where if you mess up, you get sued. Moreschi Deletion! 09:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * comment-On the January 8th edition of Monday Night Raw, the Rosie and Donald contreversy was paroradied by Trump's friend Vince McMahon, with two imposters posing as Rosie and Donald fought in a match which resulted in Donald Trump winning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.160.216.254 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - per creator - You don't know where this controversy will lead, so you can't judge this article yet until the dispute between them is over. Scorpion noted the Mel Gibson DUI incident because it affected his entire career. You do not know yet how this feud will affect the careers of either Rosie or Trump. Trump has threatened a lawsuit. Is a protracted lawsuit trivial?
 * You cite WP:V and WP:RS issues. But these become fixed over time. You don't DELETE articles because of WP:V or WP:RS issues without giving them time to be fixed. This article was created one day ago and you're already passing judgement. I agree that if within two weeks these statements aren't cited, it should be deleted. But you've only given it 24 hours. Was the Execution of Saddam Hussein nominated for deletion one day after it was created because it perhaps had WP:V problems? Citation problems can also be resolved over the course of time, and yet it's gotta be deleted because within 24 hours people didn't fix it.
 * Non-notable? "Notability is not subjective. Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations, such as: "never heard of this", "an interesting article", "topic deserves attention", "not famous enough", "very important issue", "popular", "I like it", "only of interest to [some group]", etc." I cite Scorpion's comment above: "this page is pointless". To YOU! This feud isn't entirely trivial. It could affect the careers of Rosie O'Donnell, Donald Trump, and Barbara Walters in different ways. Rosie could be fired from The View largely because of controversies like this. Is this notable? Donald Trump's credibility could suffer because his comments and behavior have been utterly childish. Please consider the arguments made here and your own bias. -- Rollo44 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't believe your comparing a silly spat between Rosie and Trump to a major world event like Saddam's hanging... And what makes this tiff more important than the thousands of pointless celebrity feuds out there like Letterman Vs. O'Relly, Elton John Vs. Madonna, Starr Jones Vs. The view, etc. -- Scorpion 18:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not comparing this spat with Saddam's execution in terms of significance. I simply used it as an example of an article that wasn't immediately nominated for deletion because of disputed neutrality. And I never said this tiff was more important than other celebrity feuds. -- Rollo44 01:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why should it have a page? What makes it more important than all the others that it just HAS to have a page? -- Scorpion 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I never argued that other feuds or celebrity controversies are less important or should not have a page of their own. And I have not yet seen a substantial reason as to why this page should not exist other than subjective whinings that it is trivial. -- Rollo44 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also keeping the article based on what might happen in the future is an act of crystalballism. --65.95.17.53 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not based on crystalballism. It's as much based on crystalballism as any developing current event. -- Rollo44 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I used the term crystalballism I was refering to your rational to keep the article. For example, you stated the possibility of Rosie being fired from the view. My agrument was the we should not keep the article based on what we think may happen in the future. The article may not be crystalballism but the rational certainly was. --70.48.108.229 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's not even a substantive feud, just mutual contempt that surfaced during a slow news week. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial non-encyclopedic fluff. Agent 86 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is clearly your personal opinion. This article violates none of the tenets of What Wikipedia is not. -- Rollo44 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if Wikipedia is not a Tabloid is not there, it should be. -- Scorpion 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to petition Wikipedia to modify its 'What Wikipedia is not' page in such a way. -- Rollo44 02:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. -- Scorpion 02:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agent 86 says it perfectly. As valuable an article as Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump's bad hairstyles. -- Fan-1967 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would nominate such an article for deletion because it would be patently subjective. Furthermore, you are implying that this article is inherently subjective which it is not. I would have no problem with an article such as Hairstyles of Celebrities. What could be wrong with that other than your subjective opinion that hairstyles are not worthy of documentation or discussion? -- Rollo44 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yup, Agent 86 is right on the button. The media coverage bugs me more than the stupidity of the story itself. KrewBay 02:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an encyclopedia, not a current affairs show, and not Entertainment Tonight. No disrespect to the article's creator, but I don't think a lot of people will really care about this dummy spit between Rosie and the Don in a few years. It's perfectly appropriate to mention this in their individual bios, but I don't see the need for a page which just deals with this incident. We could probably write a large article about Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie's off-again, on-again friendship, but that wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia - it'd just duplicate what's in Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. Quack 688 06:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your sensitivity. I am not arguing that this feud is important in the large scheme of things. However, Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump have in fact acted childishly and I believe their words should be duly noted and recorded. I don't see how adding celebrity information reduces Wikipedia's value or credibility if that information is cited and accurate. I am not opposed to a Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes Wedding article, nor am I opposed to an article on Paris Hilton's Internet Video. I do not care about this stuff. But I am taking a stand because people have every right to construct accurate articles and summaries about these human events - as well as analysis on what this tells us about our popular culture. Those who think these things are not important are not forced to visit and read such articles. - Rollo44 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a news source for every current event. Doczilla 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's only a war of words between the two and no one has been formally served with a lawsuit. This reminds me of the just as inconsequential Kelly Ripa/Clay Aiken/Rosie O'Donnell spat. Tinlinkin 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, hill of beans (WP:HILLOFBEANS?. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not WikiNews. GassyGuy 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The time to write an article of this nature is after it becomes notable in some way. Zahir13 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep they are having a match on WWE RAW, and it will probably lead to something signifigant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.28.136 (talk • contribs). User:Zoe|(talk) 00:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: This controversy is receiving frequent news coverage. Q0 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please add source citations to the article showing what mainstream news media have been covering it. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * is a google search of news articles containing both "Rosie O'Donnell" and "Donald Trump". It gives 2684 results, but some of those appear to be duplicates. I have not been working on the article so it would be hard for me to know which references will verify which assertions. The best I can do is add an external links section with some of the news articles. Q0 23:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is over there → User:Zoe|(talk) 00:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not news. Wikipedia is for useful, relevant information, and this isn't.  There are more important things to cover. BlueStarz 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone has claimed there aren't more important things to cover. - Rollo44 02:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * IF 'useful, relevant information' is the criteria by which we should judge which articles to keep or delete, then there are thousands of wikipedia articles which should be deleted (hip-hop feuds, Lost: the Video Game, the Mel Gibson DUI incident among many others). Besides who is to judge what is useful and relevant?  You may not find the information useful or relevant, but what if I do?Rikkwj 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Current article cites no sources at all and fails to meet WP:V. If it can be shown that the New York Times is tracking this story, well, then I'd say keep. The argument that "You don't know where this controversy will lead, so you can't judge this article yet" falls under WP:CRYSTAL. The contributors should certainly keep their notes and drafts of the article in progress, so that if it becomes major news they won't need to dig it all out again, but there's no need at all for this article today. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utterly inflated media hype, perhaps worthy of a mention in passing in main articles for subjects. Will be forgotten in one year, never mind 100.Eludium-q36 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will be forgotten in one year is not an acceptable reason for deletion. - Rollo44 02:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even ignoring the fact that entire article is unreferenced origianl research, event is barely even worth mentioning, and a blip in the participants' long careers in the public eye.  This non-news has only been brought back to attention recently on wiki due to wave of vandalism/nonsense edits by WWE fans on the Trump and O'Donnell pages. Tendancer 19:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can't speak for the New York Times, Dpbsmith, but in Canada the Globe and Mail and National Post certainly cover it . Given the amount of coverage, a lot of the info ought to be referenceable to appropriate sources. That it is not neutral and not wikified -- these are also fixable and not grounds for deletion. If the event drops off the radar without anyone having fixed this page, then it is probable that nobody will, but at the moment people care, so for now keep it around and give them a chance. 192.75.48.150 21:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So? The Britney Spears Panties incident and Britney K-Fed divorce also received mainstream coverage, let's go create pages for those incidents! -- Scorpion 21:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be creating them myself. But, assuming that appropriate sources were availble, neither would I rush to delete them if other people did so. I basically agree with the reasoning given here. 192.75.48.150 21:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP Why the rush to delete this article? Let's see how the story eventually pans out.  When the story eventually dies (and it will), the article can be incorprated into the Rosie O'Donnell article and the Donald Trump article.
 * Why not instead wait and see if it actually turns into something and THEN create an article. -- Scorpion 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Because as it has been mentioned on several occasions that is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. --64.229.74.22 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with strong keep guy over here, its a developing story. It just needs some Wiki love to make it look nicer--User:NFAN3&#124;NFAN3 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It just needs some Wiki love - Absolutely. - Rollo44 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not simply edit this down and merge it into O'Donnell's and Trump's biographies?
 * That's the reason I created this article. More and more information was being added, but being whittled down because it was overshadowing Rosie's biography. So we trimmed its appearance in her biography, but placed a link to this article where editorial trimming is unnecessary and all real and accurate information is permissible. - Rollo44 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I completely agree with Rollo44 on this page. It should be just part of Trump and O'Donnell's Biographies. - StarStan490


 * Keep. Per the Jennifer Wilbanks and Marguerite Perrin articles. I Go Moo 04:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Completely different thing. If there was a page for Wilbanks AND a page called Runaway Bride Incident, then they should be merged, but because Trump and O'Donnell have pages, this feud should be mentioned there. -- Scorpion 04:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait it out - Trump is right in his comments about Rosie being a bully. She can dish out criticism but surely can't take it.  Trump is childish by continuing Rosie's stupid game.  Leave it so we can record this embarrassing episode for future generations and show how child-like Donald and Rosie are! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.104.64.178 (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. Ephemeral cruft. Does this pass the 100-year test? Hint: no. Herostratus 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UT
 * Does Wikipedia have a 100-year test? - Rollo44 05:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See Notability (people). --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete.  Too difficult to keep it even-handed, and I don't like repeating every single insult that Trump threw out unless all of Rosie's and Barbara Walters' responses are included as well, or else truncate this article and simply link to articles that lay it all out.  Is it really necessary to repeat all this stuff here? I didn't think that was the purpose of Wikipedia. I also disagree with the commenter above that this should be on Rosie's and Donald's pages, as it will spur a non-stop struggle to conform each entry, IMO. This separate article seems to me to be the better solution, if folks really want to read about this.  FirthFan1, 2:14, 10 January, 2007
 * Too difficult to keep it even-handed? By that rationale many articles regarding Israel would be thrown out. - Rollo44 00:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. Does not need nor require a full-blown article, as this melodramatic argument is mostly about "he said/she said" babble. This entry should be incorporated in respective articles for both Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump (and maybe even in the article about Barbara Walters) in the same manner as the Star Jones episode at The View and the Clay Aiken spat. This info can also be incorporated into the article about Barbara Walters, since both the Trump-O'Donnell and the O'Donnell-Jones-Walters spats allude to misrepresentation on her (Walters) part. lwalt 08:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's alot of incorporation into seperate articles; why not have one article that documents the whole thing? IF the event is worthy of inclusion on three seperate Wiki articles, then it should be worthy of its own article. I think that the controversy should only be a blurb on the seperate pages with a link to this main page, much like it is now.Rikkwj 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's interesting that the article on Donald Trump gives only a passing reference to this, while the article on Rosie has a whole "controversies" section. If anything, Trump has gone way over the top, and his article should have more information about his overblown antics, while the article on O'Donnell could tone down the whole "controversies" section.  As for having a unique article?  Unless something spectacular happens (and it well could -- if one decided to sue the other, or if there was a major backlash against Trump, for example), it's probably unnecessary.  "Celebrities" are not inherently interesting or encyclopaedia-worthy, despite the fawning obesiance given them by the media.  Indeed, the most interesting and useful angle such an article might take would violate every Wikipedia rule: Trumps rants are clearly misogynist and homophobic.  He calls O'Donnell an arrogant bully while taking every opportunity to bully her, and being famous for being arrogant on a world-class scale.  He calls her mean while being famously mean, and so on.  We can't say it in an article, but that's what's really fascinating about this feud, not that they are well-known people or the fact that they're feuding per se.   Exploding Boy 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Most of the arguments against keeping this article are very subjective. Who is to judge what is worthy, relevant or useful?  Isn't the point of Wikipedia to give people a forum to document (in an objective and scholarly fashion) topics that are not covered in traditional, scholarly encyclopedias?  If this article is unworthy, then wouldn't the article on the Mel Gibson DUI incident be unworthy?  What about the lengthy and exhaustive list of hip-hop feuds?  In the big scheme of things these articles document events that are just as meaningless as the Rosie-Donald feud.  Why aren't those articles marked for deletion?  The fact is that this is a significant event this year for many people that is being covered and documented by major news outlets.  Also, why integrate it into two seperate existing articles when the story involves three different people (Walters, Trump and O'Donnell) with a wide variety of quotes and letters and such.  Having said all of this, this article does need substantial clean up and thorough citations.Rikkwj 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you remove the unsourced material, you are left with nothing at all. Arlo Guthrie tells a story about asking his wife what happened to a huge stack of National Geographic magazines (well, that's what he said) he had been keeping in the garage. She said "I cleaned them up last week." He said, "They're not clean, they're gone." She replied, "Well, you can't get much cleaner than gone." If you clean up this article, it's gone. So in this case, cleanup is deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. All that needs to be done is to source the unsourced material and streamline the presentation of the material. The fact is that this is a real event that is notable enough to have attracted the attention of major media outlets and the general public; it shouldn't be deleted just because it dosen't interest some people.Rikkwj 03:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been on wikipedia for 1 day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rikkwj and somehow you are already familiar with editing, voting and usage and only ever discussed this issue. What's your other account that you used to come here and cast votes?  Tendancer 08:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take that as a compliment! I don't have another account and this is indeed the first day I started an account.  I have lurked on these pages for some time and tried to learn things before I posted and made a fool of myself. And let's be honest, Wikipedia isn't that hard to use.Rikkwj 02:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep BrenDJ 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No more un-notable than Hip_hop_rivalries -- Philosophistry 04:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsourced material, unbaised, it either favors O'Donnell or Trump, doubt it will ever seem to be neautral. 68.203.248.140 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A major case of recent-itis. 6 months from now no one will care and in 6 years no one will remember. At best, this warrants the treatments it already has in their respective bios but even those will probably be trimmed down or deleted in the near future as it becomes less newsworthy. 205.157.110.11 08:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The Wikipedia is WP:NOT the National Enquirer. BlankVerse 08:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets basic standards. No real substantitve reason to deleve. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with the ability to edit, which seems to be blocked today. Frankly, the entry seems biased in favor of Trump, and Rosie fans should have the ability to freely add her responses as well. FirthFan1, 13:47, 11 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FirthFan1 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete- I believe adding info to the bios is sufficient. Tazz765 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This isn't a news article, it is a current encyclopediaic entry. It just needs some references, but it looks fine by me. --Pinkkeith 16:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- This article should be deleted because it doesn't live up to WP standards NOT because it is not worthy as it is a current event and could change. However I implore the creator to make this article not be a cut and paste job. Thecolemanation 18:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey. I cut and paste because I thought more people would edit and change things. That's the way Wikipedia works! Unfortunately, that hasn't happened with this article... yet. It doesn't need to be deleted on that account. It does however need work and a banner that says the article needs to be Wikified. -- If anyone here is a Keeper, make some small or big changes if you see anything that needs fixing or improved. - Rollo44 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This has been extremely notable and inclusion worthy. Trilemma 21:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.15.138.18 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Why are Wikiies so "DELETE HAPPY?" This forum of the Internet is not like a tradtional paper encyclopedia; the information can grow to infiniti and still fit on a computer.  A paper encycolpedia must edit down in order to fit on a bookshelf.  One person's article that is informative to some can be judged as redundant and unimportant to others.  An example of this is sports articles to a non sports fan or teen pop culture trivia to an elderly person .  THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH ROOM FOR INFORMATION ON WIKIPEDIA!  IF NOT BILL GATES WILL IMPROVE THE SOFTWARE!!
 * Besides the fact this preson isn't a regular Wiki, he has point. This actually making headlines.  Why be so quick to delete?
 * "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Thousands of things appear in headlines every day, that nevertheless do not render them encyclopedic.  If one's interested in headlines, WikiNews is a couple clicks away. Tendancer 22:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This has become much more than just a minor feud between two celebrities. Others are getting involved, including Madonna (having chimed in this morning on NBC's "Today") and Barbara Walters as well as the Trump kids.  CNN has covered the matter with regular updates, not to mention other "Entertainment News" organizations.  There are many, many other articles which have much less content (and Encyclopedia relevance) to them. MadHacktress 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Merely placing such information on the respective bio pages is enough. Delta 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it's funny that an article that so many people deem non-notable is notable for having so much argument about it. Should there be a wiki about the debate for its inculsion? ;)Rikkwj 03:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably. I myself am surprised at the volume of debate. - Rollo44 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Same here. If no one truly cared, we wouldn't have an article at all--User:NFAN3&#124;NFAN3 18:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Simply stated, we cannot delete and article like this until the feud, or at least its public manifestation, is over. Who knows what this will lead to? Gogf 04:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If it goes somewhere and actually does end up being something, THEN create an article. It's not like Rosie and Donals don't already have pages. -- Scorpion 13:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We have articles for things that are important, not for things that a crystal-ball scryer sees looming as important in the future. Your statement "who knows what this will lead to" acknowledges that it is not important yet, and is a reason for deletion, not a reason for keeping. If nobody knows yet whether the feud is important, it should not have an article yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is only one argument for keeping the article. And as noted, it is not very strong. However, the feud is real, verifiable, ongoing, and a subject unto itself. - Rollo44 23:02, 12 January 2007 (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.