Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Impossible to judge consensus of this discussion since the event actually took place in the middle of the discussion, so half the discussion is pre-event, and the other half is post-event. No prejudice against speedy renomination. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This yet to happen sports event fails WP:FUTURE, a whole range of WP notability guidelines (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). It is currently only sourced to either to UFC's own website or specialist MMA web sources, there is no indication that the coverage that this event will get will be nothing more than the routine type all professional sports events get and as a result this fails the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy because it fails to demonstrate why or how it will have any enduring notability as an event. It therefore can, and is, more than adequately covered in 2012 in UFC events. It also Fails WP:IRS as it is sourced completely from MMA Fansites. Because of these issues it also has problems with CONTINUING COVERAGE, WP:RECENT,ETC This especially applies since it takes place in two days, and there is still just general sports coverage, nothing notable. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

SUSPEND, PLEASE The exact wording on WP:Future is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The event is in two days, is on national television, and is a major sporting event. It clearly meets the "almost certain to happen" criteria along with every other UFC event you've AfD'd for that matter. As for notabilitiy, that is still in discussion as you very well know at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability As such, I ask that you please withdraw this until discussion is settled. Beansy (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Most ridiculous suggestion for deletion I've ever seen. There are articles for Super Bowls going clear to Super Bowl L which is in 2016 and an article for the 2028 Summer Olympics and it violates no policies.-- Rockchalk717 19:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Summer Olympics are covered because of the competition leading up to site choice and the level of prep, the UFC is in no way as notable as the Olympics. while I do sort of see your point about the Super Bowl, again the city chosen is part of the reason, and it is a single annual world championship game for football. Though I can think of a few super bowls I would nominate for AfD if it were more than a snowballs chance....Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just one in a series of routine sports events that only gets routine sport news coverage of the type all professional sports gets. I know that fans don't like it but it is WP current policy (see WP:NOT) not to cover such events. Mt  king  (edits)  00:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Every UFC PPV and all both of the previous UFC on Fox events have articles so if this gets deleted then delete them all. I'm not a UFC fan either I'm only interested in this event because I went to High School and was on the wrestling team with Tim Elliott who fights tomorrow night.-- Rockchalk 717 00:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Compromise Since this proposing deletion of every single UFC would take a long time, I say keep this and all other previous UFC Event pages but don't allow future ones to be created-- Rockchalk 717 00:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Editors who know nothing about UFC or MMA are trying to ruin the coverage of UFC on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The article appears to contain only routine news reporting on things like [fight] announcements. The only sources cited are from MMA media and the UFC which is borderline in terms of compliance with WP:GNG and its request of sources that are "independent of the subject".  Finally, the article does not contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader or to assert why the event is notable.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep I don't know what sort of silly drama Wikipedia is having over MMA these days, obviously there's something going on from having a quick look around; but for what it's worth, I was looking for information on this event and I ended up on this page which then provided said information to me. I'm not a wikipedian, but that seems to me like a case of Wikipedia fulfilling its purpose. 114.77.213.154 (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. The deletes on these UFC related articles are WP:IDONTLIKEIT or perhaps better yet "I don't know anything about it so I won't follow WP:BEFORE.  Just about all UFC events are covered in the mainstream press, USA Today, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, etc.  The Pay-Per-View events feature title fights and number one contender fights.  They involve notable fighters.  They are watched by an international audience of hundreds of thousands if not millions.  They do not occur on a daily, or weekly basis, as with other sports' seasons.  Deleting this article makes Wikipedia less useful as a reference guide.  These nominations are essentially disruptive vandalism of this project as they waste our time and flood the encyclopedia with these silly and unnecessary discussions rather than articles that are at least helpful for someone.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody
 * Keep by default as no fact based or honest reason is likely to ever exist for deletion of this obviously notable event. Suggest topic ban of all accounts saying to delete from any and all MMA related discussions per WP:TROLL and WP:VANDAL.  --63.3.19.130 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC) - Sock of community banned User:A Nobody


 * Keep The MMA haters are as bad as the Scientologists. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The three users vocalising their support for deletion have crossed the threshold into fanaticism. User:MtKing has spearheaded a campaign against these pages for whatever reason and has deliberately made discussion on this topic as disparate as possible in the interests of obscuring an overall consensus about the pages, presumably in order to have them deleted one at a time. This behaviour ought to be investigated. User:TreyGeek's impartiality has also been compromised in that through his pushing of the Omnibus page, he (unfairly) received abuse and threats from MMA fans, he now clearly holds a grudge. He has repeatedly claimed to have left the debate, but in fact, he is just posting support for deletion on individual pages. Rather underhanded. User:Newmanoconnor has been found to have made a false sockpocket allegation in his attempts to unfairly sway the opinion of impartial editors. These deletion requests are nothing more than a vendetta. This is clearly evidenced by how widespread, how regular and how fervent their postings have been on the subject. This is contrary to Wikipedia:Don't_be_a_fanatic and I recommend warnings and sanctions be applied for their collective unconstructive editing and moderating of discussion pages. I also recommend a 'No consensus' tag until the debate Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability is resolved. Suggesting AfD's until such a time as this debate (which all three parties I mention are clearly following) is unequivocally in bad faith, and frankly, in bad taste. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I try not to respond to other people's AfD comments and trust the admins will do what is correct. I do have two points for you though.  First, is your rationale for keeping the article have any grounding in Wikipedia guidelines or policies?  If so, I would suggest presenting them as that will hold more weight for the admin who closes this AfD.  As for behaviors of myself or others needing to be investigated potentially leading to a block of editing privileges and/or a topic ban, AfD is not the correct avenue for that.  You are welcome to go to WP:ANI if you wish to pursue that discussion.  --TreyGeek (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in your advice. It's not offered to be helpful. I saw your little movie quote on MtKing's page. That's not the act of a productive, friendly member of Wikipedia who deserves my time. It's beneath anyone I'd consider communicating with in any capacity other than this little paragraph. Good day. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ANI... AN... Y? I'd speculate that SSS is aware that this is not the appropriate venue for action to be taken against all the users mentioned. I'd also speculate that SSS is more interested in working on content and preserving content than on the administrative process of taking action against any given user.  Still, since actions haven't been taken against these users, the SSS's comments should perhaps be taken as only an indicator that there is a history regarding these users in these discussions, rather than indicating community consensus against their actions.  As such, the comments perhaps could only serve to help educate those of us jumping in late to the discussion.  They might also serve as a warning to the users involved that SSS has put some thought towards taking this to ANI.  Note: By warning of intention to take it to ANI, I don't mean to suggest that the users have in fact done anything wrong because I haven't taken the time to educate myself regarding the background of this dispute.  Users involved I'm sure know what they've done and have made all attempts to comply with policy.  Still, I find portions of this comment helpful to let me know there's more to this that I might read before forming an opinion.  That is, I take this comment not to be an indication that users' actions actually are in bad faith or taste, but that there is a dispute on this matter beyond this AfD. I sincerely hope that the users involved can resolve these issues prior to taking this to ANI, as I'm sure we can all make better contributions to the project by spending our time on the project rather than spending time at ANI. It's better to try to settle before you go to court. (And to again restate, I take no position on the validity of either SSS or TreyGeek's comments, and my position on this AfD is already stated below.) --Policy Reformer(c) 20:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What sense does it make to keep some event pages but delete others? Like one user said before me, you might as well delete them all if you delete some. I can understand not following notability guidelines if it was a small organization, but the UFC is the biggest MMA promotion in the world. Having the event pages is necessary in documenting the history of the organization, seeing as every single event features fights important to divisional rankings and contenderships. Xtheblademaster 19:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC) (talk • contribs)


 * Keep WP:FUTURE no longer applies. Event is occurring at this moment. Referring back to previous MMA event nominations recently on notability grounds.  I would argue that MMA events are more comparable to tennis events than NHL, NFL, or MLB events where WP:NOTNEWSPAPER would apply.  There are 1280 regular season games in the NHL, so I see we shouldn't have 1280 articles to cover each game.  There's maybe... 70 Tennis events... much more comparable to the number of MMA events.  While the comparison doesn't establish notability, I hope this points out that there are different standards for different sports, so WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should be considered in light of the individual sport rather than sports in general.--Policy Reformer(c) 20:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your tone, argument and participation, I have struck the WP:Future reference as it is in fact no longer valid. I'd also like to note that I will withdraw this nomination if a reliable independent reference can be found to show lasting effect, and notability, other than routine coverage. I would agree that it is not comparable to individual hockey games over the entire season. it is comparable to playoff games and the last two months of hockey games all of which decide playoff spots, awards, contracts, free agency, etc. just like the NFL, the NBA, soccer,or any real sport.

Let me be clear here, I think MMA fighting is one of the realest of sports, I also feel that just as every afc game doesn't have a single article, every title fight does not deserve a single article either, unless it is shown to be notable beyond routine coverage. This fight may have that coverage later this week, I would implore anyone to help find it and write a prosaic article that demonstrates lasting effect. My concern is we can't even get editors to do that for UFC146? The event where Overeem failed drug testing, and I found sources for them, that are WP:IRS. Again if this can be shown to be notable beyond basic fight stats and who fought and won, what lasting effect it may have, I'll withdraw AfD. however, if it's just this guy won the title these fights happened, it should be deleted as it will be adequately covered in the UFC Events in 2012 Omnibus article or a subsidiary omnibus.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tennis events are multi-day events often lasting the whole week, each game lasting in some cases longer than this whole event, the competitors in which compete in multiple games during the course of the event so it is not comparable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly does apply to this and Editors are not free to chose what wiki-wide policy to apply to a page. Mt king  (edits)  22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be serious and at least attempt to make honest arguments. Everyone gets that you're a deletionist and that you hate MMA.  Well, there are plenty of topics none of us care about, but we don't go around dishonestly claiming their are "non-notable" based on some loony personal criteria that makes no rationale sense.  We should not even be humoring such ridiculous AfDs as these.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not arguing that I can feel free to apply whatever policy I choose. Nor am I arguing tennis' policy should apply to this. Tennis events are multi-day events vs. these are one day events.  But just like WWII has a page, so does Columbine High School massacre. If we're comparing apples to oranges, as we're comparing one sport to another in terms of notability, I just want us to be honest about it.  Note also you claim,  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER clearly does apply to this and Editors are not free to chose what wiki-wide policy to apply to a page, while I claim, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should be considered in light of the individual sport rather than sports in general. No where did I suggest WP:NOTNEWSPAPER should not be considered in relation to this article.  I simply suggested it should be considered in light of the relevant sport rather than comparing Obama to Adam Yauch.  Along the same lines of your argument, I would argue that because competitors compete in single bouts which can last only moments, like boxing, or horse racing, that perhaps those are better comparisons than to NHL, NFL, and MLB, where players participate in multiple plays.  In the NFL, the event is approximately the same duration while players participate in a few dozen plays, each lasting a dozen seconds or so. There are 256 games in a season while there are perhaps a quarter of those number of UFC events, where an individual is equivalent to a team in terms of wins and losses.  Rather than having 32 teams, you have hundreds of competitors, and each event could have a notable instance for one of those competitors.  Rather than trying to backfill information, which could prove quite challenging, we document as we go, filling in the basic information about the event before someone takes the time to fill in the WP:PROSE.  Rather than leaving those editors with nothing, we leave them with the framework to fill it in.  Continuing the sports analogies, MLB has ~2400 games a season.  Going back to the ~70 events for tennis, UFC events seem to be much closer to that.  You argue that the competitors play for longer, but that's not a requirement for notability, otherwise other sports would be equally non-notable (boxing, horse racing, etc.)  Just as we don't have an article for every match in a tennis tournament, we also don't have an article for every match at a UFC event.  It's not entirely comparable, as it suffers some of the same flaws as the MLB and NFL arguments.::: Bottom line, I've contributed my thoughts on the matter, as have you, so I'll just wait for the closure and won't respond further here.  Feel free to respond as you see fit.  As I looked further into the existing dialog on some of these articles, I see that this has become a very important issue to you.  I'm glad you have such passionate feelings towards the project.  Unfortunately, based on the one response I've received, I don't know that I can engage in a dialog, as I felt somewhat attacked by my very first comment responding to me on the issue.  I wish everyone the best of luck at resolving the dispute, and so that consensus can be reached, and we can all go back to expanding the project rather than deciding on how many pages will fit in the book.  Thanks everyone for the time, and good luck! --Policy Reformer(c) 01:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Keep" I use these articles all the time because they're the cleanest and most accessible articles for them on the internet. It's different than hockey or football or other sports where there might be one article for a season, but those events aren't structured like MMA. I don't know why you would want to get rid of this. --geoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.17.213 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Major event on mainstream TV. Will have lasting effects on the future of the sport because two title shots are potentially on the line -- Pat talk  21:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Countless other sports events will be on mainstream TV that part is just routine and by your logic every NFL game is notable as it helps decide who will make the Super Bowl. Mt  king  (edits)  22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That makes literally no sense whatsoever. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Except not every NFL game decides who goes to the Super Bowl. There's only one game for that and that comment proves you are willing to stretch information to fit your arbitrary agenda against MMA. Rollinman (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

How come this article is under deletion process when its a huge event with verifiable sources. Use common sense pls Razredg (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, and give this deletion request victory for the Wikipedia community by submission. Notable event from a notable franchise, and note that whenever the UFC actually has an "event", they actually mean it as an event. And Diaz won, the coverage coming in about his defeat of Jim Miller will surely make it notable now. ViperSnake151   Talk  02:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep and please ban MTking and everyone else who keeps shoving their idiocy onto MMA pages. UFC events are notable, and I think you know exactly why they're notable. If you somehow don't know why UFC events are notable at this point, you either lack reading comprehension, or are completely ignoring the dozens of people who have told you why they are notable. 174.70.148.183 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't believe this is even up for deletion. All other UFC events have Wikipedia pages, and this is one of the biggest ones since it's on Fox. Aoa8212 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Nominator has said, "anybody wants to close the AfD's I support it, as long as we can move forward with discussions at WP:MMANOT, without the obstruction that occurred last time.". --24.112.202.78 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep This event should be considered notable for the long term effects it will have on the divisions contested. In the post fight press conference, as discussed here (http://espn.go.com/blog/mma/post/_/id/10851/the-other-diaz-makes-most-of-his-platform) via a source which fits the bill as reliable from what I can see, it was revealed Nate Diaz will be waiting to challenge the winner of the eventual Ben Henderson-Frankie Edgar rematch for the UFC Lightweight Championship. Johnny Hendricks, with his win over Josh Koscheck, is also being considered for a shot at the UFC Welterweight Championship which would also be directly related to this event. Along with the keep on this article, I propose that within the current articles a place should be made for the "Aftermath" of each event, so that the notability can be more explicitly explained and thus avoid these arguments in the future. Events like UFC 143, which has now had its page deleted, would have benefited from such a section as the issue of the controversial decision in the main event (an interim UFC Welterweight Championship match) that was set to garner a rematch coupled with the news of Nick Diaz's subsequent failed drug test were (and still are) major happenings (http://espn.go.com/mma/story/_/id/7679348/nick-diaz-challenging-suspension-positive-test). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.32.14 (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep There are articles for every UFC event going back to UFC 1. I have no idea why this article is nominated for deletion; someone obviously has a vendetta against the UFC. 131.151.190.175 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Keep -- There are articles for every single Olympics, every single Superbowl and individual seasons for different football teams. There are NFL game articles that are not Superbowls. The entire move towards consolidation just makes it more difficult to navigate UFC events on Wikipedia. Honestly, what is the harm in having a page for every UFC event? Is it actually hurting anyone? Wikipedia is the cleanest and best organized resource for this information and the clean-up Nazis are ruining one of the things I rely on Wikipedia for most. Feel free to clean up lesser promotion events but the UFC is the Superbowl of MMA. Fighters spend their entire careers trying to make it into the UFC and once they get there, every fight is potentially a step towards a championship fight. I agree with other posters that MMA is a different animal and doesn't follow the same rules, but the more important fact is that the UFC is the Superbowl of MMA. If you want to mass consolidate the UFC events, please also mass consolidate all Superbowls as they are routine events as well. There will be another one next year, just like clockwork. Also, if MMA's pinnacle event merits deletion/consolation, somebody needs to get to work on mass-consolidating all boxing events. And the eventual significance of any given event is often unknowable. For instance, Jon Jones debut was at UFC 87. As luck would have it, there was a title fight on that card, so the event's significance is obvious. But what if somebody on the UFC on Fox card or any given deleted article is the next Jon Jones, a fighter who may very well be the greatest fighter in the history of his weight class? Had Jon Jones debuted on a less significant UFC card, that could have potentially been deemed "not significant enough." A few years later and it is now the debut of one of the greatest fighters in the history of the sport and the significance of the event increases drastically. Ultimately, the reality on the matter is that MMA has more folks ethusiastally willing to contribute for the UFC and other MMA events than most other sports fans. Is the laziness and general lack of contribution by the fans of other sports grounds to punish/police the sport of mixed martial arts? I really hope that is not the case. Godofthunder9010 Delete Agree with the NOM that the standards are not met. Yes, any Super Bowl has a page, and there are individual pages for any particular FA Cup Final and AFL Grand Final. These are very major sporting events that crown a season-ending champion. Every UFC event does not rise to this level. It would seem that the best place to draw a line is that event with a title on the line have an article and ones that do not are placed into a page such as 2012 in UFC events. In the NFL, every Sunday or Monday Night Football game does not get an article despite typically being between successful teams with playoff impact, having good ratings, and being on network TV (before the move of MNF). Conversely, championship games and the like do have articles. In boxing, a fellow combat sport, the line seems to be drawn between a title fight (keeping Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek) and deleting a non-title fight (deleting Yuriorkis Gamboa vs. Daniel Ponce de León). Seems the standard is an event with a title on the line or otherwise seeming to meet GNG. RonSigPi (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep You called it (Justinsane15 (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Keep the 2012 in UFC events is cluttered, non-user friendly, and infrequently updated. I have tried to keep it up to date myself, but if the article itself is cluttered you can imagine what the edit page looks like with all the links and references. There are seperate articles going back to UFC 1 in 1993 that were not considered against Wikipedia's guidelines until now. Keep all of them or keep none of them. Rissx (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This particular event's main event was generally considered a number one contendorship match and was five rounds like how title matches are accordingly. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All main events are now five rounds, so I do not think that fact makes this notable. The 2011 NFL week 17 match-up between the New York Giants and Dallas Cowboys was to determine the NFC East champion and who would go to the playoffs.  Thus, it could be considered a 'contendorship' match since the winner would advance to the playoffs.  Yet no article exists for this game.  Having a contendorship match does not appear to be enough to make the whole even notable.  Look at other combat sports.  In boxing, a number one contender bout does not merit its own article.  In wrestling, the Olympic Trials/World Team Trials do not merit their own article (e.g., an event to determine who can compete for the gold and thus could be equivalent to the 'contendorship').  This is not an anti-UFC/MMA argument.  I follow all combat sports and an event such as this is not sufficient for its own article.RonSigPi (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really provide any reason as to how deletion improves or benefits Wikipedia and its readership. If we keep this factually verifiable information about a notable event as covered in multiple reliable sources that is significant to the history of Fox television, the UFC, the fighters on the card, and MMA in general, we benefit thousands, perhaps millions of readers who come here for that information.  If we delete it, we benefit no one and instead of having an article that is at least of value to someone, we keep a discussion here about deleting that article that is of value to no one.  I would much rather we keep a non-hoax article that as this discussion alone shows the readers fine helpful than keep a discussion about that article.  If this discussion is worthwhile on the paperless encyclopedia, then surely so too is the actual article, because otherwise we are left with a discussion about something that readers of the discussion cannot even see!  Lol!  Which makes the discussion even more useless.  So, the way to go is clearly to keep and continue to improve the article per WP:COMMONSENSE.  And for the record, I would be totally okay with keeping NFL contendorship matches as well.  --24.112.202.78 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, try not to get to worked up, while I agree with RonSigPi on most points, this article probably isn't going anywhere right now, even if it does, the coveage will move somewhere else.Hopefully we can come up with a proposal to take to RfC at WP:MMANOT and some addendums for comment to address the POV from fans concerned about "readership" and how much they like the current format. I think this will eventually mean the removal of some individual UFC fights, but probably not nearly as many as one might think, and the bottom line is, getting something to RfC will ultimately lead to not having to go through this again, unless something violates the new policy. I encourage both of you to join the discussion in a productive way, remembering that this si about developing new notability guidelines NOT reinventing WP:POLICY as a whole.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:V. Article contains no references to coverage in reliable sources (I'm assuming that mmajunkie.com fails WP:SELFPUB). The "keep" opinions, to the extent they are not personal attacks, do not address our inclusion criteria.   Sandstein   05:07, 11 May 2012 (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.