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 Keep; for rationale please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT couples. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT couples[edit]

List of LGBT couples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

First off, it's potentially slanderous as there are no sources. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a directory. No sort of critical encyclopaedic article exists about LGBT couples that is assisted by a list whose parameters are broad and vague. List of people whose only common trait is that they're with another guy/girl? Too massive a scope to ever be complete or close to it, and smacks of List cruft. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial, interethnic or intercultural couples. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The cruft argument doesn't work: "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X (LGBT) itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." And the fact the article is potentially open-ended isn't sufficient cause to delete either; hundreds, perhaps thousands of lists are open-ended. Torc2 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the reasoning provided by the list, any LGBT couple could stick themselves in. As for the cruft arguement, this isn't about LGBT; it's about LGBT couples. For example, interracial marriage is notable, of course. But we don't have a list of interracial couples. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not everybody could add their names. The list is still bound by WP:Notability (people)#Lists_of_people. And that list of interracial couples was deleted two years ago has little consequence here; I don't think such a list would be so quickly deleted today anyway. The arguments that applied in that deletion debate largely don't apply here and we have no idea what the article actually said. Interracial marriage has also been legal for 40 years in the U.S., so an interracial couple in 2008 isn't anywhere near as notable as a same-sex couple. Torc2 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a smackdown between gay marriage and interracial marriage; evidently your grasp of history is limited if you think just because an event is historical, it has no more notability. If gay marraige were legalized tomorrow worldwide, would we then delete the list? David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry are you trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with being LGBT? however? well there are plenty of lists like this< for instance "list of vegans" but all additions must be sourced for that>>> perhaps we should make everything sourced only???? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring those articles to AfD, too. Call me a bigot if you want, but I'm not going to get dragged into personal accusations and attacks over AfDs. Conspire away. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Second, statements that living persons are gay. bisexual or transexual requires references satisfying Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons. The policy WP:BLP says "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." The same rules apply to lists. In the entire article only one claimed relationship is referenced to a source which would be judged a reliable source. The rest are apparently from a website listing, which is not adequate to satisfy WP:BLP. The defense of the article on the grounds that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak one and rarely succeeds. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Edison (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a perfectly sound argument if the articles are actually analagous and comparable. The essay is faulty opinion and should not be relied upon to dismiss an argument. Instead you need to explain why the comparison isn't valid. Torc2 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The essay means that saying 'list of monkeys' or whatever should be kept because a similar list also exists is foolish, because what is on wikipedia isn't always what should be wikipedia. I could go AfD that list and then where would your arguement be if it got deleted? David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you went and AfD'd that list, my argument would be totally supported, because you'd be acting consistently. If I point to another article that has survived AfD and is comparable to an article currently up for AfD, and I point out that the arguments recognized for keeping that article apply here, that's absolutely valid. WP:OTHERSTUFF is completely wrong in its assertion that pointing to precedence is faulty. It even contradicts itself within the section and is contradicted by other sections within that essay. It's badly written and poorly thought out, and reflects the authors' frustrations more than actual logic. Torc2 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torc2, I hope that you are not willfully misapplying what WP:OTHERSTUFF actually says. OTHERSTUFF does not assert "that pointing to precedence is faulty." It states that an argument based solely on the mere existance or non-existance of another article is not a sufficient/valid arguement for keeping/deleting another article. Lasalle202 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not misapplying it at all and I don't much care for the accusation. Until I changed it a week ago, the pseudonyms in OTHERSTUFF were King and Queen Precedent. That doesn't bode well for the argument that OTHERSTUFF didn't argue against precedent. Whatever its intent was, clearly it has come to be used as a counterargument against any comparisons or appeals to precedent. Torc2 (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note Refs soon won't be a problem, i've begun adding them and will remove un-refables. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this will take about a week at my moderate pace, but feel free to help out. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced. WP:NOT#DIR isn't a good argument here, since these are (or will be) all notable LBGT couples, whose orientation is culturally or historically significant. Torc2 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how it's historically significant? We don't have a list of Elizabeth Taylor's husbands, after all. David Fuchs ^(talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't? Torc2 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if properly sourced. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep , especially if the material is indeed referenced as has been promised. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unless really well sourced and the ambiguity of some of the entries noted. The problem is that while some of these are certain, many aren't, and it is not reasonable to list disputed instances here without further comment. I am very reluctant to say that a article should be deleted because of the difficult in doing it objectively, but I think this falls into that group. DGG (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - You're voting to delete over content issues? Torc2 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This just seems like a bad idea. Do we include Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche? Why are coupled LGBT people any more notable or encyclopedic than single LGBT people (which don't have a list)? Would anyone actually use this for research purposes? It doesn't even seem much more helpful for navigational purposes than the whole list of LGBT people... maybe if it had lengths of time the couples were together, and you were doing research on LGBT relationship longevity -- but that seems like a stretch. Queerudite (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The last thing WP is more trouble. Duplicates a well-cited and better organized article -- List of LGBT people. 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs)

• How is it a duplication? That's like saying the article on water is just a duplication of hydrogen and oxygen. Torc2 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is duplication because everyone (or nearly everyone?) under the LGBT couples list would be duplicated on the list of LGBT people. If there were a list of water-related articles (another bad idea), it would not contain even most of the hydrogen or oxygen related articles. Queerudite (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that they are a couple is vastly different information than the fact each individual is LGBT. It's not a duplication of information at all. Torc2 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject is at the center of culture wars and likely to be of great importance within the ongoing US Presidential debates and beyond. Do LGBT couples deserve the same rights and recognition as non-LGBT couples which is the mainstream and majority norm. By citing notable LGBT couples the article can more easily address encyclopedic topics and adds a dimension to the addressing of related issues which wikipedia more easily does than traditional encyclopedias. Benjiboi 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does a list telling me Ellen Degeneres is in a civil union allowing for LGBT marriage/rights to be more easily addressed? Any pertinent info this list might have (first gays to be married, et al) is independent of their current status, and should be covered in the gay marriage/civil union articles- that is the encyclopaedic portion. All the other info will be in the respective persons' articles on Wikipedia. So what does this bring to the table beyond list cruft, because the list does not "allow the article [to] more easily address encyclopedic topics"; there's nothing of the sort. David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. The history of human rights is marked by putting the humanity back into the issue. It's easy to hate, and therefore discriminate, against a faceless "them", it's much harder to do so when you're telling Del and Phyllis that their committed devotion to each other of 60+ years still can't be a legal marriage. You do bring up a good point that maybe this should be tied to some specific articles about gay marriage as a specific list to aid those articles. Benjiboi 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Added ((subst:afd)) to article, we're still using that right? Benjiboi 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources are coming along. ALLSTARecho 10:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if properly sourced. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this seems to be trivia and is probably impossible to maintain. The WP:BLP violations are a very serious issue. Notable individuals' relationships belong in their biography. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the article is consistent with WP:LIST and WP:Notability (people)#Lists of people. Sourcing and BLP issues should be addressed on the talk page. Fireplace (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I'd follow wikipedia isn't a directory. This kind of list seems a bit pointless and there's no way of course that it could be ever definate. If there are famous couples then just add in a prominent place of the two people's articles that their partner is the other one.--Him and a dog 16:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The previous closing of this AfD has been overturned at DELREV. The original closer's closing comment has been converted to a neutral comment below. He/she may modify it to a !vote, or participate with a new !vote as he/she sees fit. JERRY ^talk _contribs 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (original closer's comment added by Jerry) The result was delete. There were three reasons given for the deletion nomination - lack of sourcing, Wikipedia not being a directory of loosely-related issues and the lack of critical commentary, and precedent. Of the three reasons, only one (the lack of sourcing) has been even half-refuted by those arguing to "keep". In addition to this, I note there remains a huge swathe of unreferenced couples, also. Considering there is no further explanation of these associations; for example, Laurel and Hardy are listed as a gay couple(!) - with an offline reference provided - despite there being absolutely no mention of this in either Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, or Laurel and Hardy, WP:BLP also applies (at least to the living people mentioned). Therefore, delete. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't often use the "Wikipedia not a directory" rationale, but I am now, plus lack of sources. A list like this is impossible to maintain (it needs to be updated any time any of those listed no longer are a couple), plus it's so broad a scope that anyone who is in such a relationship could add their name, NN or not. And it's also a vandalism magnet because some idiot could decide to put Harrison Ford and Sylvester Stallone down as a couple, or something. Above all, though, I have WP:BLP issues with this list, not only for the vandalism concern I just mentioned, but also because it may be necessary to cite sources that any of the people listed are, indeed, LGBT. 23skidoo (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not have a List of heterosexual couples, a List of Jewish couples, a List of black couples, a List of tall couples, a List of Chinese couples or anything else of that nature - this is a classic "list of people with a vague association", and is only even being considered for retention because it has "LGBT" in the title. Compare and contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples - a list of equal merit (some may say more merit), which was very readily deleted. The abject lack of referencing for some ludicrous associations is also a problem (q.v. Laurel and Hardy, as I mention above), but secondary to the unnecessariness of the list in the first place. Particularly as it's criteria for inclusion seems to be only one of the subjects has an article - by this standard, for the list to be "complete", every LGBT person, past and present, with an article on Wikipedia would end up being listed here, with every partner they have ever had. At the very least, if all sanity and reason departs and this is kept, all unreferenced couples should be removed until references are provided, and all couples where only one of the two people mentioned has a Wikipedia article should be removed. Neıl ☎ 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, Laurel and Hardy was removed, also, the article is under improvement... references are being added. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, Laurel and Hardy were removed just now, by me. And as I said, referencing is a secondary issue. As for "under improvement", I will note the article has been around for almost 3 years already ([1]) and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. Neıl ☎ 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is Neil, unlike the other examples you cite, Same-sex unions are extremely notable at present as there has been much discussion by governments over their civil status, hence, unlike the others, it is a notable topic in and of itself. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that same-sex union itself is a notable topic. It is no more controversial, however, than interracial marriage was in its time (and still is in many parts of the world), and of course we have an article on interracial marriage, just as we should, and we do, on same-sex unions and same-sex marriage. Your point defends the existence of the parent article, not the list, which is not in question. Neıl ☎ 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may note that people were killed for being the "wrong" color then much as people are killed for being sexual and gender minorities today. Seems a plenty notable issue and being part of a couple seems downright defiant. And indeed makes headlines. Benjiboi 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create a List of Interracial Couples in the age of segregation then. It could be populated with the couples that were notable at the time. I'd stay away from the Otherstuff arguments though. Torc2 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the link - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples. Why was this rightly and readily deleted and the LGBT one - effectively the same article but spuriously connecting people based on their sexuality rather than their ethnicity is not going to be? "Other stuff" arguments at this point are valid - we would not have a List of straight couples so why would we have a list of LGBT ones? Neıl ☎ 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This list is relevant for the same reasons that notable people List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is relevant with the twist that LGBT people are generally denied the right to get married and generally are invisible to the majority cultures in which they contribute as a couple. A list of notable inter-racial couples during the US race riots of the 1950s and 1960s would be just as potent. Proving that LGBT people are just as human and flawed as non-LGBT people and that notable LGBT people are now coming out of their respective closets and being recognized as queer couples. This article will hopefully become unneeded when it's no longer news that gay people get married, divorced, cheat on each other or even exist. Just as the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people will also be unneeded as no one cares anymore who you love as long as you love that person regardless as what's between their legs. This list won't be needed when LGBT people no longer have to sue their governments for equal tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, death benefits, survivor benefits and every other perk that non-LGBT people take for granted. When it's no longer news that California has domestic partner benefits and that LGBT couples are protesting every Valentine's day because they aren't able to legally marry then an article like this will have lost it's usefulness and meaning. Until then I think wikipedia can spare the extra room. Benjiboi 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All living people listed have been sourced so we can rest easy on the BLP concerns. Benjiboi 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete "couple" is simply too broad of a criteria. If it was only long term LGBT couples, then maybe I could buy it, but as it is, a couple that has been together for a day can be added. Unfortunately, "long-term" is an arbitrary time frame. I would be willing to say keep if it was limited to notable couples. In other words, the criteria should be that the couple is notable, not simply be a list of LGBT celebrities and their partners. As an alternative, couldn't a note simply be made on the List of LGBT people. That said, sourcing issues are not a reason to delete as sources are possible to find. - Koweja (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's unlikely that a LGBT couple together for only a day will generate a reliable source and be included on this list. However some clarity might make sense. Benjiboi 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I was exaggerating a bit to emphasize my point, but the fact of the matter is that merely earning the label of "couple" doesn't mean much. Also, you actually might be able to find reliable sources less than 24 hours after the fact when we're talking about Hollywood celebrities, politicians and the like. Afterall, the media loves to report on new celebrity pairings, be they straight, gay or otherwise. - Koweja (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly but the list is limited to notable LGBT people so I don't see listcreep as a big issue. I feel it needs to be better organized but that will only, in theory, improve it. Benjiboi 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Per WP:Lists#Organization, list articles need some sort of organizational scheme so that someone coming to the article can find what they are looking for. I don't think the current organization does (I don't know if Lily and Jane are legally married, have a formal civil union, are just "shackin' up"? Where would I look - under 'Lily and Jane' or under 'T'? If, heaven forbid, one of them dies tomorrow - do they get moved to 'historical couples'? are they removed entirely until the second dies and then moved to 'historical couples'?) The whole topic of the article somehow feels too 'squishy' and undefinable for an encylopedia article - subject to interpretation on the part of editors adding or deleting information and to readers looking for information. Despite all the hard work that people have put in recently rounding up sources, without a lot more work and a much stronger focus, I don't think I can support this article as 'encylopedic'. 71.55.132.236 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) an edit conflict somehow logged me out and lost my sig Lasalle202 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. AfD is not clean-up. Per WP:AfD If you can improve an article through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. You and i share some concerns on the organization but I feel stongly that those issues don't negate that the article can be improved and is plenty encyclopedic and is exactly the kind of article wikipedia excels at. Benjiboi 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• reply My point is not that AfD should be used for 'clean-up'. My piont is that I don't see how any clean-up could bring this article to encyclopedia standards. The weaknesses seem too great and I have not seen anything other than generic claims that it could be done, without any specifics of how/what will be done- which still leaves me unconvinced. Lasalle202 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• reply Fair enough, you do, however, realize it's hard to get inspired to do a major overhaul when your work is likely to be deleted within a few days. In reviewing the article my take is that a sortable table would benefit presenting the information most. I also like the idea of showing some aspects of longevity of LGBT couples in the text as well as other examples of why the subject is still considered noteworthy. Benjiboi 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, providing sufficient reliable sources are provided for every single item on the list to satisfy the demands of WP:BLP. I think this is clearly a notable and encyclopaedic topic, and one quite relevant to modern society and politics; and most of the couples listed are notable in their own right (like Elton John and David Furnish). Obviously, this list requires strict inclusion criteria to ensure it only contains significant couples, not people who just had a single homosexual encounter or a very brief relationship; but I don't have a problem with the fundamental concept, and indeed as a means of demonstrating a major current and historical social issue, I'd say it's definitely worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep providing that the list is sourced and restricted to notable couples. The dating section should go as well as we should only be looking at longer-term couples.Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Addressing each of the nominator's points - First of all, the nom said it could be slanderous, but it can't by definition be slanderous, since slander only applies to the spoken word. (And the provision of sources has resolved any libel issue, so don't even go there). Second, the article isn't a directory, because the items on the list aren't "loosely associated": they are related through a culturally and politically significant issue. Also, the items in the list are internally linked, and contain no contact information for the parties listed -- this makes this a navigation aid of Wikipedia content and not a directory as defined in WP:NOT#DIR. Third, the argument that the list will never be complete is not a valid one - it is not based on any policy or guideline. Wikipedia itself will never be complete. Besides this, the subject of the list is dynamic and ever-changing -- dynamic lists are allowed, and are even defined as a type of list on Wikipedia. Fourth, Wikipedia has several articles on LGBT couples, they're just not called that specifically. But they don't have to be. The subject is covered, and this list supports the subject in general. Fifth, WP:LC is an essay, and and not a policy or guideline and therefore "listcruft" has no bearing in deletion decisions. Besides, the statement "smacks of listcruft" is totally subjective and is merely a personal opinion of the nominator. Sixth, the deletion of similar articles has no relevance here. Only policies and guidelines apply. Other articles may have been deleted in error, or by meat puppetry, and policy may have changed in the meantime, making the issue of their deletion irrelevant. We are not bound by precedent. Wikipedia is always evolving. From the points just covered, it is clear that the nomination has no basis in policy or guideline, and should be ignored. Keep. The Transhumanist 20:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I generally dislike stand alone lists, but this now appears on its face to comply with WP:BLP and WP:V and arguably with WP:N, any noncompliance should be removed immediately at any time, but not the whole list. I'm sure this would be useful to some. Even if it weren't WP:N as long as it's ok under WP:BLP it shouldn't be deleted, maybe userfied or moved to project space but not delete.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I was all ready to charge in and argue for deletion, thinking, "hoo boy, that's gotta have WP:BLP problems", but I looked at the article and it seems reasonable and well-sourced to me, with the exception of the historical couples, many of which are unreferenced (and this should be addressed, even though BLP may not directly apply). As for notability, it seems to provide a good contemporary and historical reference for an issue of wide interest. Wikipedia is justifiably proud of its collection of LGBT articles, and this provides additional perspective. --MCB (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.