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 based upon the rough consensus below, and the policies and guidelines referenced. The points regarding the "in universe" coverage and the applicability of those guidelines do have merit, but have failed to reach any definitive conclusion and were not supported by later editor's contributions. This argument was overridden by the lack of significant coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. Delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buran Origin of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is cited story - maybe interesting, maybe important for Buran people but it is not article, it is summarized story. Bulwersator (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Google Books finds no mention of the words "Buran" or "Burun" in the source cited in the article.[1] Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can be OCR failure Bulwersator (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • name of lizard was found Bulwersator (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was a good idea to search for the name of the lizard. A Google Scholar search leads to this document written by Roger Blench that shows that this is part of the culture of the speakers of the Bura-Pabir language. This might still be rescuable, but I don't have the time at the moment to look into it further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Phil Bridger (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The book found and linked to is Introduction to mythology: contemporary approaches to classical and world myths, written by Eva M. Thury, Margaret Klopfle Devinney, and published by Oxford University Press. A notable university published it, so I assume the information is not in doubt. This important part of a culture's belief system is notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. Dream Focus< rewtspan> 03:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is (probably) notable. But now it is not article - it is (probably copyvio) summary of story Bulwersator (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reason to think that this is a copyright violation, as the snippet that you linked above is not worded similarly to our article, and an encyclopedia should contain a summary of the story - how else could it be informative? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, it is completely rewritten. But this article should be about story, not story summary Bulwersator (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The reference named in the article (Introduction to Mythology) takes the story from Albert D. Helser (1930). African Stories. Fleming H. Revell. ASIN B00085TXLO. The foreword by Franz Boas calls this book a "collection of Bura Tales". The story itself is given the title "The beginning of Death"; it starts on p. 192. The term "Bura" also seems to appear in Introduction to Mythology on p. 88. (Unfortunately, Google books gives us only snippet views for either book.)  --Lambiam 23:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unless information on the topic can be found beyond simply that WP:ITEXISTS and a plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unless information on the topic can be found beyond simply that WP:ITEXISTS and a plot summary, per WP:NOTPLOT, per Hrafn. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Plot was for fictional books. It does not cover any religion. It is encyclopedia to list the beliefs of different groups. Dream Focus 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference between 'fictional' and 'mythical' doesn't really affect my point, or the fact that such material is WP:NOT encyclopaedic. It is encyclopedic to discuss "the beliefs of different groups" -- it is not encyclopedic to simply "list" them -- wikipedia is no more a database of legends than it is a database of song lyrics. Substantive WP:SECONDARY analysis and commentary is required. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary sources do not require analysis; they just have to be "one step removed" from the original. The sources provided are secondary or even tertiary. Warden (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Have to agree with DF on that - however, that said, an article that relies too much on the primary source is likely going to fail WP:V and WP:N and could be deleted. --MASEM (t) 23:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. We don't even know what "people" we are talking about. The Bura culture of Burkina Faso (cited in Phil Bridger's above comment) was discovered in 1975, but African Stories by Albert D. Helser (cited above by Lambiam) was published in 1930. The town of Buran is in Somalia, and is not considered a distinct ethnicity. The story may be interesting, but despite the alleged rescue effort we have nothing but a recapping of the tale, and it now appears unlikely that we fill find much else. / edg ☺ ☭ 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The people are documented in detail in Tribal Studies in Northern Nigeria. Warden (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The source that I linked above clearly establishes that this is about the existing culture of the speakers of the Bura-Pabir language, not about the unrelated prehistoric Bura culture discovered in 1975, or about any Somalian town. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is also documented in the Encyclopedia of world mythology and so is obviously encyclopaedic. The article just needs work per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not much of a mythological story but there are some worthy references.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the arguments behind the 'keep' !votes have done nothing more than establish WP:ITEXISTS for the legend and the language group from which it apparently arose. This does not come even close to demonstrating that any (let alone "significant") WP:SECONDARY coverage exists discussing this legend, as opposed to the mere recounting of it (which is WP:PRIMARY coverage). This means that notability has not come even close to being established. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Others disagree with you, as often happens, about the notability of an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. Dream Focus 10:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And denialism doesn't change the factual nature of my statement. Lacking facts to back up their assertion, their 'disagreement' amounts to nothing more than a bald WP:ITSNOTABLE. Wikipedia is also WP:NOTDEMOCRACY -- so it really doesn't matter how many disagree with me, if they cannot come up with a substantive factually-based argument.
Where's the secondary coverage? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a plain fact that sources such as the OUP's Introduction to mythology: contemporary approaches to classical and world myths are secondary. Primary sources in this case would be the verbatim myths, as told in the native language, or the field notes of the anthropologists who recorded them. Warden (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is a plain fact that" a simple recounting of a narrative is a WP:PRIMARY source. Such a direct recounting is neither "at least one step removed from an event" nor "making analytic or evaluative claims about" the primary narrative. Functionally, they are primary, so claiming that they are secondary is simply WP:WIKILAWYERING. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's primary, secondary, or whatever is not what matters here. What's important is that, by simply providing a synopsis of the subject and no deeper coverage, the source is certainly not acceptable a "reliable independent source that provides significant coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A primary source, by definition, is the starting point - the original material of a topic. In this case, the Introduction to mythology gives its source. This is not the original but an entire book — The Origin of Death: Studies in African Mythology. So, the primary source is the original mythology. The Origin of Death: Studies in African Mythology is a secondary source and the Introduction to mythology is a tertiary source, being a pedagogical introduction to the entire field. Now the complaint is that we just have a narrative here. But that is not a reason to delete as we can do more than this. The Origin of Death is a book of 178 pages and so contains plenty of material which we can summarise. This will be done by ordinary editing, not by deletion. Warden (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mere reproduction (or aggregation) of primary-source content does not make a dependent work secondary on a topic (if it did, a 'Collected Works' collection could be considered to be secondary -- which is clearly nonsensical). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's an account of the book The Origin of Death in Two Themes on the Origin of Death in West Africa. This confirms that we are just scratching the surface currently and there is much more ordinary editing to be done with the topic. Warden (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blunt rebuttal: the cited source explicitly states that The Origin of Death "did not analyse the tales themselves" (only their geographical distribution). As such, it provides no secondary coverage relevant to this topic. I would therefore request that Colonel Warden refrain from misinforming this AfD. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Recording and detailing the geographical distribution of such myths is secondary analysis. If that source did not perform textual analysis, this is irrelevant. The topic has clearly received scholarly notice and it is up those scholars how they choose to frame and report the matter. Warden (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Useful for an article of Death legends in West Africa perhaps, but not for an article on a single legend. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As we cast our net wider, we find more sources such as The origin of life and death: African creation myths and Myths of the creation of man and the origin of death in Africa. This seems to be a well-studied field which merits good coverage on Wikipedia. In fleshing out this topic, our editing policy is to build constructively upon the first drafts rather than to delete them. Deletion in such cases is disruptive because it discourages editors and destroys the work-in-progress. Warden (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Complete and utter nonsense: using the 'search' facility available at the cited Google Books links to those two works suggests that they offer no specific information on this particular legend. Instead of his reflexive and boilerplate citation of WP:IMPERFECT (which contrary to his repeated pipings is NOT the sum of our "editing policy") I would suggest he read WP:No original research and WP:Verifiability instead -- they are far more relevant to the matter at hand. As to WP:DISRUPTION, I would suggest that it is (i) utterly irrelevant (as it explicitly applies to edits, not a WP:CONSENSUS) & (ii) ludicrously WP:POT, coming from an editor as notoriously disruptive as the Colonel. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:No original research is not relevant because this is not an original topic. We know this because there are several respectable sources which discuss and detail the topic. WP:Verifiability is therefore satisfied as we will be able to cite these sources, as needed. In determining how to proceed, the applicable policy is editing policy which states, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. ... At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.". There is much work to be done here but deletion is neither helpful nor necessary in this. Warden (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Perfection is not required". I suggested deletion because "it is not article", not because "it is not FA article" Bulwersator (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per lack of coverage beyond the primary source. By the looks of it, the only source found for this is a book which includes the plot of the subject. Religious death myths are certainly by no means inherently notable, and arguing that a book containing the plot counts as significant coverage is quite frankly deceitful. If the only coverage of a novel was a plot synopsis in another work, we absolutely would not find it notable; the exact same logic should apply here. Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shades of the plot synopsis of the Iliupersis (for which we have an article) ... Jandalhandler (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. Yes, it looks like our article on the Iliupersis is largely synopsis, but unlike this subject, a quick google search confirmed that there are ample sources that delve into a deep analysis of it. Apples and oranges.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am missing sth but it is hard to violate wp:PLOT when "Only ten lines of the original text of the Iliou persis survive." and entire content section is from secondary sources Bulwersator (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would suggest that before editors include sources either (i) in their arguments here, or (ii) in the article itself, they are in a position to substantiate that the source in question discusses this specific legend, per WP:Notability and WP:Synthesis. Such care seems to have been lacking to date. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The numerous substantial sources which have been found in the course of discussion indicate that we should expand the scope of the topic to cover the many myths of this kind. We might develop the article to resemble flood myth, for example. Such work would be performed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense: the topic of this AfD is Buran Origin of Death, not 'every conceivable related topic' -- particularly where there would be little or no overlap in material. Yes, an article on Death legends in West Africa could probably be written -- no, it would most probably not contain the recap of a single, non-notable legend, that is the sole content of the current article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources treat this particular myth alongside other myths which are similar in content and/or geography and so it would be sensible for us to build towards this structure. Our editing policy is to develop constructively rather than to delete. Warden (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And? I can link multiple things, but still it is not an article Bulwersator (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What Colonel "editing policy"^{no -- that's actually just WP:IMPERFECT} "our editing policy"^{no -- that's actually just WP:PRESERVE} Warden fails to acknowledge is that our FULL editing policy at WP:CANTFIX explicitly calls for the removal of "material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia", which explicitly includes "Summary-only description of works". Further, he has not explained how the current article, which as I have explained above, contains only a recap of a single, non-notable, legend, would provide a basis for an expanded topic. I would therefore suggest that CW's arguments are getting quite blatantly tenuous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not material which is fundamentally inappropriate. We have large numbers of articles of this kind on Wikipedia - see list of creation myths, list of world folk-epics, Lists of stories, &c. for numerous examples. As scholars have written books and papers about this and related myths, there is much scope for expansion and improvement and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, technically CW is right: this material is not inappropriate for an encyclopedia article ont he subject. What he continually fails to understand, however, is that the material being appropriate for a potential article absolutely does not make it mandatory for the article to exist unless it can be first proven to be notable. And that requires sources that say more than "here is what happens in this story." Jeez, by his logic, Wikipedia would have any entries on every old wive's tale and urban legend; I'm finding plenty of collections of those that tell the story but provide no deeper analysis.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of this particular myth has been demonstrated by the citing of several reliable sources which include it. Warden (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, we have "large numbers of articles" in wikipedia on stories for which published discussion, explanation and analysis exists. That is NOT "this kind" of article -- which is a mere capitulation of the story. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of those articles are better and so provide a good target for us to aim at. For example, see Enûma Eliš - a Babylonian creation myth. That article is well-developed and so naturally includes a substantial recap including a lengthy quote. This demonstrates that such material is expected in an article about the topic. Achieving such a level of quality is not achieved by deletion. This is the explicit point of our editing policy - that we are tolerant of faltering starts and weak stubs because they may be expanded and improved by further work over time. Deletion would therefore be contrary to policy. Warden (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument is mere WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT (including boilerplate tendentious piping) of the point I made at 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC). Unless secondary material can be found to discuss, explain or analyse this story, its mere recapitulation is neither notable for a stand-alone article, nor noteworthy for a wider topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "We have large numbers of articles of this kind" (therefore it is notable), "we have large number of BLP" (therefore I am notable) (cofused? See Proof by contradiction) Bulwersator (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bulwersator seems confused. Notability is established by the provision of reliable and independent sources and this has been done. The suitability of the content for Wikipedia is established by showing that we have lots of similar content of this kind elsewhere and this has been done too. There is therefore no policy-based reason to delete on either ground. Warden (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lots of similar content of this kind" I just demonstrated that it is untrue. "lots of similar content of this quality" is more likely to be correct Bulwersator (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this has been done" Is it joke? Source that needed comment "Source makes no mention of the Buran myth, and this specific myth is a very imperfect match to the general form described " Bulwersator (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. There are no coherent, policy-based arguments for deletion. The argument that an article about a mythological subject is governed by the standards for commercial fiction is ridiculous. It is perfectly fair, logical, and sensible to believe that encyclopedia users looking up such a subject will often be interested primarily in the "in-universe" content of the myth (to use the inappropriate label in lieu of a better one). Whether such articles must include commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, or whether such material is better incorporated into broader subject editors is a routine editing decision, analogous to the divisions between Britannica's Micropaedia and Macropaedia, not bearing on deletion. The "primary source" argument is particularly flimsy; the primary sources here would be the mythological texts themselves, whether written or simply transcribed from oral-traditional accounts, not scholarly accounts of those text. The parallel would be court transcripts as juxtaposed with news reports of the trial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:IINFO section on "Summary-only description of works" DOES NOT apply only to "commercial fiction" -- it explicitly applies to "works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like". Your attempt to negate arguments that arebased upon this relevant policy is therefore unavailing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That section lacks consensus. It has always lacked consensus, having been sneaked onto the page originally and just defended by edit-warring. The attempt to extend it to non-fictional works lacks consensus even more, being under discussion there now. In any case, policy is not imposed as diktat by whichever fanatics manage to control that policy page. Per WP:NOTLAW, "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. ". It is clearly our accepted practise to have articles about myths, legends and folk-tales, as listed above. Warden (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which, given that NOTPLOT was cited rather than IINFO, is hardly a refutation, but bringing in a new argument. And it's completely and obviously wrong here, because this isn't an article about a nonfiction work or a particular "religious text." Instead, what's at issue here is the summarization of the relevant content from a reliable source which discusses the article subject. That's called a "reference", and the last time I looked, consensus was that references are good. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really attempting to impeach my argument on the basis of what shortcut I used, when the text linked to is the same? ROFLMAO! In any case all narratives have a plot, be they "commercial fiction" or legend -- so it is not clear that even the shortcut was inaapropriate. Now if you're quite finished nit-picking, we can let the AfD proceed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was pointing out that the substantive discussion was framed in terms of plot summaries, which applies only to fictional works, and that pointer is intended to refer to the text which deals with plot summaries and cites the MOS. Until your comment, no one had suggested summaries of content from reliable nonfiction sources were inappropriate, and I expect it will be a long time before anyone else makes that extraordinarily silly argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that My Family and Other Animals lacks a plot? How extraordinary! (I certainly seem to remember there being one when I read it.) And whilst summarising sources is the bread and butter of Wikipedia, a summary (be it a plot summary, précis or synopsis) of a work that is the topic of an article is clearly insufficient for even a stub of an encyclopaedic article on the topic. Whether a topic is fictional, or not, and commercial or not, does not affect that point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, plain as day, I'm saying (not merely suggesting) that the text which reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary. For more information regarding plot summaries, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries" refers only to fiction, which I would think is self-evident. I'm also saying that a myth, not anchored in a single, particular text, is not a "work", as used in the relevant policy/guideline, which I also think would be self-evident to any reasonable editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTPLOT or WP:PLOT all link to the same thing. Also the NOTPLOT thing has been changed since this AFD started, I asking questions on the talk page [2], and people disagreeing whether it applied to anything other than fiction. Some editing back and forth on whether to add the new section that says otherwise. Only a handful of people are involved in the discussion, so it can go either way, that added or removed according to whoever randomly shows up to comment. Dream Focus 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It is question: is it possible to create article containing only author of story and plot. Bulwersator (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this isn't about an author or the plot of a book. This is about part of a belief system. The encyclopedia isn't complete without providing information about the notable aspects of every religion on the planet. Dream Focus 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it still only story and author of story Bulwersator (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Yaksar (talk · contribs) and because I'm not seeing any significant coverage in secondary sources as is required by our editing policy notability policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge. As Yaksar (talk · contribs) says, by simply providing a synopsis of the subject and no deeper coverage, the source is certainly not acceptable as a "reliable independent source that provides significant coverage". It could be merged into an article on African mythology, as verification of facts would be the only requirement there. But it lacks the significant coverage in independent sources required to assert notability. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for any other established mythology. the article provides the necessary information, and has a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:GNG, which all articles must meet no matter what their subject is. It is not clear from the article that the myth is the subject of substantial coverage that goes beyond merely reproducing the myth. Only one discussion of the myth, by Harold Scheub, is cited, but it is not clear that this single instance of coverage is extensive enough to support a neutral and verifiable article. It is also not clear that the second reference, a work by Arthur Cotterell, contains more information than what is reproduced in the article. Could be merged to an appropriate article about the tribe or its culture.  Sandstein  10:35, 23 July 2011 (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.