Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Beard
- 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. I have been watching this debate (at the request of one of the supporters) for several days. A clear consensus that the article does not adequately meet WP:NN has emerged and no further useful additions have been made to the article to change the mind of editors commenting at this AfD.--VS talk 20:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Beard[edit]
Biography of a non-notable blogger. →AzaToth 01:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying Andy Beard is not notable, is like saying the earth is flat and there is no Jesus Christ. Igor Berger (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not do a convincing job of establishing his notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of blanket deletion why not come around to help make the article notable per WikiPedia! Igor Berger (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any assertion of notability, and much of it reads like an ad for the guy. And Igor, please provide arguments to refute the deletion, instead of just attacking the nomination. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Voyagerfan5761 I am not attacking anyone but questioning the statement that Andy Beard is a "non-notable blogger" Igor Berger (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but you aren't presenting any evidence -- in the form of independent, third party sources -- to back up your case. That is what will decide the matter. Snthdiueoa (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Slow down. We have 5 days, and I have notified other users. So no decision will be made today. But thank you for your concern. Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Andy Beard needs to be deleted, so is Social_network_aggregation and many other articles that have references and notability of social media industry social network paltforms like linkedIn, StumbleUpon, Blogcatalog, WebProNews, and other industry resources. Igor Berger (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Slow down. We have 5 days, and I have notified other users. So no decision will be made today. But thank you for your concern. Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but you aren't presenting any evidence -- in the form of independent, third party sources -- to back up your case. That is what will decide the matter. Snthdiueoa (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reliable sources from which to derive biographical notability. The creator will please stop using arguments such as WP:ALLORNOTHING as well as canvassing for votes. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is canvassing fo votes. We are not a voting society but a consensus society. And letting people who understnad what is social media know about the AfD of Andy Beard is not canvassing for anything but asking for professional input. Yes it is WP:ALLORNOTHING you do not seem to acknowledge social media as notable, so I Wikipedia:IGNORE. Igor Berger (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this aticle gets deleted I will take this to WP:RFC and then to WP:RFAB. I hope we do not have to escalate this. Igor Berger (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry this is not WP:POINT but WP:POLICY Igor Berger (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being that this article may get deleted with the few who exibit WP:COI and there is WP:WEIGHT here, I a submiting User:Igorberger/Andy Beard which is a copy of the original, as evidence fo further arbitration. It is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS the way this article is being WP:AFD treated. Igor Berger (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you like to play acronym games. If you have any evidence that any editor in this discussion has a conflict of interest, please bring it to the table. It would be far more productive, however, should you choose to bring reliable sources for your assertions about the subject of the article being notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not playing anything or am I WP:ABF. I asked for help with the article and all I am getting is delete delete 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igorberger (talk • contribs)
- I see you like to play acronym games. If you have any evidence that any editor in this discussion has a conflict of interest, please bring it to the table. It would be far more productive, however, should you choose to bring reliable sources for your assertions about the subject of the article being notable. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being that this article may get deleted with the few who exibit WP:COI and there is WP:WEIGHT here, I a submiting User:Igorberger/Andy Beard which is a copy of the original, as evidence fo further arbitration. It is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS the way this article is being WP:AFD treated. Igor Berger (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry this is not WP:POINT but WP:POLICY Igor Berger (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this aticle gets deleted I will take this to WP:RFC and then to WP:RFAB. I hope we do not have to escalate this. Igor Berger (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is canvassing fo votes. We are not a voting society but a consensus society. And letting people who understnad what is social media know about the AfD of Andy Beard is not canvassing for anything but asking for professional input. Yes it is WP:ALLORNOTHING you do not seem to acknowledge social media as notable, so I Wikipedia:IGNORE. Igor Berger (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost all the sources are blog posts or non-independent pages created by the subject himself. A Google News search suggests that he is occasionally mentioned in reliable sources but it's not clear that there is enough information in them about him to justify having an article about him per WP:BIO. By the way, if this article gets deleted the proper method of appeal would be to WP:DRV, not to WP:RFC or WP:RFAB. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Metropolitan90 thank you for your objective opinion and fair adjudication! Igor Berger (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being that Andy Beard is an Icon in Social media consultancy, not "a non-notable blogger" as User:AzaToth put it, this article requires some detailed examination before following WikiPedia guidelines for WP:AFD Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Metropolitan90 thank you for your objective opinion and fair adjudication! Igor Berger (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Beard is not WP:BIO but Self-organization. Igor Berger (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What has Self-organization to do with Andy Beard? WP:BIO is a policy about notability of people being on wikipedia. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 08:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict x2) Pardon me, but, um, what? The article is a biography, isn't it? Exactly the point I was going to make, Tulkolahten. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 08:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Beard is not WP:BIO but Self-organization. Igor Berger (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Andy Beard is a institution for all of us. And if you cannot see it, delete the Fubar article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For who? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE.
Also I have some very large concerns with Igor Berger and a possible COI violation here.Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if you have COI concerns with me you will probably have the same conserns with many SEO and bloggers' WikiPedians including Danny Sullivan and Jehochman. Igor Berger (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look I wanted to publish an article, but you all seem to be ganging up on me with personal attack. Next you going to say I got money from Andy Beard..:) Please stay on focused on AfD or I will ask User:Durova to come here. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking my comment about the COI and assuming good faith on Igor's part. Look, none of us here think this is personal towards you, it's just the people who have stated they think the article needs to be deleted bring up very valid points with regards to Mr. Beard's notability. If you can give reliable sources than can verify his notability, then by all means the article can be kept. We are trying to help here, and getting defensive and stating you'll "take this to WP:RFC and then to WP:RFAB" and also stating you'll have an admin come here as a vague threat doesn't help your cause. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In my personal opinion, Andy Beard is borderline notable by Wikipedia standards. However, this article needs work. I suggest userification. If and when the article is fixed, it can be moved back to main space. For the record, it is my belief that Igor berger has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject. I have not seen any evidence of WP:COI. Remember, don't bite the newbies. Jehochman Talk 18:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit I found calling COI a bit inappropriate -- it does seem a bit dubious in terms of assuming good faith. However, Igor, getting all defensive isn't helping your cause. If you want the article to stay, you need to provide us with some good quality, reliable third party sources so that people can verify that the guy is notable. Snthdiueoa (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did a quick search for sources and found a bunch of mentions and articles, but less than what I would have hoped for. Here's one from The Guardian: "The word farms of the web | Technology | The Guardian". www.guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-01-15.-- Jehochman Talk 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's an example of what you'd call a "trivial" mention. WP:N#_note-2 90.241.179.105 (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit I found calling COI a bit inappropriate -- it does seem a bit dubious in terms of assuming good faith. However, Igor, getting all defensive isn't helping your cause. If you want the article to stay, you need to provide us with some good quality, reliable third party sources so that people can verify that the guy is notable. Snthdiueoa (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Borderline A7, very limited/no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO, WP:V, WP:RS. Tevildo (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BIO, et al. BJTalk 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would have probabally speedied this. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, I like to appologize for saying I will do this, and I will do that. Next I'll say that I would be the first one to admit that the article is lacking notability. But the man Andy Beard does not lack it. And are we not told follow the spirit of the law not the letter of the law when it comes to WikiPedia policy. This is a border line case, and the man through all his volunteer work in the blogger's community is notable. Even Matt Cutts chief Google software engineer mentions Andy on his semi official blog. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's okay. But you do need to give us some solid evidence to back up his claims to notability, not just mere assertions. Snthdiueoa (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this useful? http://www.semmys.org/ Andy Beard is one of the judges for the awards, including Barry Schwartz, Aaron Wall, Vanessa Fox, etc.. Seems notable to me! Igor Berger (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, unless you can show that the award/website itself is notable. We don't create articles for every winner of every award, if they're not notable themselves. Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Beard is one of the judges not a winner. Looks notable to me http://www.semmys.org/about/ http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/introducing-the-semmys/1026/ If it was not notable would Vanessa Fox, Aaron Wall, and Barry Schwartz (technologist) be the judges of the wards? Igor Berger (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is more evidence about Semmys.org by Michael Gray (technologist) who is a judge on the awards board. http://www.wolf-howl.com/seo/the-semmys-2008-why-i-want-to-win/ Igor Berger (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Beard is one of the judges not a winner. Looks notable to me http://www.semmys.org/about/ http://www.smallbusinesssem.com/introducing-the-semmys/1026/ If it was not notable would Vanessa Fox, Aaron Wall, and Barry Schwartz (technologist) be the judges of the wards? Igor Berger (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, unless you can show that the award/website itself is notable. We don't create articles for every winner of every award, if they're not notable themselves. Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this useful? http://www.semmys.org/ Andy Beard is one of the judges for the awards, including Barry Schwartz, Aaron Wall, Vanessa Fox, etc.. Seems notable to me! Igor Berger (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those references are of better quality than any of the references that were used in the article itself. I suggest that you might want to do some more research and find reliable sources that backup the claim that this blogger is notable. I also suggest to be less agressive in your tone. Even if you consider Andy Beard to be notable (something I do agree on actually) does it not mean that you can assume that everybody else knows that as well. That's why exist the notability guidelines in Wikipedia, exactly for this simple reason. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those references are all blogs, not exactly reliable sources. And while they are about the Semmys in general, they are not about Mr Beard in particular. In fact they don't even mention him. Snthdiueoa (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those references are of better quality than any of the references that were used in the article itself. I suggest that you might want to do some more research and find reliable sources that backup the claim that this blogger is notable. I also suggest to be less agressive in your tone. Even if you consider Andy Beard to be notable (something I do agree on actually) does it not mean that you can assume that everybody else knows that as well. That's why exist the notability guidelines in Wikipedia, exactly for this simple reason. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's okay. But you do need to give us some solid evidence to back up his claims to notability, not just mere assertions. Snthdiueoa (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability from reliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete [er notability. Marlith T/C 03:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Wikify The blogger does meet the WP:N requirements IMO, but I agree that the references used in the article don't fit the criteria of WP:RS, not to mention the reference to the editors own website, which could be interpreted as WP:COI, but only because the editors website does not qualify as a reliable source for this subject. The editor could dispute that of course and bring it to the attention of the RS Noticeboard, if he wants to. I am sure that the WP:RS problem can be corrected, if proper background research would be done. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found the following reference at The Guardian [1] and at The Age [2] that you might want to checkout for relevance to the article. p.s. I have a Google Custom Search engine (currently for testing only) at this page [3] (the third test search engine), which allows to search content of established reliable sources. I want to tweak it a bit more and then maybe create it's own domain or if it is possible a special page within Wikipedia to make it a tool for wikipedians to discover reliable sources that were overlooked. Feel free to check it out and let me know about reliable sources that are missing and other things that could be improved. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a trivial mention, not an article about him from multiple sources. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't we ask Jimbo Wales if Andy Beard is notable, being that Jimbo knows Andy very well. http://andybeard.eu/2007/12/jason-calacanis-wikia-troll.html Igor Berger (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo isn't the authority on notability, and simply having a relationship with a notable person does not necessarily make the other person notable, since relationships do not transfer notability. You may want to take a look at WP:ATA, as it seems that many of your arguments against deletion here are covered by that essay. Not trying to get you down, but just trying to help you figure out the best plan of attack to combat deletion. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it looks like it is industry wide notability. I have asked some people with help building the article and the one's in the SEO industry came up with references to notability right a way, but the one's outside the industry say they never heard the man. So referencing online newspapers, industry blogs, industry business is not enough, then what is needed to show notablity? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references need to be about Mr Beard himself, not just about something with which he is involved. They also need to discuss him in some depth, such as whole articles specifically about him: a single paragraph or quote in the context of another article is not sufficient. Finally, the sources themselves need to be reliable: notable publications both online and offline with a reputation for fact checking. Blogs alone are not sufficient to establish notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snthdiueoa I undesrstand this is a really borderline case. It would be nice if a few of us go over the article and see if it can be wikified to be acceptable. Thank you Igor Berger (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references need to be about Mr Beard himself, not just about something with which he is involved. They also need to discuss him in some depth, such as whole articles specifically about him: a single paragraph or quote in the context of another article is not sufficient. Finally, the sources themselves need to be reliable: notable publications both online and offline with a reputation for fact checking. Blogs alone are not sufficient to establish notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it looks like it is industry wide notability. I have asked some people with help building the article and the one's in the SEO industry came up with references to notability right a way, but the one's outside the industry say they never heard the man. So referencing online newspapers, industry blogs, industry business is not enough, then what is needed to show notablity? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimbo isn't the authority on notability, and simply having a relationship with a notable person does not necessarily make the other person notable, since relationships do not transfer notability. You may want to take a look at WP:ATA, as it seems that many of your arguments against deletion here are covered by that essay. Not trying to get you down, but just trying to help you figure out the best plan of attack to combat deletion. Cheers! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't we ask Jimbo Wales if Andy Beard is notable, being that Jimbo knows Andy very well. http://andybeard.eu/2007/12/jason-calacanis-wikia-troll.html Igor Berger (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't vote on this, as I am the subject matter, but based upon recent history, as a blogger, whilst I have had numberous industry mentions, and as a blogger within the industry I have probably been referred to more times than many bloggers already regarded as being notable, I don't qualify as being notable. I am based in Poland, the US press isn't going to call me to ask a question, I don't attend speaking engagements because of the cost of travel, and in Poland I am an expat, and they would usually want to refer to a Polish national - thus gaining notability is a lot harder. That being said, the article is extremely incomplete, and needs extensive corrections otherwise it might be making false statements about a living person. That being said there are documents within Wikipedia that theoretically give some of my history.
I was a cofounder of Almathera Poland during the early 1990s and had numerous articles published in computer magazines in Poland, as well as interviews. In that role I was also one of the first publishers of Polish Software on CDRom, if not the first, with a shareware and demo scene compilation called CDPL1 CDPL1 was the first known publication of work by http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakub_Rene_Kosik and it is mentioned in his Bio, but as an American company, when in fact it was an in name only sister company to Almathera Systems in the UK.
At the inaugural Independent Games Festival, I collected the prize for Crime Cities in the Best Visual Arts Category
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Games_Festival
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_Cities
Published by Techland who I joined in 1996 when they had 5 staff and worked with until 2001/2002 as one of the directors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techland (note that article really needs some extensive work)
Game credits include http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,70400/ http://www.mobygames.com/game/mission-humanity http://www.mobygames.com/game/survival-the-ultimate-challenge http://www.mobygames.com/game/crime-cities
I was also involved with the early development and business presentations for Chrome http://www.mobygames.com/game/chrome
IMDB Credits me for manual and animation on Mission Humanity http://former.imdb.com/name/nm2311862/ I did actually do all the English manuals, and possibly some of my early work even made it into the final Chrome release
I didn't consult with Aureal, Videologic and Creative Labs, I sold them software I helped design. The deal which sold 100,000 units through Creative Labs was concluded whilst out on a pedalo in the middle of a Polish lake on a cell phone.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=nbT&q=%22future+beat+3d%22&btnG=Search
One of the existing interviews I did for Crime Cities is on Gamasutra (you need a free membership to read it) http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20001023/brown_03.htm Press release for Future Beat http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/news/9907_135/
There is quite a good interview with Mike Gamble of Microsoft and myself in a September 1999 issue of Computer Trade Weekly - a special edition for ECTS 1999 focusing on Game Development in Eastern Europe, and around that time, at The launch of the Pentium 3, GDC and Milia I must have done 100 or more press interviews for both online and print magazines, but I don't have copies, and if the stories went to press they might not have mentioned me by name.
We also did some OpenGL Graphics drivers in those days (1996/1997) http://www.golem.de/9807/1165.html
We also did some other drivers that got loads of press, but I don't have copies of the NDAs and they might have been for more than 10 years.
During my time running Almathera Poland we had frequent press mentions and interviews, I even have a couple of old copies of defunct magazines somewhere.
As for blogging, who knows, I can pick up a story and run with it, such as being the centre of the PageRank updates in October http://www.techmeme.com/071024/p28#a071024p28
I am well regarded as one of the instigators of the "dofollow" movement
As for the Guardian interview - if you are famous and you burb, you get massive press attention - if you are a source and give a 2 hour interview, you get a small paragraph without a link. I did question that, and the author of the article, and the editor of the technology section responded http://andybeard.eu/2007/09/linking-abuse-or-linking-awareness.html
Jimmy Wales has left just a single comment on my blog, Matt Cutts has never referenced my blog because I don't tow the Google line
My relationship with Blogcatalog is financial though very minor
I don't make MFA sites though I have tested a few scripts
The Jason Calacanis podcast was also featured on Fast Company http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/118/man-vs-machine.html
But that is background - my opinion is I am probably not notable per the Wikipedia requirements for notability, because the games industry stuff shouldn't count if someone like Mike Gamble isn't included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=mike+gamble&go=Go In those days Mike was on a similar level to John Carmack. p.s. I only saw this from a click through in my stats - a month or so back I told Igor that I shouldn't be listed as an SEO consultant, because I don't take consultancy work and can't be looked on as a notable consultant because I am not listed. To be honest I have no real interest in being included in Wikipedia, it is not like I am hard to find in Google, and I have full control over the content. It is one of the reasons I use a Polish translation of my name here. The information provided here is just to give you a clearer background should you decide to keep it, and possibly to save some time on whether ultimately you will have a page that qualifies.AndrzejBroda (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, I know you told me you are not interested in the article, but you are a legion and the bloggers your children need you. So as a blogger and your child - follower I do have WP:COI but only in respect that I am interested in making this article notable. Thank you for coming over and I am sorry for putting you in the spotlight. Igor Berger (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh Andy, it does not matter if you are poor or rich if you buy links or sell liks, but what matters is that you stand up and fight for what you believe in! Igor Berger (talk) 14:51, 17 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.