Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabiru Gombe

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. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabiru Gombe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject of article is a non notable secetary general to a notable person who founded an Islamic religious movement. Per WP:NOTINHERITED we know this doesn’t do anything to prove subject’s notability. The only two reliable sources used in the article are BBC Hausa, but having optimized Google Translator I discovered they were merely mentioning him in passing(anyone can confirm this using that wonderful tool) Furthermore Subject of article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. He does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This User User:Celestina007 is telling lies in present of the public about the two references provided in the article by saying "He/She discovered they were merely mentioning him in passing" because he/she use Google translation tool, why don't you tell us the headlines and a brief contents of the translation lets see weather it is a pass by or not? I am Hausa Native so you can not say what it is not, when I translate it to English, this is what I see exactly:-

1- https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42130508

Headlines: "Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi is calling my name in the sermon - Kabiru Gombe"

Contents: "The Secretary General of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bid'ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS), Sheikh Kabiru Gombe, denied that he used to mention Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi in his sermon. Sheikh Kabiru Gombe made this clear during a visit to the BBC in London last week, saying that he has never mentioned the name of Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi in his sermon.The clergyman said, "If anyone has a tapes of his preaching mentioning the name of the teacher, then the door will open for him to spread to the world."------- How is this a pass by? when he is the one narrating and addressing what happened between him and other Islamic cleric.

2- https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42130507 This references is an interview of Him with BBC

Headline: "Women are more important than men - Sheikh Kabiru Gombe" This translation is not even accurate, it soppose to be translated this way "Women needs sermon/ preaching more than men"

Content: "The general secretary of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bid'ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS), Sheikh Kabiru Haruna Gombe, told the BBC why he often preached against women, The cleric made the remarks during a visit to the BBC in London on Thursday, He said he has experienced that mothers have been left behind and that the focus on women's preaching has not been fully addressed, he said, "Even if the women are preaching, it is usually better to be hung up on fire or by the teachers, than to be taught about the teachings of Islam and how to worship the Lord God," he said "--------Under this reference when taken to the BBC site, a Video of the interview is even placed to watch online, So how can you then say it is merely passing, when it is even an interview between him and BBC Hausa broadcasting, please be serious.

3- here is another independent reliable source reference not included in the main article https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42338468 On this they placed an audio of Kabiru Gombe preaching about the importance of using musk perfume in pubic parts for woman, it is an audio, but thank God his name is in the Headline and his picture is there to see, in such away that you wont make false claim by saying is a pass by mention.

4- https://aminiya.dailytrust.com.ng/ba-dabiar-malaman-sunnah-ba-ne-su-ce-wane-yana-wuta-sheikh-kabiru-gombe/ Also you did not mention Daily Trust a Nigerian English broadcasting, and it is there in the artilcle, Dailytrust is the English one while Aminiya Dailytrust is the Hausa version using the same trademark logo broadcasting in Hausa language, and it is independent reliable source with no dought, you mean you did not know about this reference in the article or you did not click on the reference?

What about this Legit.ng an independent reliable source https://hausa.legit.ng/1122999-makwabcin-sheikh-kabiru-gombe-ya-kai-kararsa-gaban-kotu-kan-zarginsa-da-aika.html and this https://dabofm.com/ana-saka-ran-dawowar-sheikh-kabiru-gombe-da-bala-lau-gobe-talata-daga-amurka/ Dabo FM, it is an online radio station website for broadcating online, the Radio station is based in Jaipur North of India. And I want those that will vote Keep or Delete to check Find sources Books and Scholar, there are sources there.

Conclusion Per those Six Independent reliable sources, 3 from BBC Hausa, 1 from Daily Trust, Legit and Dabo FM, it pass WP:GNG. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko, how do any of those sources satisfy “in-depth significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of them” where & where in those sources was he himself discussed with in-depth? Literally every source discusses him in passing or states an action he performed but none discuss him significantly. See WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User:Celestina007 You are asking a confusable complicated question which is roughly congested with meaning words leading it to meaninglessness, simplify the question to be straight forward, and went directly to the point, from the Q, you made mention of reliable, independent and source, which of these references lack this quality? point it let me see? is it BBC Hausa, Daily Trust, Legit.ng or Dabo F.M, make clarification, and explain in details as I do in the first place, remember! no lying.

Further references: Let me make it clear by adding additional references from books and scholars:

Scholars: http://www.ethnographiques.org/2011/Sounaye and https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/23853/ASC-075287668-3441-01.pdf?sequence=1#page=223

Book 1:Boko Haram:The History of an African Jihadist Movement by Alexander Thurston, Priceton Univ., ISBN 978-0-691-17224-8, Page 232

Book 2:Salafism in Nigeria:Islam, preaching, and politics, by Alexander Thurston, Cambridge University Press, 22 sep 2016. ISBN 978-1-107-15743-9, Page 103. Thank You.----- An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 20:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Anasskoko, I’d ignore the fact that you implied that i say meaningless things & I’m a liar & go straight to the point.

In my reason for taking this to an AFD, you’d see that I concured to the fact that he has two reliable sources mentioning him but merely in passing, I verified this by using the Google Translator if you’ve ever studied WP:GNG you’d notice it says “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject” emphasis on the “in-depth significant coverage” having two or three reliable sources merely mentioning you in passing & not discussing the subject significantly or with in-depth does nothing for WP:GNG. So let’s see it

Reliable source Y
independent of them Y
in-depth significant coverage N
Overall value & adherence to WP:GNG = N

So you see, per WP:GNG the subject of your article isn’t notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is only known for a single event, being the secretary of a notable organization. Per WP:BLP!E, this isn't enough to warrant a separate article. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him having in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The two BBC sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject; both sources are actually from the same video interview. Ref 1 and 9 are identical sources that only mentioned the subject once. Ref 6 is about Garba Binkola's response to Gombe's comments; it is not independent of neither Binkola or Gombe. Ref 5 looks like info that would fit the personal life section of his bio. Ref 8 looks like an interview source (I am basing this on the article's title). As it currently stands, there's not enough in-depth coverage of the subject. In my view, a separate article is not needed at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing much to mention about this subject and the subject is only notable as per WP:1E. I agree with the facts of Versace. Abishe (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep One of the most prominent Salafi clerics in Nigeria. A quick research shows that he is mentioned in hundreds of media articles. It would be good if some people could avoid giving their opinion about something they have clearly no idea about. --DonCamillo (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo, please you are more than welcome to provide us with this “hundreds of media articles” that are reliable sources that discuss subject of our discussion with significant in-depth coverage I beg of you please do so! you are more than welcome to do so! Wikipedia biographical articles generally are about what can be verified via reliable sources with in-depth significant coverage independent of the subject. If all this boxes don’t tick

then your analysis of what is or what isn’t is very flawed. Anyways you might want to see WP:GNG. Oh lest I forget; It’s great how sleeper accounts pop up every now & again to make statements & !votes in AFD’s & go back to slumber again. I mean what are the odds? Your last edit was on the 19th of December 2019 & your next would “coincidentally” be on the 23rd of April 2020, straight to this AFD to vote. Finally per your comments above It would be good if some people could avoid giving their opinion about something they have clearly no idea about I really don’t need to know jack shit about Christianity, Hinduism, or in this case, the Islamic religion or clerics, what I do need to know & which I already know, is Wikipedia’s policies in establishing notability & how to access the innumerable tools I have been given to by this collaborative community to work with. All else is irrelevant as only the integrity of the encyclopedia is what is pertinent. Feel free to stop by when you have those hypothetical “hundreds of media articles” Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are really... interesting. I happen to do quite a lot of work on the Hausa Wikipedia and noticed that the article was recently created there: I just clicked on the interwiki link and saw the AfD notice. So nothing strange there. Is that satisfactory? English is my 3rd language so, no, I do not primarily contribute on the English Wikipedia.

Yes, hundreds of articles are available about the topic of this article, and over a quite long period of time. Look for yourself (BBC, RFI, Aminiya...). Most of them happen to be in Hausa. Basically, to summarize, Kabiru Gombe is the "number 2" or maybe number 3 of one of the largest Islamic movements in Nigeria, with millions of followers. He is regularly interviewed by different international and Nigerian media to give his opinion on various matters. He is mentioned in the scientific literature about Nigerian Salafism (books by Alexander Thurston and Roman Loimeier whose authority on the topic is, I'm afraid, stronger that yours) as a prominent cleric within the so-called Salafi Muslim community in Nigeria. So, yes, strong keep', again.

As a non-Nigerian interested in Nigerian-related topics, may I add that I am truly shocked and disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated here... --DonCamillo (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DonCamillo, Just as I thought all talk & you still didn’t bring the Hundreds of reliable media you claim are out there. Do you know why you couldn’t bring them here? Because they are simply non-existent. I don’t give a damn that you are from the Hausa tribe interested in Nigerian related topics. Sentiments be damned! Who cares??? If you can’t provide us with the Hundreds of reliable media you claim exist that substantiates or proves subject’s notability then please move aside for experienced editors who actually know what they are doing to weigh in & quit consistutung a nuisance here using sentiments to draw pity to your cause. Furthermore from your statement above “As a non-Nigerian interested in Nigerian-related topics, may I add that I am truly shocked and disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated here” I’d like to say that I am a Nigerian citizen & have lived in Nigeria & with Nigerians for 20+ years, so I am as Nigerian as they come & you can’t love articles related to my country more than I do. If your next response isn’t with those magical Hundreds of reliable media you claim you discovered I’d most likely not respond to you again as obviously you clearly do not know what Wikipedia is about, Good fucking Bye! Oh lest I forget this comment above Look for yourself (BBC, RFI, Aminiya...). Most of them happen to be in Hausa I’m not going to assist you look for crap. That’s the burden of the article creator & oh well yours now since you want to play Devil’s advocate. Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage which makes him ineligible to qualify under GNG how hard is that to grasp? Celestina007 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DonCamillo, I disagree with your statement about being disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated. FYI, the number of Nigerian-related articles on Wikipedia far outweigh the ones that have been deleted. Like i said earlier, the subject's only claim to notability is his secretarial role at the Izala Society. The sources cited in the article and the ones available online do not show him having in-depth coverage. Passing mentions in books are not enough to warrant a separate article. @Celestina007: Please bring your tone down; its not that serious. Let's try to discuss this in a civil manner. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, easy. I am not accusing you of anything. I'm very glad you're Nigerian. I'm not, and not part of any tribe whatsoever. Just saying that I'm quite surprised to see people (not necessarily you, you're not the only one speaking here) discarding very easily the no. 2 or 3 of one of the major Muslim movements in Nigeria whereas minor religious leaders from a lot of countries have articles here and no one is trying to delete them...

Regarding the sources, again, look for yourself. I'm sure you can use Google. You have twenty of them on BBC Hausa only (you can use site:bbc.com to do a search within a specific website). I gave you a summary of what these articles show. The article is already supported by a lot of sources, I added two of them myself. Just read them instead of ranting. Thanks, --DonCamillo (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo: What exactly do you mean by number 2 or 3? Do you have reliable sources to support this info? He holds a secretarial position. How exactly is this position a top tier position in a religious organization? Please elaborate. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: He's not a secretary, he's the "Secretary-General" (babban sakatare in Hausa - there is a source in English in the article now). I don't know the Izala structure that deep but from the media reports it seems that he is the number 2, coming after the "President" (shugaba in Hausa), who is Abdullahi Bala Lau (and probably deserves an article too!). They are regularly interviewed together as the most prominent leaders of JIBWIS also known as Izala. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo: You should focus on creating an article about the the president, not about the second or third person in command. Just because he is the "Secretary-General" doesn't mean he automatically deserves an article. Like I said earlier, he lacks in-depth coverage and is only known for this role. He literally hasn't done anything outside of this. I can even argue that he is trying to inherit notability from the organization. As you know, notability cannot be inherited here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: But... who are you to tell me which article I should focus on? Sorry, I don't understand. No one has ever talked to me like that on a Wikimedia project, is it normal on the English Wikipedia? Is there a Wikipedia police that tells people which topic they have to work on? Very weird. And I never said he deserved an article because he is the Secretary-General, he deserves it because of his position in a movement with millions of followers in Nigeria and of the in-depth coverage he gets in Nigeria. The article shows it very clearly, now that it has been improved by at least four different editors. Kindly have a look at it, instead of trying to police what other editors are working on. Thanks. --DonCamillo (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo: I am not trying to police you or anyone for that matter. My apologies if you took offense to my comments. You suggested that the president of the organization deserves a separate article and my comments were a response to that. Thanks for improving the article but the subject still has not been discussed in-depth. The position I hold in this AFD will change once I see in-depth coverage. This AFD discussion will probably end up closing as no consensus, which wold result in the article remaining in mainspace. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first! please if you can, try and improve the article. Secondly! please do not accuse or question me of why? just because I voted contrary to your view, and lastly please do not expect me to respond to anybody's question of why? I express my view and opinion as you would not do if my vote goes in support of your view. Per WP:GNG and the bunch of sources provided in the article all are reliable, thanks I'm not seeing anyone looking for the subject in reliable sources and so I see the article subject has passed to be on Wikipedia. Em-mustapha ^{User | talk} 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M-Mustapha, Your comment above which reads “please do not accuse or question me of why? just because I voted contrary to your view” is very much strange to say the least as this is your first !vote here so far & no one has ever accused you, questioned you, or badgered you in any way whatsoever. Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to. Also, Per your comments above which reads “Per WP:GNG and the bunch of sources provided in the article all are reliable” which is similar to DonCamillo’s rationale you both have failed or rather, have refused to provide in this AFD the links to the reliable sources that proves the subject of the article has possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The reason is simple, there is none of such in existence. You may choose to prove me wrong by providing us with such sources. Furthermore In Wikipedia’s AFD procedures we don’t just !vote a keep or a delete without providing congent rationales. Oh! I actually just remembered you explicitly said “Do not question me of why” & “do not expect me to respond to anybody's question of why?” that’s pretty convenient if you ask me. Fine by me, but just so you know your point is very much invalid.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Celestina007, Let's start; I am now being accused! for running several accounts; "Perhaps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to" being question of why! just because I voted contrary to your view. “as this is your first !vote” why I voted that, and maybe being badgered! "you both have failed" "your point is very much invalid".

Let's start; This is not my first AFD opinion and I do not run several accounts but I renamed it almost thrice all with reasons. I'm just an Uninvolved Editor and I only come here to vote when I see an encyclopedic quality is wanted for deletion so I come to rescue. I see some people are trying to points out who is Nigerian and who is not, May be we all have something to say on this, google search, bing search and any other internet search engine is enough for me, google it or bing it, you would find them (thousands of Audio and video files).-Em-mustapha ^{User | talk} 11:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M-Mustapha, only you accused your own self of sockpuppetry as I never said that explicitly. Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. you claim through a google search you encountered thousands of sources & DonCamillo, claims he saw hundreds, but to post just one of those hundreds or thousands that show subject of article possessing in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them becomes a mission impossible for you both. The problem is those hundreds or thousands of sources are non existent! you both are in a catch-22 scenario.

How do you mean you may ask? I’d tell you; you both admire the subject of the article (perhaps because he is a religious figure you consider pertinent to your religion), you both assumed that he was notable without doing a proper research.you both !voted keeps assuming “surely he must be notable” you both have now undoubtedly done a google check & clearly have seen he doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG but of course your ego & admiration for him may have impaired your judgement and would make you not !vote appropriately or strike out your previous !votes to !vote correctly now you know he doesn’t satisfy GNG. But no, you’d rather resort to making bizzare claims saying he has hundreds and thousands of media sources to show he possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them instead of own up to the fact that you have !voted wrongly as those hundreds or thousands of reliable sources is nothing but a blatant lie. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come one, this is not serious, you're very agressive. The article has many sources now and the articles I mentioned are still online. There are rules on Wikipedia, you cannot accuse other editors like this at random without any proof. I can't see how it is suspicious that two editors who are very active on the Hausa Wikipedia give their opinion about an article when sources are mostly in Hausa. Seems very normal to me. So kindly leave people alone, read the sources that have been provided over the last days and hopefully... change your opinion? Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes 55% of WP:Bio. I think some improvement tags would be better like( more citation need, BLP source and Notability rather than AFC) so it could be updated and improved time to time. According to what i read in the sources the only things that wasn't discuss there is the birth year and little about his education but everything about him was there. (F5pillar---^{Let's talk🖋📩}) 15:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F5pillar: How did you derive 55% and which criteria of WP:BIO do you think he satisfies? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG. I repeate, according to the sources in the page. I read all the sources in the page and seems all require was there only his birth year and little about his education wasn't discuss. (F5pillar---^{Let's talk🖋📩}) 16:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F5pillar: You did not answer my question. I asked how did you derive at that number and your response is WP:GNG? For your info, WP:GNG is not the same as WP:BIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to DonCamillo and M-Mustapha's additions to the article. Celestina007 and Versace1608, please take a look at WP:BLUDGEON; your aggressive questioning and investigation of people who vote Keep are not helping your arguments. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: WP:BLUDGEON is an essay and not a guideline. There's absolutely nothing wrong with responding to others in an AFD discussion; I have not been uncivil in any of my responses. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to you User:Toughpigs, they have been aggressive to people in this AFD, tending to push others very hard to their point of view, that's the reason why other editors are afraid of voting keep in Nigerian related discussion, if find out two of them have tag 📍 an article for deletion, not all editors like Hawking around, so a borderline suppose to be drawn for each one of them, to stop pushing voters aggressively, thanks to the Lord we are Bold, had it been we are not, this article could have been deleted for a thrash reasons. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: How do you know others are afraid of voting keep and who are these "others"? For your info, there's no policy that prohibits me from responding to statements that I do not agree with. I'm entitled to respond to your comments and so are you. There's absolutely nothing wrong with engaging with others. At the end of the day, this is an AFD discussion and we are here to talk until consensus is reached. For your info, articles are deleted based on consensus and not on the number of delete votes. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON: "When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse. This can be considered an act of bad faith as the purpose is to win at any cost." — Toughpigs (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: I am not trying to win at any cost or trying to intimidate anyone. If you check my AFD stats, you'll clearly see that I've voted delete in articles that have been kept. I don't have the mindset that every AFD discssion will go my way. If that was the case, I'd be nominating articles two or three times after they've been closed as keep or no consensus. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toughpigs, just like Versace1608 already said no one is trying to win anything here & neither do I badger others nor bludgeon. If you look throughout this AFD I’ve only requested that one, just only one of those “hundreds or thousands” of reliable sources they claim are out there be made available here on this AFD & so far no one has done so. Like I said in the end nothing but the integrity of the encyclopedia matters if the community decides that this article be kept then so be it. I literally have served the community quite well & the universe has aided me in my journey so far & all things being equal I will continue to serve the community. Only the integrity of the encyclopedia is what is imperative every other thing is secondary. Someday I’d retire & so would you but the project lives on & posterity would continue from where we stopped. you probably are right, by the grace of God this should be my last entry in this particular AFD for now because I think I have made a fair point + I just cracked my glasses & wouldn’t be getting a new one till tomorrow + astigmatism is a bitch. haha! Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a very well-known cleric in northern Nigeria. Please take a look at how well covered he is in Hausa media. Greenwhitedino (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2020 (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.