Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salim Suliman Al Harbi

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

The result was no consensus. A classic case of why bundling articles at AfD is only a good idea if the articles are effectively identical. These should be re-submitted as individual AfDs. Black Kite (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Suliman Al Harbi

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 19:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports).DBig Xray 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these articles are on the same topic and have the same issues as mentioned above. The case of the subject are already mentioned in list Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay and list for similar countries(see Template:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees) (Note: I have already followed WP:BEFORE for these articles and I am nominating them after being fully convinced) :

The consensus on recent similar AfDs [1][2][3] [4] [5] was Delete DBig Xray 18:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and there was a No Consensus close on Abdul Hafiz in the bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Nasim (Guantanamo captive 849), a No Consensus close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Said Bin Said Zaid, and a Keep close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norullah Noori. GNG is a good standard to follow, but common sense and WP:IAR indicate that no rule is to be followed in all cases; I still contend that IAR is the way to reconcile the inherently obvious notability of this subject and the application of GNG to sound WP:PRIMARY sources. I have never been convinced by the WP:VAGUEWAVE dismissal of secondary sources in these deletions, including Amnesty International, Andy Worthington, the New York Times and The Telegraph. Standard practice in these AfDs and all too commonly in AfDs generally is that the article is gutted before nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay. As individuals they are not independently notable per WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER. That being said if they are listed in a group that maybe notable as a subject itself, then a redirect to said list can be left in the former article space leading to that list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - none are notable as they lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG and what little information exists on them is already included elsewhere. Anotherclown (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -- nominators and contributors in an Afd have, I believe, an obligation to actually read the article(s) in question before participating. How much effort should they put in to informing themselves?

Another contributor above suggests redirecting all these articles to Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay -- even though none of these individuals was from Yemen. I suggest this reflects a lack of interest in being informed of the articles in question. Geo Swan

nationality	name	notes
Saudi Arabia	Salim Suliman Al Harbi	Andy Worthington (2008-05-23). "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (3) – "Osama's Bodyguards"". Retrieved 2012-07-30. The story of Salim al-Harbi, a 33-year old Saudi (released in December 2006), was unknown until nine months after his release, when the Pentagon released its second big batch of documents, but it provided a break from most other narratives with its bold statements that al-Harbi, who "left Mecca to get away from debts he owed from his failing business," sold his automobile and decided to go to Afghanistan "to make a profit from the drug trade," or, as he put it elsewhere, because he wanted "to get away from everything and stay high," as opium and hashish were "very cheap in Afghanistan." Andy Worthington (2011-08-19). "The Complete Guantánamo Files: WikiLeaks and the Prisoners Released in 2006 (Part One of Ten)". Retrieved 2012-07-30. In telling his story, the Task Force noted that he began using drugs at school, at the age of 15, dropped out of school, and was then imprisoned after "defrauding a satellite cellular phone company." In prison, he met a man who suggested that he should go to Afghanistan "because the drugs were abundant and cheap," which he did.
Iran	Mohamed Anwar Kurd	Andy Worthington (2009-02-07). "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (11) – The Last of the Afghans (Part One) and Six "Ghost Prisoners"". Retrieved 2012-07-30. ...and 22-year old Mohammed Anwarkurd (released in August 2005) also went to Afghanistan on a shopping expedition. He said that he had gone to buy electronic equipment for his brother, because it was cheaper than in Iran and could be sold for a profit, but was seized by the Taliban, who stole his money and conscripted him. He added that he "did not want to tell them that he was from Iran as he had heard that they killed Iranian diplomats." Presumably captured by anti-Taliban forces at a later date, he was accused of traveling to Afghanistan to buy a pistol to kill three people who had destroyed his mosque, or, alternately, of planning to assassinate two key Shia leaders in Zahedan, his home city. Andy Worthington (2011-09-12). "WikiLeaks and the Guantánamo Prisoners Released After the Tribunals, 2004 to 2005 (Part Four of Five)". Retrieved 2012-07-30. as he tried to return, he was stopped by Taliban soldiers, who "asked for his identification card." He said he "did not possess an identification card and claimed that he was from Nimroz, Afghanistan, because of an incident that occurred with ten Iranian diplomats who were accused of espionage and were summarily executed." The Taliban, he said, then conscripted him into service, "because they believed him to be an Afghan citizen." </ref>
Afghanistan	Moheb Ullah Borekzai	Borekzai was released at the height of Guantanamo's what is believed to have been Guantanamo's largest and longest hunger strike. His report, and that of another Afghan, released at the same time, was the first public description of the hunger strike. His release came about two months after world-wide riots when observant muslims were outraged by accounts that GIs desecrated the Koran, including throwing copies in latrines. Borekzai confirmed that Koran desecration had been widespread, but there hadn't been any incidents in 2005, following an announcement of the camp's P.A. system telling captives that guards were not authorized to desecrate the Koran. "Some Guant�namo Prisoners Have Gone on Hunger Strike". New York Times. 2005-07-22. Retrieved 2012-07-30. The Pentagon's account of the protest contrasted somewhat with that of two Afghans released on Monday from Guant�namo. The two, Habir Russol and Moheb Ullah Borekzai, said on Wednesday that more than 180 Afghans were on a hunger strike to protest mistreatment. "Pentagon confirms Guantanamo Bay hunger strike". USA Today. 2005-07-21. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Borekzai later told The Associated Press the detainees were protesting because "some of these people say they were mistreated during interrogation. Some say they are innocent. They are protesting that they have been in jail nearly four years and they want to be released," he said. "KORAN ABUSE HALTED LAST YEAR, SAYS FREED AFGHAN PRISONER". Miami Herald. 2005-07-23. Retrieved 2012-07-30. An Afghan man released from Guant�namo Bay said he saw guards throwing the Koran, but all such abuse stopped late last year after a loudspeaker announcement that U.S. soldiers have no right to touch Islam's holy book. </ref>
Bahrain	Isa Ali Abdullah al Murbati	Geoffrey Bew (2007-04-07). "Bay prison misery for detainees". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. ANTI-RIOT squads equipped with helmets, shields and sticks have been forcibly removing Guantanamo Bay detainees from their cells on a daily basis, according to lawyers. Bahraini detainee Isa Al Murbati is among those who have been targeted, says legal team head Joshua Colangelo-Bryan. "I just want to be with my family". Gulf Daily News. 2007-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30. FREED Guantanamo Bay detainee Isa Al Murbati says that he wants to put the last six years behind him and get to know his family again.Mr Al Murbati, 41, told the GDN last night that he wasn't interested in seeking compensation or dwelling on his experiences in detention. "Rehab plan to heal scars of Guantanamo". Gulf Daily News. 2007-08-10. Retrieved 2012-07-30.
Bahrain	Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi	Geoffrey Bew (2006-07-23). "Bay prisoner 'is no threat'". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Representatives of Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi told the GDN the prisoner has not been interrogated in 2006, which they say proves there is little justification ... "Bay Bahraini keeps hopes alive". Gulf Daily News. 2006-06-11. Retrieved 2012-07-30. They said letters written by Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi to his relatives are often returned to him undelivered. "Bay captive awaits US review report". Gulf Daily News. 2006-01-08. Retrieved 2012-07-30. A BAHRAINI at Guanta-namo Bay is apparently still waiting to find out whether he is considered a threat by the US - months after again being assessed by a review panel. However, lawyers for Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi have questioned why he is still in captivity, claiming he is not accused of being involved in violence or supporting any terrorist organisation. "Agony for Bay families". Gulf Daily News. 2005-11-05. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Salah was just 20 when his family last saw him nearly five years ago and when news broke last Sunday that some of the detainees were to be freed, his father was happy, but wary. "Freedom plea for Bahraini in Bay prison". Gulf Daily News. March 2006. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Salah Abdul Rasool Al Blooshi has only met once with US interrogators over the past year, but continues to be held indefinitely at the military base. He is one of three Bahrainis who continues to be held by the US, but his lawyers say he is a prime candidate for release.
Bahrain	Adil Kamil al-Wadi	Kanwal Hameed (2005-11-05). "FREE AT LAST!". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. Three Bahrainis released from the notorious US camp at Guantanamo Bay were flying into Bahrain aboard a military plane early today. They are Adel Kamel Hajee, Abdulla Al Nuami and Shaikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa, who were among six Bahrainis held at the camp without charge or trial for four years. Sandeep Singh Grewal (2011-05-09). "Show Bin Laden photo, US urged". Gulf Daily News. Retrieved 2012-07-30. A BAHRAINI who spent almost four years imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for alleged links to Al Qaeda has joined calls for the US to release pictures proving that terror chief Osama bin Laden really is dead. Adel Kamel Hajee, who denies ever being connected to Al Qaeda, claims he had never even heard of bin Laden until he was locked up at the prison camp in Cuba.
Bahrain	Salman Ebrahim Mohamed Ali Al Khalifa	Al Khalifa is 2nd cousin of Bahrain's King. Being 2nd cousin to a king, does not make one notable, in and of itself, when there is no other factor to establish notability. But when reliable sources assert the King's cousin was tortured in US custory that does establish notability. "Torture claims" (PDF). Gulf Daily News. 2004-08-07. Retrieved 2012-07-30. A second of the six Bahraini detainees in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-ray has been tortured by US soldiers, according to an Arab prisoner who has just been freed. Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa, known in prison as "The Prince", received similar treatment to that meted out to Juma Mohammed Al Dossary, the prisoner told Bahrain Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) president Nabeel Rajab by phone. "Shaikh Salman eyes spot on Fifa committee". Gulf Daily News. 2009-02-04. Retrieved 2012-07-30. BAHRAIN Football Association (BFA) president Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa is contesting for a seat on Fifa's executive committee. "Shaikh Salman stresses important role of model clubs". Gulf Daily News. 2012-07-01. Retrieved 2012-07-30. SUPREME Council for Youth and Sports general secretary Shaikh Salman bin Ebrahim Al Khalifa chaired a meeting of a committee tasked at evaluating a study on merged clubs, formed under the guidance of Supreme Council for Youth and Sports chairman and president of the Bahrain Olympic Committee Shaikh Nasser bin Hamad Al Khalifa.
France	Khaled Ben Mustafa	"French judge seeks access to Guantanamo amid torture probe". France 24. 2012-01-18. Retrieved 2012-07-24. The magistrate is looking to shed light on possible acts of torture during the detention at Guantanamo of defendants Mourad Benchellali, Nizar Sassi and Khaled Ben Mustapha, and would potentially include questioning of US military personnel. "This [request] is unprecedented," said Philippe Meilhac, the lawyer for former prisoner Khaled Ben Mustapha. "But it's normal that the judge leading the investigation approach those concerned at Guantanamo to verify these claims."

I accept, at face value, that our nominator genuinely believes they complied with WP:BEFORE. However, I am afraid that many references shows they don't know how to comply with WP:BEFORE, and that the nomination's assertion that there was " no independent coverage at all" is completely untrustworthy. Geo Swan (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect votes are for redirecting towards the list of prisoners based on nationalities where each of their case is mentioned. see Template:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees . --DBig Xray 16:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the references (Wall of text above) are either primary sources or only give passing reference to the subject (fails WP:SIGCOV). the sources fail to establish notability

Redirect all to the appropriate 'Fooian detainees at Guantanamo Bay' lists. Keep arguments fail WP:1E/WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Detainees are not notable simply for the fact they are being detained, and they are not notable because the detainment facility balooned in notability following their detainment; most sources above are only passing mentioned. Being mentioned in an article does not make one notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moheb Ullah Borekzai, which is definitely more than a BLP1E, and some or all of the others. The prominence of the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the exorbitant amounts of money spent to get some countries to accept just a few, is evidence of their notability. I think the ones with few sources are best kept for consistency. I understand that this conflicts with a decision made early on about September 11th casualties, but that is one that could benefit from some rethinking anyway.

That said, it would be most prudent for Geo Swan to focus his efforts on backing up this material to a Wiki project elsewhere while it is simple to do so. Wnt (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What policy do you base you keep on? Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article this AFD was created for Salim Suliman Al Harbi - he is not WP:Notable for a wikipedia biography under his name and was released without even charge? - Youreallycan 04:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - These recent terrorism related AfD's all appear to be for articles that are reasonably sourced and have histories dating back years. At first glance these guys appear to be WP:BLP1E's, but many have garnered WP:INDEPTH write-ups and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond just the initial event. The AfD seems to suggest that there is a historical precedent set for deleting these articles, but while the articles are old, the AfD's all started in just the past two weeks. Nearly all have a recommended merge or redirect target, yet they all end up deleted. And then in some cases, someone recreates the recently deleted page as a redirect to the specified target, but only after the page is deleted. This selective deletion removes any potentially useful page history for the redirect, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. Moreover, these group nominations appear to have been done half-assardly because they don't all conform to a specific template or category (aside from being enemies of the US). I want to assume good faith, but these issues seem really fishy. --Joshuaism (talk) 07:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and have histories dating back years." - WP:LONGTIME. Note that of these deletions, while they have "continued coverage", that continued coverage is just like the original coverage in nearly all cases - passing mentions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per WP:GNG, these articles all present information about significant detainees that have garnered wide coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the nominator appears to have failed to consider WP:BUNDLE when nominating this group (as well as others) as none of these articles contain identical content, hoaxes, spam, or identical products (or people). I also note that previous AfDs (linked above) by this same nominator have led to WP:SELDEL of their page histories when merged with other articles, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:R#KEEP. I also take note that a small group of admins and editors all with pro-American, pro-Military bias beyond the general WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS appear to follow AfD nominations by DBigXray very closely with votes to delete and rather quick admin closures to delete (I'm looking at you Bushranger, RightCowLeftCoast, AnotherClown, Bearian, etc.). I'm suprised by how few of DBigXrays nominations get relisted, even when there are as few as 3 comments to delete. What is going on here? --Joshuaism (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Arguments_to_the_person and WP:AOBF. I am not going to reply to your rant above for fear of derailing the discussion as you evidently chose to attack editors rather than address the articles. But would suggest you to think twice before you blame AfD contributors with serious accusations merely on the basis of AfD votes as you did one above.--DBig Xray 06:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did address the articles, stating they passed GNG. If you looked at the sources and statements in Geo Swan's post that you dismissed as a "wall of text" then you would understand. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do they pass the requirement for "significant coverage" in reliable sources per the WP:GNG when we know next to nothing about these people? Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - passes WP:GNG simply put it.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you conclude that ? the primary sources and passing references do not count as WP:SIGCOV, these are clear examples of WP:BLP1E--DBig Xray 17:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Obviously do not pass WP:BLP1E. Nick-D (talk) 06:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Does not pass WP:BLP1E بحرآني (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator -- First, I suggest these dissimilar articles should not have been shoehorned into a bulk nomination, as the individuals do not have enough in common.

Second, no offense to those who voiced WP:METOO votes, but Afd is not a vote. I suggest the closing administrator has the authority and an obligation to discount all WP:METOO votes. These articles are dissimilar enough I suggest contributors who assert all the articles are {{blp1e}}, without commenting on particular articles, give the appearance they took the assertions in the nomination at face value, and didn't actually look at the articles for themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offence taken, but (also with no offence) you give the impression of assuming bad faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Geo Swawn; you created a large series of very similar articles about non-notable people a few years ago. Despite the results of the RfC last year you haven't merged these articles or had them deleted. These articles are now being nominated for deletion, and it's hardly surprising that the obvious fundamental problems with the articles are being pointed out. Making accusations of bad faith is pretty poor practice given that the underlying problem is that you didn't fix up the problems you'd caused, despite the results of the RfC asking that you do so. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding link as a reference for above comment Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan--DBig Xray 11:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for some context. It would almost seem that you are continuing Fram's fatwa against Geo Swan and any Terrorism detainee articles --Joshuaism (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator -- This series of AfDs by DBigXray strike me as WP:WIKIHOUNDING of Geo Swan and I believe that this WP:TRAINWRECK needs to be stopped now. I do not know if it is by coordinated action that the same editors always appear in these recent AfDs but I believe there is a real danger of WP:FALSECON due to an influx of biased or partisan editors. From looking at the archives of Wikiproject Deletion sorting Terrorism and Guantanamo Bay detainment camp as well as its talk page, I feel pretty sure that with the torturous histories of these articles and their political ramifications they will always be vulnerable to WP:EDITWARRING. I suggest that these AfDs be put on hold until a proper guideline for describing the notability of extrajudicial prisoners can be hashed out at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people). --Joshuaism (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your accusations of bad faith are skirting the lines of civility. There is no "wikihounding", there is no "coordinated action", there is no "bias", and there is no "fatwa" - there is the fact that these articles are not on notable subjects and we are trying to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nothing more, nothing less. Notable is notable whether you like the subject or not - and that cuts both ways. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Joshuaism for hurling yet another mindless and a more terrible attack on the AFD nominator this time, despite an earlier message in the same thread not to indulge in doing so. I am replying this time not because I am shaken by your attacks but solely for the sake of other editors who should not make my ignoring your mindless attacks as some kind of acceptance to it. For the record I have no history of editing or confrontation with Geo Swan anywhere on Wikipedia, and that I gain no personal happiness from these AfD's. I have no interest in Geo Swan's contributions whatsoever. I am active at military weapons, ships, History and terrorism related articles. I came across these articles via the categories of terrorism related articles . I have also created BIOs of few militants and militant organizations myself and I have also improved the articles of notable Guantanamo prisoners if they agree with the policies "irrespective of who created it". I nominate articles only when I am fully convinced that they are clear cases of policy violation. AS the admins have access to deleted pages, they are free to check that I have also nominated several non-notable BIOs created by other editors if they do not satisfy the guidelines. I dont get any special joy in bundling these articles but I have started doing it as I was requested by AFD sorters and AFD contributors to WP:BUNDLE these AfD's for better discussion and I accepted that sane advice. Finally you should always "remember" that it is not me but the community who decides what article to keep and what to delete. I am only highlighting the articles that have problem. I'll be more than happy if editors address my concerns at the AfD's so that the articles can be saved. <sigh> --DBig Xray 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...address my concerns at the AfD's so that the articles can be saved. <sigh>" <sigh> is right. AfD is not cleanup--Joshuaism (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor This is not a place to discuss my nominations or my edits , and hurl accusations and write statements of attack and defence. if you want to continue further with your accusations you are welcome on talk pages, so Kindly address these articles regards --DBig Xray 22:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, care to explain how you came to the conclusion that the article on Khaled Ben Mustafa is the same or similar enough to that of Salim Suliman Al Harbi that they should be grouped together? They aren't the same person. They don't come from the same country. Their circumstances are entirely different and contain different events since detention and release. So under which WP:BUNDLE criteria did you decide to nominate these articles? Identical content? Hoax? Spam? Nearly identical manufactured products? Please tell us which of these apply.

Care to explain why Khaled is considered a BLP1E just like Salim when he has experienced much more drama and continued coverage? Care to explain how Khaled's capture in Afghanistan, his detention at Guantanimo, his release and repatriation to France, his conviction on terrorism charges in France, the overturning of this conviction[6], and his retrial[7] constitute a single event?

These two articles should not be grouped together. We should not bury notable detainees in groupings with non-notable or questionably notable detainees. These cases need to be decided on their own merits. All of them. --Joshuaism (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ben Mustafa only gets a passing mention of the name in news article related to court case, fails WP:SIGCOV--DBig Xray 08:31, 9 August 2012 (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.