Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irwin Stone

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, as the "Forewords by Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi to Irwin Stone's* "The Healing Factor"", and the sources cited in this comment by Thomjakobsen are sufficient to establish the notability of this person per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. John254 01:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin Stone

Irwin Stone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Delete: Per WP:PROF, WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:BIO.
  

1. WP:PROF: A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no only a handful of publications in minor alt med journals, and a Google Scholar search yields only one communication (not even a full article) in "Amer. J. Phys".

1. WP:V: The article's citations are to Stone's own book and to sources on "http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/", which is evidently someone's homepage. Even this site only has four articles or so by Stone, none in major, peer-reviewed journals.
2. WP:PROF: The standard of "this academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. Indeed, Irwin Stone is less notable than the average college instructor as he has no publications in notable journals, only a few publications in non-notable ones, and only self-published references.
3. WP:FRINGE: And I quote, In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication. Minor publication in a small Alt Med journal and self-published books hardly count as extensive, serious, or major.
4. Per WP:BIO: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article.
5. Note that this nomination simply follows the precedent established in the Fred Klenner AfD, the Thomas Levy AfD, and the Robert Cathcart AfD. Though the orthomolecular community may wish to preserve pages on their idols, it does not preclude the requirement to meet WP:BIO.

Djma12 ^(talk) 02:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• This claim, already once amended [1] to the detriment of nominator's claim, simply is not true, and is the THIRD time the nominator misrepresents what has been published. He / she has gone from asserting that A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no publications to A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates only a handful of publications in minor alt med journals. This despite the fact that the journals listed at pubmed include Med J Aust, Australas Nurses J, and Science (though the Irwin Stone in question would have been 23 at the time of the Science article. None of these 3 are "minor alt med journals."

• I believe the Science article you refer to is this paper. If you will read the article, this is obviously not the same Irwin Stone as the one in AfD. Please do not misrepresent papers for the purposes of inventing notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• The nominator then continues and a Google Scholar search [for "Stone I"] yields only one communication (not even a full article) in "Amer. J. Phys". My attempt to search for "Stone I" yields 6510 hits; a search for "Irwin Stone" comes up with 119 hits, including Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, and others. When a contributor with a doctorate and an unmistakable agenda misrepresents the publications on pubmed and google scholar four times, I do believe it smacks of vandalism.--Alterrabe 07:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please note that the vast majority of the pubmed and Google scholar hits on "Stone I" are obviously not to the Irwin Stone under AfD. (Unless he had a second life in anthropology, general relativity, and medical economics that was not otherwise in his article.) It is dishonest to claim "6510 hits" without any clarification on which ones are actually relevant. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is perhaps an oversight but not intentional dishonesty as he simply reported the number of hits. On the other hand, you initially said that there were no hits, and have now edited the AfD rationale leaving no evidence that this claim ever existed. As the comments made here were in response to your original rationale, you should restore the original claim and add a supplementary correction. Drawing attention to good-faith mistakes in another editor's comment and labelling it "dishonest" while making cover-up revisions to your own comments is considered very bad practice. Thomjakobsen 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I have included the original as well. However, I also grow weary of all these accusations of "smack(ing) of vandalism" just b/c Irwin Stone's minor publications are so difficult to pull up. Of the 6510 hits, mostly by completely unrelated authors, I overlooked three papers from such gems as Australas Nurses J. I'd appreciate some WP:AGF as well. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Furthermore, per WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT, the burden of proof does not lie upon me, the challenging editor, to establish notability. If any of the participating editors have major, independent mainstream publications that directly address Irwin Stone (not orthomolecular medicine), please feel free to contribute. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom. Pocopocopocopoco 02:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete per nom. Though certainly there are links to the article that prove that the article's content is likely factual (See here), that's not enough to prove notability. The Wikipedist 03:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry guys but just because he is not well-known does not make him non-notable.. How many articles in his particular field? Not many.. Does that make his field less notable? He had someone write an article about him in a journal of his field, so that means that his peers in his field felt he contributed to his field.Callelinea 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just b/c a person or a theory is not widely known does not make it non-notable. However, by the criteria of WP:FRINGE, there must be at least ONE mainstream reference. (Even negative references count to establish notability.) Furthermore, the requirement of WP:PROF is that independent academics verify his notability. Having a tribute posted by an unknown doctor on someone's homepagehardly counts as an independent or serious citation.

• Strong Keep Very notable for being the originator of Vitamin C megadosage. Number of papers published is not a relevant criterion because he was not an academic but a research scientist for a commercial company. Colonel Warden 11:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have a citation for this? This article is heavy on claims and scarce on citations. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The reason that there aren't many other papers in this 'field' is that this is medically dubious and bordering on psuedoscience. There is precious little evidence that massive doses of Vitamin C are good for anything other than the profits of vitamin pill firms. Nick mallory 13:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If it's true that he introduced the concept of Vitamin C megadosage to Linus Pauling, then he's notable on the grounds of his role in that highly controversial movement, rather than the usual WP:PROF criteria (besides, it seems he was a research chemist for a company, not an academic). WP:FRINGE doesn't apply because of the amount of criticism generated against that movement in mainstream sources. Megavitamin therapy, if accurate, suggests not that he was the originator of Vit. C megadosage (that happened in the 30s and 40s) but that he made a historical contribution to that field. And a contribution to a notable field does confer notability, regardless of how pseudoscientific that field is now regarded. Thomjakobsen 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Albert Szent-Gyorgi, who won a Nobel prize for his work isolating Vitamin C, writes in a foreword: "I think that mankind owes serious thanks to Irwin Stone for having kept the problem alive and having called Linus Pauling's attention to it." Various sources say that Pauling credited Stone with sparking his interest in Vitamin C; presumably, that's sourceable from one of Pauling's books. Also, it appears he was the first person to obtain patents on the use of Vitamin C as a food preservative — assuming that's true (results of a patent search), it's another claim to notability. Thomjakobsen 18:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please see above criteria per WP:BIO. Notability by association is not a valid criterion.Djma12 ^(talk) 21:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not claiming "notability by association". I'm pointing out that notable figures publically acknowledge his influence on their work, which is an entirely different thing (in terms of notability) to being a mere associate or friend or family member. Here's a good source for it too — Linus Pauling writes that he and his wife first started taking large quantities of Vitamin C as the result of a letter from Stone, that Stone first pointed it out as a protection against the common cold. In other words, he played a key role in the controversy. Thomjakobsen 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROF, Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page.

I appreciate the point that Stone introduces Pauling to Vitaminc C. However, the argument is still essentially "Stone is notable b/c he introduced Pauling to Vitamin C. Pauling is definitely notable therefore Stone is notable." All this establishes is that Stone might be worthy of note within the Pauling article, but does not establish notability for a standalone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djma12 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• He was not an academic, he was a commercial research chemist and author, so WP:PROF does not apply. And your summary is a misrepresentation of the points I've made. In short: (1) Stone is notable for being the first to exploit Vitamin C as a means of food preservation, for which he held patents in the 1930s. This alone is a significant claim of notability. (2) Stone is notable within the controversial megavitamin movement for his observation that Vitamin C was produced naturally in large quantities in animals, and suggested that humans ingest similar quantities in order to make up for a supposed evolutionary loss of this capability. This is one of the key "theories" behind that movement. (3) Stone is recognized by two Nobel Laureates for his contribution to that movement, which again is a significant claim to notability. (4) Stone is recognized not just for introducing Pauling to Vitamin C, but for coming up with the idea that Pauling would go on to popularize, namely that huge doses of Vitamin C give protection from the common cold. This is not mere "notability by association": examples of that would include "Joe Schmoe is the brother of (famous person)" or "Band X once played as support act for (huge band)". Also note that are three separate claims here: the industrial use of VC, the theory based on animal physiology, and the common-cold idea that sparked Pauling's involvement. Only the last one would belong in the Pauling bio, the second one is used in Megavitamin therapy, and the first is in Vitamin C. So "it's better off merged into Pauling's article" is off the mark, because he's already spread among at least three separate articles. Thomjakobsen 03:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• He was a biochemist whose notability is based upon his research and theories. That places him under WP:PROF, regardless of whether the research was under academia or not. For Point #1, where is the citation that he was "the first to exploit Vitamin C as a means of food preservation"? The only citation included is to a general search in the US Patent Office without any actual text. For Point #2, where is the citation again? Furthermore, where is the recognition within at least one mainstream journal per WP:FRINGE? For Point #3 and #4, again per WP:FRINGE, where is the mainstream notability? Even negative notability counts, but is conspiciously absent. Having a book forward in a self-publication, even one written by Nobel laureates, hardly counts as mainstream notability. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't fall under WP:PROF: the guidelines there are very narrowly worded because they were written specifically to solve the problem of, "We have lots of articles on academics whose only claim to notability is that they are professors. How do we distinguish a notable professor from a non-notable one?" It was never intended to be stretched to cover people outside the academic mainstream who deal in "research and theories", because their existing outside that mainstream means that the criteria of journal papers, citations and widely-used textbooks — useful in gauging the impact of a mainstream prof — are inappropriate.

Similarly, WP:FRINGE applies to theories, not people — the megavitamin theories have received lots of negative mainstream attention, partly due to Pauling's involvement, and they are responsible for a sizeable industry with products on the shelves of virtually every supermarket in the developed world.

As for lack of citations: the references could certainly be improved but unless you have reason to suspect they're false, or have better sources contradicting them, it's not a deletion issue. The "first patents..." claim is made in the tribute article, and are backed up by the results of the patent search (you can read them by clicking on the patent numbers), so unless there's a counterclaim of an earlier patent we have no reason to doubt that source (the window is short: Szent-Gyorgyi made his discoveries in 1932 and Stone's patents were filed in 1935). Pauling can be considered a reliable source on the issue of where he got the common-cold idea from, and the "orthomolecular" publications can be considered as sources for his notability within that movement. Note the qualifications on these last two points: the scope of the claim being backed up determines how "mainstream" the source has to be in order for it to be considered reliable. Mein Kampf is not a reliable source on Jewish culture, but it is a reliable source for Hitler's views as of 1925. Thomjakobsen 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Linus Pauling and Albert Szent-Gyorgyi both wrote a forward to Stone's 1972 book "The Healing Factor". That is two chemistry Nobel Laureates noted his work and endorsed it. This alone surely meets Wikipedia's criteria. Note this extract from the book is hosted at the University of Washington which is also evidence of notability. Lumos3 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again, per WP:BIO: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
• Also, to clarify, the extract is not hosted by the University of Washington, but on someone's homepage at the University of Washington. For all I know, this could be your homepage. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• True, being hosted under a UW domain isn't really significant, but the fact that Pauling and Szent-Gyorgyi wrote the foreword is verifiable in case that's an issue. Thomjakobsen 22:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of his actual scientific work. . His basic genetic work on vitamin C is almost certainly respectable--His review HYPOASCORBEMIA GENETIC DISEASE CAUSING HUMAN REQUIREMENT FOR EXOGENOUS ASCORBIC ACID in PERSPECTIVES IN BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 10 (1): 133& 1966 has been cited 33 times That he got involved with Pauling's notable eccentricity is another matter, but he was in fact one of the major orthodox scientific supports for that theory. Having a forward to ones book written by a famous author is not necessarily significant., but that Szent-Gyorgyi supported his work as well as Pauling shows respectability. Szent-Gyorgyi has his peculiarities, but he did discover the metabolic role of Vitamin C, and a great deal else. He counts as an orthodox authority on that subject. DGG (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. More and more I fear these nominations are in bad faith. The nominator states "A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no publications" yet searching for "Stone I[author] AND ascorbic" comes up with 13. The nominator also states "a Google Scholar search yields only one communication (not even a full article)" yet searching on "Irwin Stone" comes up with 115 hits. Espresso Addict 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The nominator wrote:A simple pubmed search on "Stone I" demonstrates no publications, when in fact, a pubmed search for "Stone I" turns up at least 7 publications by an "Stone I" with ascorbate, Stone's area of expertise, in the title. Whatever the intent, this erroneous assertion about medline is part of a very regrettable pattern of behavior. In a previous edit to a page, the nominator had deleted a valid reference to pubmed, and referred to a search for a different term as "proof" that the reference to medline was not relevant to wikipedia.

Here are the links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carl_Pfeiffer&diff=160466499&oldid=160448388

Why are these concerns overcome please? A simple pubmed search for "Carl Pfeiffer" brings up none of the citations you claim, and the specific article citations are not included in the bio. Furthermore, simply being published does not grant you WP:PROF criteria. (Otherwise, every single published author would be notable.) What is required is, and I quote, "an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources."Djma12 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fred_R._Klenner

--Alterrabe 20:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep Not one of the 5 arguments advanced for the deletion of this article holds water. To wit:

* WP:Prof does not apply to non-academics,

* the argument to WP:V blatantly misrepresents the references in the article. There are no "citations", but rather references, external links, and his book.

* the argument that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply blatantly overlooks the many mainstream sources that debunk Pauling's proposing the theory,

* WP:Bio badly misconstrues what Stone accomplished in his life. Here are the criteria: *

Creative professional: (scientist, academic, economist, professor, author, editor, journalist, ::filmmaker, photographer, artist, architect, engineer, or other creative professional):

o Is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

o Is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

o Has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, ::or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length ::film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

o Whose work has either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of ::a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the ::permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant ::libraries.

Pauling and Szent-Gyorgyi regarded him as an important figure, he originated a significant new concept, Pauling wrote books on the subject, and the topic is still discussed today.

In sum, the arguments for deleting this article make no sense to me.--Alterrabe 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Refocus This AFD is not about Orthomolecular medicine, nor is is it about the notability of Pauling or Szent-Gyorgyi. These same arguments were addressed previously in the Fred Klenner AfD. (But I guess I need to go through them again...) Simply because Pauling or Szent-Gyorgyi were notable does not mean that they can broadly be used to impart notability for anyone with their blessing -- they still to go through the criteria of WP:BIO, WP:V, (and yes) WP:PROF. Self-publications on vitamincfoundation.org, self-filed patents (which don't even have text), and minor alt-med publications do not fit the criteria of WP:V, much less WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• The patents, granted in 1939, are evidence of the "first commercial application..." claim. They are evidence to back up an assertion that has some inherent notability, so the fact that they are "self-filed" has no bearing given that they were granted by the USPO. If you click on the numbers you should get an image, not working on my browser due to problems with Flash, but if there's still no image when you click then that's a technical problem with the USPO website. Thomjakobsen 23:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Patents are treated like self-publications for the purposes of WP:V. They may be used to supportan individual's achievements, but they cannot be used as proof of an individual's achievements. Just like any individual can publish a their own book, anyone can create their own patent. The USPO evaluates patents based upon uniqueness, that efficacy. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• The contents of a patent would not be considered independent sources to back up claims in the article: for example, if we added statements such as "company X is the leading provider of..." or "this new technique is considered the best..." and sourced them to the company's self-descriptions in the patent document, that would be a situation in which they would be considered self-publications as per WP:V. In this case, the reference is to the granting of the patent, as attested by the USPO. This is perfectly admissible as it provides objective evidence of first commercial application and provides a means by which the claim can be falsified if you disagree (namely, a search for earlier patents). Unless there is good reason to believe the claim is controversial — e.g. another source claiming that he wasn't the first person to use ascorbic acid in an industrial setting — then this is not a problematic source in the context in which it is being used. Thomjakobsen 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• From WP:PROF This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements....An alternative standard, "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted and determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the six more detailed criteria above. Stone was not a professor, which makes it appear badly misguided to subject him to a "professor test."--Alterrabe 10:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Definition of academic: Per Academia. An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution. Research institutions, even in a private setting, count. I find it highly disingenuous that one would try to sell notability on the basis of an academic theory, but not be willing to hold an individual up to an academic standard. Djma12 ^(talk) 22:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence you're quoting continues: "at a university or similar institution in post-secondary (or tertiary) education". Commercial organizations engaged in research for commercial purposes and filing patents on their research in pursuance of those ends are never considered as academic institutions, so let's be careful throwing around the "disingenuous" tags. I have no reason to be dishonest here, I just find the given grounds for deletion to be invalid and am explaining why to the best of my ability. Thomjakobsen 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Fair enough, and I don't mean to be personal. However, if we are going to evaluate an individual's contributions to academic thought (i.e. research), you must also evaluate his notability on academic grounds. It simply isn't consistent to claim that Stone was important in the development or Vitamin C theory and not evaluate on the grounds used for medical researchers. Djma12 ^(talk) 02:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• We can use analogous criteria, but not WP:PROF: they will exclude by definition anyone who is not working within mainstream academia, or part of a movement which is explicitly shunned by academia. They were framed in order to keep more articles on academics: we use their "internal" criteria for notability because they frequently have little or no coverage in general media. This is the opposite case: he's part of a movement which has triggered much mainstream coverage and controversy, but has a pariah status in academia and the medical establishment. We wouldn't expect to find references in journals and textbooks, so their absence proves very little. So, where would we expect to find mainstream coverage? Pauling has at least five mainstream biographies — given his acknowledgement of Stone's influence, it would be odd not to find it in those. Likewise any mainstream books covering the history of the megavitamin craze, since his idea that humans need such doses to make good on an evolutionary defect seems to be one of the major theoretical influences on that industry. Sources on the internet tend to be from vitamin advocates, but there's every reason to believe mainstream printed sources exist. Has a good faith search for these sources been carried out? Thomjakobsen 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• That seems fair, actually. So the crux of the issue boils down to, has mainstream media/journalism given enough coverage specifically to Irwin Stone to warrant notability? (After all, this AfD is not about orthomolecular medicine.) Concerning your question, the search for mainstream sources is a topic that is currently being addressed in the conversation bullet beneath the initial nomination. If you have mainstream citations that would aid discussion, please feel free to contribute. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• The only Pauling bio with a "Search Inside..." at Amazon is Linus Pauling: A Life in Science and Politics by Ted and Ben Goertzel (covered by the NYT). p.197 backs up the influence of Stone's theories on Pauling and the circumstances involved:

It was at this point in his life, at the age of sixty-five, that Pauling traveled to New York City to give a speech at the Carl Neuberg Medal award dinner. He casually mentioned that he hoped to live for another fifteen or twenty years in order to observe new developments in science and society. A few days later he received a letter from a biochemist, Irwin Stone, who had been in the audience. Stone promised him the chance to live for another fifty years if he would take massive doses of Vitamin C. Perhaps because he was not absorbed with anything else particularly pressing, Pauling decided to take this suggestion seriously. At the very least, it was a scientific question, and one that could have significant social consequences as well. Thus began Linus Pauling's last great crusade, one that was to be every bit as controversial as his crusade against nuclear fallout. Linus and Ava Helen followed up on Stone's suggestion, became true believers in his theories, and threw the full weight of Linus's scientific reputation behind them.

On p.206, Stone is the only other named proponent of the theory besides Pauling:

In fact, no one had suggested that vitamin C was a specific treatment for cold viruses. Rather, the theory advanced by Pauling, Irwin Stone, and others was that the vitamin contribues to the body's ability to resist infections in general.

A result from Google Books, A History of Medicine by L Magner on page 238 in a chapter on vitamins, gives Stone a key role in their recent popularity and backs up the claims that he was behind the "humans have a genetic lack..." theory: "The mystique of Vitamin C has grown exponentially since 1966 when Irwin Stone, an industrial chemist, made the claim that primates suffer from an inborn error of metabolism which could be corrected by consuming large amounts of Vitamin C (about 4000mg per day for an average man)." It's an independent source, as he goes on to criticize megavitamin therapies and advises "a hearty dose of skepticism and caution".Thomjakobsen 21:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I discovered and read his book nearly 20 years ago, long before Wikipedia, and it certainly influenced me! It appeared from the book that Stone was merely promoting Pauling's theories and belief in the eficacy of ascorbic acid megadoses, but if in fact it was Stone who influenced Pauling about this matter, then his influence is indeed significant.

An important addition that should be made to the article is detail about what caused Stone's death at age 77 - after reading his book, and being in the ecstasy of a new convert, I was very disturbed to find out that he had died! Adam Marchant 11 October 2007 Sydney Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.134.237 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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.