Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bellinghaus (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Cbrown1023 01:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bellinghaus (2nd nomination)

Mark Bellinghaus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Renomination from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mark_Bellinghaus after article was substantially rewritten by Guinnog with help from a few others. Procedural renomination, see my opinion below. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE A completely new and shorter article has been written and is displayed at the talk page Talk:Mark Bellinghaus. This might be a less objectionable alternative to the auto-bio which is contested in this AfD and still published at Mark Bellinghaus. --Kevin Murray 18:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note the above is an "old update", not a current one... Tyrenius 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The cleanup exposed some things, such as that he has had a minor, but not trivial, role in a major US film, a fair number of German roles which sound reasonably impressive (I'm not a German acting buff, so open to changing opinion if someone more knowledgeable says that these roles are either very impressive or not impressive at all), and that the Marilyn Monroe expose has had some coverage - that adds up to a keep, weak only because of lack of German acting knowledge. This information may have been in the article before the rewrite, I just couldn't see it for the huge images. Good work Guinnog and friends. Will go off to improve the references even more. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to Weak Delete per trialsanderrors's explanation of the German acting parts. More below. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Changing back to Keep per the latest LAWeekly article, which is noticeable coverage of the person himself. Yes, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds... AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep; sorry to repeat myself from last time around but I think the subject is marginally notable as a result of his acting and the Monroe thing. Thanks a lot for the nice comment and for alerting me to WP:HEY, which I hadn't seen. --Guinnog 18:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The substantial rewrite leaves a credible article and contributes to wikipedia being a useful reference work on contemporary culture. Tyrenius 18:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I see no reason why this article should be removed. I just read it and actually learned a few things. :) --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As the nominator in the first afd, I wish someone would have informed of this renomination. Anyway, well done to Guinog for making the effort. I'm looking over the new article now - first thing that comes to notice is the first footnote reference is unreliable, as was noted in the first afd nomination. Bwithh 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep on condition that the Marilyn Monroe section is cut down + further referencing or removal of unsourced claims Firstly, thanks again to Guinog and others for their efforts in revamping this article. I still think this article is problematic, but is a borderline keep needing better referencing - based on his TV acting career, and absolutely NOT on the Marilyn Monroe stuff.
The comment by Downtownstar below was removed from here to avoid the breaking up of Bwithh's text. Tyrenius 16:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Many of the article's claims have yet to be referenced - his early purportedly "championship winning" skating career is unverified. His stage career is unverified (and we have little idea of what level he was acting at - key player or minor role). The claim that he was the lead in an award-winning short film is unverified -"Susanne Aernecke"+"Josephine" gets 9 google hits of which 2 are somewhat relevant (counting all the multi-language imdb hits as the same), neither of which confirm that the film won any recognition - its not even listed in Aernecke's IMDB profile[1]. I can't find anything much with an alternate search using the film festival name either[2] (24 hits for festival name + josephine + susanne; perhaps my German isn't good enough but I'm not seeing anything relevant here).
In addition there was some puffery-by-association over his film roles that I've now removed - his role in The Name of the Rose was a minor bit part as I pointed out in the first afd. Just because you've had a bit part in a movie with a Hollywood star (or in a German TV screenplay by a famous writer) doesn't confer encyclopedic notability by association.
Assuming that the database references used are reliable, I think being a non-bit part actor in a major-award winning TV film is arguably sufficient here (though we don't know the extent of his role). Though as far as I can tell by references/searfching, Fremde liebe Fremde won ONE Grimmie not multiple and that was for its lead actress. Other awards went to the cinematographer, director, writer (again, the problematic notability-by-association puffery issue). I'm going to make adjustments accordingly
In my opinion, the Marilyn Monroe business is not significant encyclopedically (there is no evidence even that he is an especially important collector, or that this legal case is especially significant, plus Wikipedia is not news report archive), and is at best a cut-down trivia section - otherwise there are undue weight issues which verge upon WP:SOAPBOX misuse of Wikipedia Bwithh 04:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Delete Changed my vote based on further perspective on German TV by trialsanderrors. Bwithh 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. The Monroe section still needs a lot of cleaning up.--Downtownstar 13:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Changing to Delete per trialsanderrors' explanation.--Downtownstar 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate deleted - Downtownstar has commented below the arbitrary line break on the latest version of the article. Tyrenius 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, who ever started this article should include the needed citations and a clean-up should follow. The subject itself should easily pass WP:BIO. Alf photoman 20:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shorn of the puffery, he has a few supporting roles in a few TV shows, a few lead roles in obscure stage plays and short films, and a witness (not a party) in a not-exactly-earth-shattering court case. I don't think that's enough to get him within WP:BIO, even if verified. Tevildo 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The acting part fails WP:COI. If you've ever watched SOKO 5113 or Verkehrsgericht (a TV docudrama series that reenacts real-life traffic court cases with no-name actors) you know those are embellished bit acting parts. The Meret Becker movie, I see listings mentioning his name but it seems no reviewer noticed he was actually in the movie (same for his TV roles). The Marylin Monroe part is clearly using Wikipedia as a soapbox per User talk:Bwithh, so it fails WP:NOT, not to mention the many WP:V flags all over the article. No problem with a Marylin Monroe forgery controversy if there is enough material on that, but scraping the bottom of our notability guideline doesn't mean we can throw our other guidelines out of the window to promote the campaign of a single purpose editor. ~ trialsanderrors 07:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete duplicate. New comment below arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 19:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is Trialsanderrors an expert on German TV?Downtownstar, AnonEMouse & Bwithh have changed their votes here based on the comments by Trialsanderrors. Why is this undocumented "evidence" about German TV so compelling? It seems as though Trialsanderrors is just expressing an opinion, which is not supported by any objective evidence. --Kevin Murray 15:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment It says on T&E's userpage that s/he is affiliated with the University of Karlsruhe, a German university. That leads me to believe that s/he has lived in Germany, and thus would know more about German TV than many of the rest of us (myself included). Also, I've seen Bellinghaus' IMDB page [3] It's not very impressive. RedRollerskate 16:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Red Roller, your skating on thin evidence of expertise. I use a toilet frequently, but am not a plumbing expert. --Kevin Murray 16:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not say T&E was an expert. I said T&E knows more than the rest of us do. There's a big difference. Also, did you read Bellinghaus' IMDB page? He has seven credits listed. One of them (The Name of the Rose) is a bit role. Two are one-episode appearances on German TV shows. Do you know anything about the others? If you do, please say so (and I'm not trying to start a fight, I really want to know). RedRollerskate 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for the other people, but you'll notice I specifically disavowed knowledge and asked for more knowledgeable people to help one way or the other on the German roles. T&E is the only one that has volunteered this help. Are you going to say differently, that they are, in fact, major roles? AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • To the contrary, I think that the acting is non-notable and irrelevant to the notability. Please see my proposed rewrite at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus.
  • On the other hand, I object to any implied "expert testimony" in support of an AfD nomination which would not be considered applicable to supporting the article.
  • As T&E is a fellow Cal alum, I'm inclined to feel he is automatically credible, but I have to stand on my principles.

--Kevin Murray 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Growing up in Germany and holding German citizenship helps a bit with the TV expertise, but I commend you for not trusting me on this. I have no credibility that would be sufficient for a Wikipedia entry, which is why I searched for reviews of his performances. The shows and movies he lists are amply covered on the web, so his roles are certainly verifiable. Do they give him notability? I don't think so, unless I read some review that actually comments on his acting. On the MM scandal, I only glanced them over and watched the KCAL clip, but in what way do those clips differ from interviewing the next-door neighbor of a shooting victim at the scene of a crime in your local 9 o'clock news? ~ trialsanderrors 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (unindent)We are not assessing the article as originally written by the subject. We are assessing an article which is the result of a standard editing process by other editors, including myself, none of which, to my knowledge, had any acquaintanceship with Mark Bellinghaus beforehand, so there is no COI. As far as I know, none of these editors has any personal investment, or any particular interest, in Marilyn Monroe memorabilia (I certainly don't), so the accusation of soapbox is equally misplaced, as is the suggestion of a campaign by a single purpose editor. These are simply red herrings. It is not an argument for deletion to single out the least important roles. These are there to flesh out the picture, and could for that matter be left out with no great detriment. It would be more useful to have proper observations on the more important (and referenced) roles, for example, In 1991 he played actress Meret Becker's brother Kurti, in the multiple award-winning Fremde, liebe Fremde (Foreigner, Dear Foreigner). In 1993, he played Malte Borrell in the TV show SOKO 5113. He played Knut Sonntag in the hit TV show Immer wieder Sonntag, written by Herbert Lichtenfeld. There does not seem to be a refutation of their worth, only that no reviewer noticed them (or at least no reviews are quoted, which is a different matter), but they are referenced, which is the wiki requirement. There is no wiki stipulation that reviews per se are mandatory. Regarding the WP:V flags {{Template:fact}}, these are specifically for information which "is not doubtful"; I see no reason, from observing the original editor's general behaviour, not to AGF that they are true, unless anyone can point me to evidence that indicates differently. The MM clips and quotes differ from a next door neighbour, because the latter is interviewed as a bystander (i.e. it could be anyone), whereas Bellinghaus is interviewed purposefully because he is considered by those media to have something of particular significance to contribute through his prior learning and knowledge. I consider that I and other editors on this article have followed the guidelines properly and not thrown them anywhere. At the moment there are two reactions to the two parts of the article: 1) the Monroe is the important part 2) the acting is the important part. I suggest that, taken together, they delineate an individual who is not major, but who is of note, i.e. "notable". Tyrenius 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to double-check, do you think the article meets the 20-dollar-test? Iow, do you think the article would've been created by anyone other than the subject? ~ trialsanderrors 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It's a nice (in both senses of the word) lateral approach, but of course has to remain hypothetical and has not (yet at least) been incorporated into the guidelines. I'm particularly interested in the less mainstream aspects of culture and society, as I find they're a valuable aspect of the whole and think there should be a place for them in wiki, provided a degree of notability is credible. I've speedy-deleted plenty of "non-notable" articles which are commonplace — mostly subject-created — but occasionally one seems worth bothering with, despite its genesis and even its initial state. I have enjoyed and found my knowledge enriched by articles of this nature, some of which might well not have been started without their self-author, but would certainly (as in this case) not had any chance of being kept had independent editors not found them worthwhile. Tyrenius 02:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per T&E. Kudos on the cleanup attempt, but I'm afraid this is still a clear fail on WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from Mark Bellinghaus For anyone interested, Mark has left me a lengthy argument for keeping this article on my talk page (he mistakenly addresses me as Brad Patrick, the Legal Counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, presumably because he saw the link I have to a Brad's anti-spam message on my userpage). As the argument is lengthy, I think it best that interested persons should look at it on my talk page here, rather me pasting here. If it is preferred that it is pasted here, please go ahead and do so. Note that I have previously emphasized to Mark that 1) this is a community discussion 2) he is welcome to join in 3)it is not my sole decision whether to keep this article or not or whether to cut down the Monroe section in a kept article or not. As Mark's message is intended to persuade people to keep this article based on what he views as the importance of the Monroe controversy, I am bringing it to the attention of the afd discussion group here. Bwithh 11:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • sidenote Mark has pointed out to me that there are other unreliable blog-based sources in the article (in the Monroe section) - I agree with him on this - such as the "Citizen Media" link - (I did not add these links however, as he thinks). Bwithh 11:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I added the Citizen Media link, and it doesn't look like a blog by the classic definitions. It claims to be a New Mexico news and education group, has multiple articles on different subjects, and the writing reads like it's written by someone who knows a few things about journalism, and is trying to appear balanced. Anyway, even not counting The Citizen, that leaves the Long Beach Press Telegram, KCAL, and two from the Los Angeles Independent, which would be all right sources for the controversy and subsequent lawsuit, but aren't really about Bellinghaus per se - they don't say much about him, they're really about the exhibit. Trialsanderrors writes the German roles aren't much. So I'll change my opinion to delete on an article about Bellinghaus, and a weak vote for rewriting about the controversy - weak, because I've had enough and am not going to do it if no one else will. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Guinnog and Tyrenius did an excellent job cleaning this up, and while the article is in much better shape, he's still not over the WP:BIO hump. RedRollerskate 15:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep & Rewrite Notwithstanding the discussion of the German TV issues, this subject is clearly notable as being "noticed" by multiple non-trivial and independent sources regarding the Monroe controversy. There are three newspaper articles and a TV segment. The acting is just icing on the cake and should be trimmed in the article to avoid vanity. I'm not happy with the auto-bio aspect and puffery, but the guy is notable. --Kevin Murray 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
New vote! under arbitrary line break. Tyrenius 18:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ReferencesIt seems inappropriate for the article to be referenced to articles written by the subject. At Daniel Terdiman it was important to show some of the writer's work so we created a separate section with links to his work, and then referenced the footnotes to that section. Maybe that approach could work here. Any thoughts? --Kevin Murray 16:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is permissible to use articles by the subject as references to provide information about the subject, such as his views, for example. Tyrenius 00:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • REWRITE I rewrote the article and posted my proposed text at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus, rather than disrupt the current article. The objective was to cut to the core and take out the vanity fluff, and get this to an encyclopedic context. With a consensus I can transfer the new text to the article, which will then require some work to include the referencing footnotes. --Kevin Murray 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

*Delete The only thing notable here is the memorabilia controversy, not Bellinghaus himself. Venicemenace 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Given the LA Weekly article I'll grant the subject some notability. IMO the article is way too long with a lot of detail irrelevant to the reasons for his notability, but that doesn't stop me from changing my vote to Weak keep. I think the proposed fake-memorabilia article would be an interesting one... Venicemenace 14:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, Venicemenace if there is a better place to put this story, I'd vote to redirect to that article. As Bellinghaus discovered the fraud, to me this is a good place for the story, but it will always be prone to creeping vanity spam after the AfD is closed. --Kevin Murray 19:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do we have enough material to write an article named Marylin Monroe forgery controversy? ~ trialsanderrors 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • People get articles if they're associated with controversy, cf Mark David Chapman (this is not meant as a reflection on Bellinghaus, nor asserting an equivalent level of media exposure, just illustrating the principle). I'm sure there's quite enough material out there for a "forgery" article (or in this one for a stub), but I'm not touching it! Tyrenius 00:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
STOP PRESS

(This article has just appeared)
Another Strong Reference http://www.laweekly.com/general/features/immortal-mayhem/15364/ seems non-trivial and credible. --Kevin Murray 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't open for me. I'll try again later. --Guinnog 03:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected the link. It works now. If you can get it, then the sub page below can be deleted. Tyrenius 03:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

LA WEEKLY article on Talk:Mark Bellinghaus/LA WEEKLY 10 Jan 07. Obviously it'll have to be deleted asap, but it features Bellinghaus strongly at the top of the article (and even mentions wikipedia!). Tyrenius 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite Update Per Tyrenius suggestion (see discussion) have substituted the truncated and rearranged text at the article. Due to substantial rewrite the references are moved out of footnotes and segregated between (1) articles about Bellinghaus as collector, (2) articles about him as an actor, and (3) articles by Bellinghaus. Some references will be obsolte since much of the acting discussion has been removed. I suggest not spending time putting the references into footnote form until the AfD is decided. Attmpt to publish new form reverted by Tyrenius with my understanding and support--Kevin Murray 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

References need to be put in properly. Here is the version with them in. Tyrenius 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
More work than I'm willing to do for an article with a 50-50 for deletion -- I'm done here; good luck! --Kevin Murray 04:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Update I've restored the article to the former referenced version. The "new" version (without inline refs) is now at Talk:Mark Bellinghaus/Mark Bellinghaus (collector). Comments on them welcome, either here or on article talk page. Tyrenius 05:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary line break to make editing easier for all & after latest rewrite

  • Now rewritten throughout: In the light of the front cover LA Weekly Marilyn Monroe story, published yesterday, in which Mark Bellinghaus is featured strongly throughout, I have been able to do a complete rewrite of the whole article, with previously unavailable information and verification. I have also removed all items tagged as [citation needed] to the talk page. I'm sorry to say it yet again, but preceding objections refer to the preceding version of this article, which is now radically different, so editors should confirm or amend their earlier statements in the light of the current article. I think the cumulative work done on it has now taken it to a different level which should satisfy previous objections. Tyrenius 09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per LAWeekly article JohnRussell 15:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. (We're supposed to vote again here, right?) The LA Weekly article only goes to show that the Monroe incident is significant. By all means, let's launch an article on the Monroe controversy. Mark Bellinghaus can be credited there. --+Downtownstar 16:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If the incident is significant and he instigated (and continues to maintain) it, being given media credit for the same, that is an argument to keep. If you want to launch an article on the controversy, where Mark Bellinghaus can be credited, that is an argument to merge (or move) and redirect. It also acknowledges that he deserves credit, i.e. he will still have a presence in wiki, which your delete opinion would remove. Tyrenius 17:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, I'll rephrase. While the incident itself is significant, I do not consider Mark Bellinghaus a person worth an article of his own, seeing as he has barely achieved anything "remarkable" (read: encyclopedic). Even if his name appears in the article about the controversy (as well it should), I don't see that as an argument to keep up his own page. However, I seem to be in the minority here so you do as you wish with him.--Downtownstar 11:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per my previous comments. Tyrenius 17:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - repeat of above vote It seems arbitrary whether this information should be here or as Downstar suggests, but why reinvent the wheel? We are here now let's keep the staus quo. --Kevin Murray 18:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - really, isn't this becoming a bit silly? Seems to me the, albeit minor, notability contest has been settled. Don't we have more important things to do? --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - repeat of above vote. Seems even less deletable now. Well done Tyrenius. --Guinnog 18:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that declaring all existing !votes void in the middle of an ongoing listing is proper process. At least inform all the commentators involved of the changes. My vote is still to delete. The LA Weekly article doesn't change my view that the Marilyn Monroe association is of insufficient encyclopedic significance to justify an article for Mark. Wikipedia is not a news report or magazine article archive. And as I said before, after trialsanderrors' perpective on the acting career, I am not convinced that there is enough acting credentials to justify an article. No prejudice against a Marilyn Monroe forgery controversy article, to be judged on its own merits, as per trialsanderrors and Downtownstar's suggestion. Bwithh 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
If this hadn't been relisted before, I'd consider relisting it now, but as is, I'm leery of doing it twice myself. This is the Afd that doesn't end; Yes, it goes on and on, my friend; Some people listed it not knowing what it was; And they'll continue listing it forever just because— AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
They've not been declared void, but they are undermined if they comment on something which is not there any more. This is a debate and participants should watchlist it so they can respond to developments. Tyrenius 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per my previous opinion and/or per Bwithh above. Tevildo 02:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Still Delete "is a major collector of Marilyn Monroe memorabilia"? As evidenced by what? The LA Weekly article which most likely got its information from Bellinghaus directly? Whenever this thing ceases to be a puff piece I'm changing my vote, but by then there's probably nothing left. ~ trialsanderrors 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The article conforms to WP:V and provides valid sources. Your argument is invalid as it is not using the source objectively, but pure speculation. As it happens, the LA Weekly article clearly shows the journalist had visited Bellinghaus and seen for himself what he reported on. Tyrenius 19:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have strong doubts the LA Weekly has the editorial oversight in place to comment on Bellinghaus's acting career in Germany or even his status among MMM collectors, which moves the source into dubious reliability territory in my book. That call perfectly within my purview as an editor.~ trialsanderrors 19:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please supply substantiation for your questioning of LA Weekly as a reliable source. It is certainly taken seriously by the LA Times, which observes the Weekly is focusing on "hard news".[4] I have deleted the last sentence of your statement under [BLP]. This is not a platform for insulting the subject, who should be treated with courtesy. Tyrenius 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would also point out that the subject of the article has refrained from commenting in this AfD and has not edited the article since other editors started working on it, so has had no say in its current state. Tyrenius 06:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not happy with the overly chatty details and NPOV of the article either. I think that it should be cut in half and then trimmed some more, but I don't think that is a subject which is pertinent to AfD. I'll debate the issue with Tyrenius after the AfD, but until then, why spend the time on nuances until the AfD is decided? A draft for a trimmed version is at: [5]
  • Kevin Murray 22:14, 13 January 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.