Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Brad Simanek


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

The result was: delete. —LrdChaos (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Brad Simanek
Vanity page. 121a0012 03:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote closed: Result: delete (four votes to delete, six votes to keep, of which five have little to no edit history). —LrdChaos (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: soon after I tagged this page for VFD, removed the tag.  121a0012 03:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've had hundreds of quotes published online, been interviewed on radio programs regarding my work and been cited on neutral sources. I've published books and have a moderate following online. My work can be found primarily at TopFive.com and Ruminate.com Bsimanek 04:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I sincerely apologize about the tag removal: I thought that was an error I triggered because of numerous edits. Bsimanek 04:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Further comment: all the submitted work is original and much has been repeated/forwarded; the intent of the WikiQuote entry was to establish ownership of the many quotes floating around the Web that may be lacking proper attribution. It is not intended as a "vanity site." Bsimanek 04:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brad Simanek is frequently quoted on a varity of humor websites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.43.77.46 (talk • contribs) 04:41, October 23, 2006  (UTC)
 * Keep. Brad Simanek is indeed all over the Internet. The funny quotes he is known for have been filtered through a neutral editor -- he does not own or operate topfive.com or ruminate.com. Though it's unfortunate he had to start his own page, it's not unwarranted. Andreac 04:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a case seems to have been made regarding this person's notability. ~ UDScott 12:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While Barnes & Noble lists two books by this person, the publisher of theose books, Oompah-Funk Publishing, doesn't seem to have much of a presence: only 30 results from Google, more than two-thirds of which are because of the copyright notice on this person's site. Amazon doesn't have anything else done by this publisher, nor does it have any record of this person as an author, or of the ISBN numbers of the books. I don't know that being interviewed on a single radio show is evidence of larger notability, and there's not that much of an "Internet following" (which isn't all that large; I don't believe that I have any notability, and yet I have an order of magnitude more Google results for my name). —LrdChaos (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The books have been sold out currently, but here are the ISBNs: 0-9729429-2-0 and 0-9729429-3-9. Again, these citations were meant to burnish the credibility that this is not a "vanity site" but rather a notice that these quotations are original, copyrighted and in mass circulation. Bsimanek 15:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazon is usually very good about listing even books that are "sold out"; it'll show the book and tell you that it's sold out. It isn't doing that, which is strong evidence that Amazon has no record at all of the books; considering the sheer number of items that Amazon has in its database, inclusion there does not imply notability, but absence almost certainly implies non-notability. I'm not doubting that the books really exist; the B&N information indicates to me that yes, a book by that title, by that author, with that ISBN, has indeed been published. However, I haven't seen any evidence that it was published by a major (or even minor) publisher; as I said above, I can't seem to find any trace of "Oompah-Funk Publishing" on the Internet. A large portion of the Google results for the name are just the copyright notices on your sites; the remaining ones are from manta.com (which apparently offers company profiles), but none of the pages are actually about the company ("These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: oompah funk publishing"). As such, it's likely that the book is either self-published or published from such a minor, minor company as to not count as evidence of notability. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Brad is a well known contributor to Ruminations.com and other humor sites and is frequently quoted in email signatures by folks who like his humor. Tommyaquinas 16:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As a fan of Brad Simanek's work, I feel this page is warranted (as well as being an entertaining read). --LHollister 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding the "Attention!" notice: I expect nothing but fair and impartial treatment from the Wikiquote editors; I understand that the voting/final inclusion determination process is not democratic and is based on reasoned, well-founded criteria. I expect that the posts herein are coming from readers familiar with my work, and are posting solely because they feel that my inclusion is merited. I hope, too, that it will enable those unfamiliar with my work to make a fair determination acknowledging the pulse taken of those who are. Thank you for your consideration. Bsimanek 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what it's worth, since the "Attention!" notice appears to have been added following my vote, I am neither a sock puppet nor a personal friend of Brad's. I am an online colleague, and I did come here because he sent an email calling my attention to the page; however, I would not have voted unless I felt that the page deserved to be kept.  I can understand that my opinion will receive less weight than that of a frequent editor, but I trust that it won't be discounted entirely.  If requested, I'll be happy to offer proof that I exist! --LHollister 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It wasn't anything about you in particular that drove me to add the notice to this vote; you were just the "final straw" of new editors with no contribution history who had voted in this discussion. Please don't take it personally. —LrdChaos (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a page for Jack_Handey -- Simanek's stuff is in the same vein. It's not from a national TV show, true, but Topfive.com claims its emails go out to tens of thousands of people. Andreac 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete. First of all, let me say that this crowd of quotee supporters is remarkably polite, cooperative, and apparently is trying to understand and work with Wikiquote policy. This is a delightful change of pace from the usual set of folks who edit only to support an article. I thank everyone for working with us instead of just complaining and insulting the other participants. (For those who are still making arguments based on "quality" or analogies to other comedians, please note that these are not the issues in question here.) That said, I still think Brad Simanek seems to fall somewhat short of our notability guidelines, interesting though he may be. He has no current, and apparently no former, WP article. (This is not especially surprising, as he seems to be more interested in established documentation of his quotes than in an encyclopedia article, but it's one element of useful [but not essential] notability checking that we don't have.) More significantly, neither Amazon.com nor the U.S. Library of Congress has a single entry for Simanek, whose website strongly implies he's an American, so his books can't be particularly notable yet. (Even vanity press materials frequently get listed on Amazon.) The links he lists also fail to provide compelling evidence of notability. The humor.about.com link above ("neutral sources") doesn't currently mention him . [See my correction below. — JQ] The David Lawrence Show (the link behind "radio programs"), an Internet-based audio program featured on satellite radio (2 networks with a lot of 24x7 channels to program) do suggest he's at least an up-and-comer. TopFive.com and Ruminations (ruminate.com), with Alexa ranks of 157K and 895K, fail as convincing indicators of notability. In fact, according to WP's article on TopFive.com and the Ruminations home page, both are operated by Chris White, meaning they aren't independent sources. So far, we have no appearances on a national TV show like Letterman or Leno, no newspaper articles or even reviews, nothing beyond easily created websites and evolving media forms. All in all, he seems a promising candidate for future inclusion, but just doesn't seem to be there yet. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: JeffQ: FWIW, please note on the humor.com site, I am indeed referenced as the first example quote: [What We've Got Here: A few excerpts... Can't a guy sit in silence and...]. My work is cited on numerous discussion groups, sigs, and the like, and regularly incorporated in Mr. White's weekday internet newsletter ("ruminations") which, as Andreac mentioned above, is thought to reach a mass upwards of 10K people each mailing. Furthermore, I would argue that TopFive and Ruminations may not be independent of *each other*, but certainly independent from me, and each listed because of their "reach" through different forms of humor. My Google hits, beyond the obvious deep candidates, do have some breadth, at least in their varied reach ... moreso than some random slog who says one funny thing recycled by a few bloggers. In fact, I've had over one thousand quotes published third-party [external of my personal website], and the WQ page specifically listed just the ones that have had the most reach/broadcast exposure -- and I started the root site merely to make a more robust case for its existence rather than have someone randomly post one or two quotes and the site get deleted out of hand. The Jack Handey argument suggests that a person may be known just for his/her body of such similar humor -- though one suspects my inability to get my work on Saturday Night Live is a hindrance, as it may well be using 1990s standards of "exposure." Am I to also assume that one needs to penetrate the Wikipedia universe first as a mandatory hurdle to get onto Wikiquote? My intent was to formally gather in one place the quotes that have been released to the great Internet Wild, not merely to use it as a fun "Hey, Brad said this today!" page for original material, as I have my own website for that. All things considered, if I am deemed to "fall short" of the required level of notoriety by the consensus of determining editors, I at least appreciate the appropraite consideration. Bsimanek 10:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Two quick notes in response to the above. First, I apologize for missing Brad's humor.about.com quote; my browser search for his name must have misfired. Second, on Wikipedia inclusion, please note that I carefully said "one element of useful [but not essential] notability checking". I meant exactly that — that it is not required, but is handy to see if someone has achieved notability on the flagship Wikimedia project, which has a couple orders of magnitude more folks to do such checks. Absence is not a good sign, but not a fatal one, either. I also made a point of acknowledging Brad's ostensible goal of collecting his quotes, which provides a reason for the WP absence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Vote extended until 6 November to seek further consensus (the split seems rather even right). I hope that some of the other "regulars" will chime in with their thoughts. —LrdChaos (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: If I may, allow me one last (?) opprtunity to argue (my) case for the retention of this page. As established, I note:

CONS: page started/assembled by the author himself; no WP article; no pre-existing familiarity among WP/WQ editors PROS: original/copyrighted material presented in clean formal layout; focuses on the quotes themselves; no heavy presence of biographical or personal information; similar such pages for, among others, Jack Handey and Mitch Hedberg

-- While it is indeed a "collection of [my] personal quotes," I would argue that their presentation is based solely on the fact that they are previously published in subscriber-driven newsletters and associated websites and have been promulgated on the Internet via third-parties. It just happens that the WQ page was assembled by the original author as a by-product of this result.

-- While I do have books of my work published, the WQ entry was not intended to sell them, nor does it actively promote them. Reference herein to the books is meant merely to sustain a level of penetration (perhaps not to the extent of other subjects, but certainly beyond the random quotesmith.)

-- While the "subject" of this page doesn't have the name-recognition/presence as even the two examples cited above, I ask simply: Is this entry useful? unbiased? a compendium of quotations? I'd argue the answer is yes to all of the above.

I've already attempted to establish "neutral credentials," but for the editors who have weighed in against retention: Is there anything one/I could do to enhance/improve the article so it meets your litmus tests for inclusion?

Again, thank you for consideration. Bsimanek 14:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Brad, I think a point you're missing is that it doesn't matter how well-formed a page is; the notability guidelines make no distinction between an "ugly mass of text" page and a page that's perfectly adherent to layout guidelines. Wikiquote's guideline for notability basically follows w:Wikipedia:Notability (people), though rarely are we presented with a case that isn't easily resolved. In this case, you've acknowledged that these are your "personal quotes" (a behavior which is almost always frowned-upon here) but you've asserted that you are notable. I've refuted some of the point that have been made (in particular, the point about having several published books), and Jeff raised some other points. I haven't seen any real rebuttal to any of the points that we've made (I've made another comment about the books above). Rather than trying to focus on doing any work on the page itself, it would probably be better to rebut some of the points here, to convince those of us who have voted to delete why we're wrong. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fair: While I have provided valid/registered ISBN numbers above (registered with BowkerLink), as you can see the books are currently not for sale through Amazon and are no longer available through Barnes and Noble. I have been selling them via my own website for the last year. I haven't been on Comedy Central or Saturday Night Live, because my "realm of exposure" just doesn't include these mediums. My "notoriety" -- if I even reach that level by one's potentially fluid definition -- is constrained specifically to this millieu: Internet circulation, primarily fostered through publication via Chris White's website and his weekday subscriber driven newsletters. As Andreac cited above, this is purported to reach (tens of?) thousands of readers daily (a level of saturation, I would note again as I did above, such that I am specifically cited as an example of such humor on the About.com site).  Now, does that reach the level of those names I cited above? Likely not, but I don't know if either of those names I cited above sustain the scrutiny exhibited by "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers (ie - Hollywood Walk of Fame)" either. However, short of having someone start the "Super-Fantastic Wacky Brad Simanek Fan Page o' Fun!!," I would hope the comments of some of the "keep" votes above might suggest  I exhibit "a ... fan base, fan listing or cult following" -- if not large, perhaps of a notable size. As for the "alternative tests" cited I would argue that I meet that of "verifiability," "expandability" and even "search engine" (while I may not have a gazillion hits, I do have hits from a decent/varied number of independent sites, only two of which currently are populated by WP-saturated hits -- that is, I did not create-my-own notoriety as was suggested by some self-searches above). I suppose the consensus would argue that by typical "notability" standards, I fall short... however, I offer that within the realm of this specific entry and its related topic, perhaps I am "worthy" ... that's my point. That said, I note that I am actively working on getting the "porn star" notability as suggested by your page  -- but have so far been rebuffed. Bsimanek 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: At the risk of sounding argumentative, I want to point out the obvious irony here. If I visit the Library of Congress, where can I find the well-worn leather-bound volumes of Wikiquote?  Or at my local university library, perhaps?  City library?  Neighborhood bookstore?  Of course, the relevance of Wikiquote and Wikipedia shouldn't be measured in traditional ways, because this is a creature of the new media of the internet.  So why be in such a hurry to dismiss an internet-based author as unnotable?  Clearly you need to remove junk, but it seems to me that Simanek's work is demonstrably good, widely disseminated on the web, published, and deserves the benefit of the doubt. --LHollister 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you won't find Wikiquote in the Library of Congress. You will find it as a website currently ranked 7,467 by Alexa, making it a very popular and well-established website. Wikipedia itself is currently at 23. But it's circular reasoning to claim existence in Wikimedia projects as a proof of notability for inclusion in Wikimedia projects. The bit about Brad Simanek having no WP article is evidence (not proof) of non-notability, but the reverse cannot be assumed. If there is an article in a Wikimedia project, the next step is to see if it is warranted by the reliable sources that back it up. The LoC, Amazon.com, and other physical sources are useful in determining this, but they aren't exclusive. We often accept websites as significant. In this case, the websites are all rather obscure, and the other sources strongly suggest that Brad has yet to achieve significant notoriety. If his guerilla marketing campaign works, and better-known organs of publicity catch the wave, he may get another chance at an article (that is, assuming we delete it now, which hasn't been decided). By the way, as I mentioned in another VfD (I forgot which, offhand), I'm not inherently against editors creating their own quote pages if they have proven notability, because we don't generally have as much of a problem with POV as Wikipedia does. We want quotes, exactly as worded in reliable sources, and anyone (including the quotee) is capable of providing this kind of verbatim data without spinning it. Caution, of course, is always recommended. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant and weak delete. I accept the good faith of everyone involved but I think the subject falls just, but clearly, on the wrong side of the notability threshold. Factors in the decision: Published author but only self-published; 61 unique Google hits; only 17,670 website hits when I checked; No Wikipedia page, nor for ruminate.com; there is a Wikipedia page for topfive.com, but contributions there were not so extensive as to make him one of the most prolific contributors. I also thought the quoting was so extensive as to denigrate from the usefulness of the page: with subjects of doubted noteworthiness, I want to see quotations of particular noteworthiness, and if there are so many quotes it tends to suggest that none really are. I don't think it's impossible that the subject could become more noteworthy after a time, in which case the page can be recreated. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With due respect to Fys, I note that this is where a simple Google search isn't as useful as it might seem, in order for one to make a blanket distinction, re: TopFive. I doubt I would have been singled out here had I not been "prolific"; I've been in a contributory capacity with T5 for over four years, appeared in over 60% of the nearly 800 lists published over that span, and have achieved 40 #1 positions also in that span, making me one of the six most prolific contributors in the 12-year history of the website. I hate to have to horn-toot in this manner, but I take umbrage to your casual dismissal of my contributions to this media. Furthermore, it is a completely separate capacity that I have been published in the manner for which I am "most well known," that of the ruminations website, and while each separate outlet has shared subscribers, they are two separate humor sources requiring distinct contribution requirements (and, I'd argue, skill sets... if blowing off real office work for this escape can be deemed such). Bsimanek 13:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Two things that I think we've lost sight of in this discussion.
 * Brad is welcome to continue to contribute to Wikiquote, and he can always put quotations from his published work (or even from his unpublished work, for that matter) on his user page in that case.
 * We are in an unusual situation here of the copyright owner putting his own works on Wikiquote. This permanently and (at least according to some interpretations) irrevocably licenses these works under the GFDL.  Brad, is that really what you intended to do? 121a0012 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My intent was simply to gather quotes of mine (ones I originated and submitted to a third-party to be published in a public forum with my name attributed) that appeared throughout the Internet over the last four years and present them in a public/readily accessible place so authorship is verifiable. Specifically I cite the "severe terror alert" quote, which I note has been "borrowed," occasionally verbatim, without attribution to me ... and there have been others. Fys makes a good point about there being "so extensive as to denigrate," but I used the criteria that these particular quotes all shared the same original presentation: that of Chris White's highest profile distribution, one that was sent to both his newsletters' subscribership, reaching upwards of 20K people on a given day (according to him). I've had nearly one thousand other such quotes published and distributed through his newsletters, but they were to a smaller readership in original presentation (under 1K originally), but then things tend to ripple through FWDs and the like.
 * I should further clarify that which perhaps not been fully understood in this discussion: 1) all these quotes are indeed mine, and 2) have all been published by external/third-party sources (i.e., not first by my own website) and distributed with authorship to Internet receivers before now -- they are not new to the world via WQ. Therefore, they are under my copyright and have already been as such designated, not due to their presenation through WQ. All I intended with this page was to establish authorship of quotes that have allready been attributed to me in order such that further distribution without citations to me can be verified in an easily accessible (i.e., more so that me shouting in the wilderness that I have a spreadhseet tracking original publication date/detail) place. I have been ripped off before -- therefore rather than try to Google-search every freakin' quotation of mine published-and-distrubted to make sure attribution is rightly assigned, I thought this might be easier, friendlier and more neutral. Bsimanek 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I do presume, however, (regarding the GDFL comment) that -- as with my original publication through Chris White's newsletters -- copyright/authorship is retained by me; distribution to the masses is fine as long as authorship remains attributed to me. This seemed obvious, as I would expect that with any other quote presented here: it's the work of the author, and while as distributable as most anything on the Internet, the author has to be attributed and does not forfeit ultimate ownership.
 * I also figured that perhaps I had earned enough of a reputation in this realm that a single, widely accessible page in this particular reference guide would be useful. Setting it up myself came about because 1) I wanted to be the one to specify the template from which the quotes might be presented (you'll note the haphazard way some of the existing pages of others emerge), 2) I wanted there to be more than a stub, and I had access to all the quotes of that particular distribution category (as noted above). I figured why not put out a page that's actually worth reading if someone gets there? I do realize, however, this is a reference guide and not a personal quotes page, which is why I wasn't planning on constantly editing it as such once the root was in place.
 * That said, I doubt I can convince any of you (even the "reluctant" editors) to change your votes, as your threshold for inclusion seems to be higher now than I can currently meet. I do appreciate the civil discourse and your willingness to let me (and others) attempt to shift the prism from which you view this project to seeing the merit of this unique (at least for now, perhaps not in the future) situation. I'm not trying to get into Bartlett's (yet), but was hoping that WQ was an appropriate destination in this medium for which I could plant a foothold of established authorship -- as we all know that the Internet has wreaked havoc on the once rock-solid paradigms of copyright vs. public domain/plagiarism. Thank you all, nonetheless, for your consideration. Bsimanek 11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever happens with this VfD, I'm certainly tagging this discussion for my watchlist. Besides this new instance of the ongoing challenge of drawing a notability line, the licensing issue is unusual. Wikiquote credits the creation of this article to User:Bsimanek, but we have no mechanism to prove this user is Brad Simanek. (Many editors choose names of people they're fans of.) We're in the odd situation of suspecting (but not knowing) that the copyright holder of the books (that we can't easily check, because they aren't likely to be found in any library) is unlikely to sue Wikimedia Foundation for infringement because "Bsimanek" implicitly (in the article) and explicitly (in this discussion) accepts the free-distribution-with-credit licensing of GFDL. Our David Weber article is the closest approximation I've seen for this. He is unquestionably a notable author, and both his books (available at any public library) and the Baen Publishing website make explicit statements about freely distributing the material. (Weber doesn't edit here, as far as I know.) Even so, we wouldn't include everything he writes, nor can we include everything Brad Simanek has published (in whatever form), as Wikiquote aims for selective citations (however poorly we achieve this in some cases). Except for the notability and self-editing aspects, Wikisource might accept a complete transcription of a quote book from Brad, which could establish Brad's documentation desire, but I'm not sure about its policies. Just thinking about all the questions flashes me back to Monty Python's Gumby sketches: "My brain hurts! My brain hurts!" ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, how do you "source" any of the stuff on Mitch Hedberg's quote site, for example? Do you have any documentation on whether he did, in fact, originate all of that material? Getting bogged down in the "published author" POV doesn't cut even to the half of it -- all the Steven Wright stuff? Does Jack Handey have a book, or is someone just remembering what they think they heard on an old SNL episode? What about from *any* comedian? Unless one has tape of the said person using that material, how is *anything* along those lines verifiable? In my case, yes, you'd have to go to a website to see that said quote matched my name, but even then you're relying on the fact that whoever submitted *that* quote to *that* site was the originator ... and even Ruminate.com has had trouble with plagiarism/second-hand quotes. However, I doubt my circumstance is unique here... you're always trusting, in the WQ/WP universe, that people are submitting (reasonably) accurately-sourced material -- but do you have someone who polices *every* site change? *Every* edit? I think that's just the nature of what WQ/WP is. Your argument may be centered around my case, but the merits apply to many cases, and not just those "yet to come," but existing ones. I would hope this conundrum wouldn't be used to "pile on" just because I happened to start the Brad Simanek page. Bsimanek 18:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We need to remember here that there are two different standards being considered, and it's important not to conflate them. One is the standard of verifiability for quotations; as with Wikipedia, our policy is that all material should be verifiable, but absent a controversy, unverified text may remain in the hope that other editors can complete the work.  The second standard is that of notability, where we are much more strict in some ways (particularly for people articles) and arguably less strict in some others.  There is no bar to a notable person putting excerpts of his/her own work on WQ, although there is little if any history of it, and our umbrella organization, Wikimedia, cannot permit its servers to be used in a way that primarily serves the commercial interest of the author (which doesn't seem to be the case here).  The case we're really trying to decide here is, "Is Brad Simanek notable?"  Based on the discussion we have had thus far, I must with some reluctance conclude "no" -- but I would not be unhappy if the community consensus decided the other way.  I have no dog in this race.  121a0012 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And I think that last point is where things stand. I sense that by the threshold being considered for notability in relation to my resume (self-published books, one web-based radio interview, "few" Google hits, absense of pre-existing presense in the collective conscience of specifically the WP honcho editors), the writing's on the wall. I think I and others did our best to convince the crew otherwise in light of the fluidity inherent in the Internet medium, but I don't get the sense we've made any headway in swaying the minds of the deciders beyond moving the needle to, at best, "delete-with-reluctance" (at least for the opinions voiced already). No big deal I guess; we gave it a shot. Thanks for at least opening the debate. Bsimanek 02:56, 2 November 2006 (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.