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. There is not a strong consensus that this is a non-notable event. But there's a general impression that the use of this article as an advertisement venue and battleground is costing us more in terms of editor time than we benefit by covering this subject. That's not by itself a reason for deletion, but it tips the scales in this instance.  Sandstein  18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss_Pakistan_World[edit]

Miss_Pakistan_World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Blatant Form of Advertisement and Incorrect Facts Saratahir (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article is a cheap publicity stunt and has no facts to support the statements being made and should there fore be deleted. I nominate it for deletion

This article is a blatant form of advertisement. I have been trying to clean up the article for some weeks now and any fact that negatively reflects it( such as the contorversies it has encountered) get deleted. Even simple facts such as this pageant being unknown to the public gets deleted. Similary facts that were stated by the media regarding the organizers have been removed. I think the article does not reflect an ounce of truth and needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) macy^talk 17:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been tagged for the umpteenth time with a notice for blatant advertising. The only reason for that is that this articles seems to promote the subject only and does not do much justice to other points of views. Please regard these terms for content on Wikipedia

Admitted conflict of interest[edit]

See this edit and its summary. It says that one Daniel Thompson is working for the outfit that runs this event and is editing on their behalf. It's quite an edit, and repays examination. I note that Danthompsonjr has also been editing this article under that name. Morenoodles (talk)

Proof of conflict of interest

To summarise the conflict of interest issues, following is a collection of the investigations into the user's and their associates' editing MO.

• The users Sonisona (talk · contribs), Danthompsonjr (talk · contribs) and Tamara Daniels PR (talk · contribs) are put under scrutiny here.
• User Sonisona has only ever edited articles related to the Miss Pakistan World pageant or its contestants from the time this account has been created.
• User Danthompsonjr has been actively uploading pictures for the following articles only, almost always without a license and clear breach of copyright policies and has been warned as well. The user never cares to respond properly.
• The third user, Tamara Daniels PR made an edit clearly acknowledging that they were hired by the company to edit their articles. This use so far has made only one edit as of this writing.
• The website URL stated in the above mentioned edit points to the proprietors of the business being a one Daniel Thompson and another Tamara Atzenwiler. Clearly the user Danthompsonjr is Daniel here. The other edit using the other username Tamara Daniels PR was of Daniel's as well if the e-mail address is matched from his edit. It all makes sense.
• User Sonisona denies the facts here saying their is no Daniel working for them contrary to Daniel himself. This claim is questionable as the PR agency's website features the company's working under their blog entry here. Notice the highlighted words in the address for the mentioned blog entry:
  www.tamaradaniels.com/what-were-doing/mrs-pakistan-2008-proves-progression-still-lives
• The user Sonisona leaves a message on the talk page at one point. This message can be accessed here. Notice the words: "the team", "our true history", "mix our pictures". This was just after edits by Arunreginald proclaiming the company's associations with the Tamara Daniels PR agency. In this immediate post, these allegations were never condemned rather the user showed that there actually was a team working on the article, neither were allegations stating the user Sonisona to be the president of the company Sonia Ahmed challenged in any way.
• It was only after the query by user Morenoodles that the user User:Sonisona changed her comments.

This is more than enough proof to state that a serious conflict of interest is being exercised on the article page. Consider these proof, and please take note when voting. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Removed[edit]

The advertisers of this unknown event removed facts around the high profile pageants that have happened in Pakistan in the past and which continue to happen such as Unilever's "Shine Princess" and Pamolive "Face of the Year".

Controversies Section[edit]

Omg, has anyone read that section. It is such one sided blatant advertisement. There are no sources cited. An incident that occured between the organizers of this pageant and a Major News channel has been mis reported (from the perspective of the organizers) and a propaganda YouTube video made by these organizers has been quoted. This is absolutely disgusting. The integrity of Wikipedia should be maintained and such artciles should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.220.12 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation[edit]

I would ve recommended that everyone make an effort to clean up this entire article. However if you look at the articles history and addition that projects the pageant in a negative light or states any controveries around it from a neutral perspective get deleted and altered. None of the statements made are verifiable or backed by any facts. Its a very hopless situation and i think we are past the lets-work-together-to-improve-this stage so i strongly recommend a deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saratahir (talk • contribs) 17:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep : Just clean and add proper information with references. There is no need to delete this. The article would be eventually created and thing would be the same. Assign a task force to keep article up to date. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete : After looking at various part of the article. The article has no sources and missing lot of critical information. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Subject appears notable; article needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The notability of the pageant is in fact questionable. According to the article, the original author wrote that this pageant is affiliated with the Government of Pakistan (official Pakistani pageant) but the Government of Pakistan has never endorsed it publicly. This was it's only ground for notability. Other than that, it is just an organisation that hosts events in a close room somewhere in Canada. I don't see a page on Wikipedia for any certain Alcoholics Anonymous group named "Sharabi Benaam" or another close-doored event that has no endorsements from the body it is representing. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, needing cleanup is no grounds for deletion. JIP | Talk 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this article needs any cleanup even if the major editing tasks assuming good faith are reverted back to a POV-ridden version. This article belongs to an entity, a company to be precise, that is not notable enough and is using Wikipedia as tool to spread their PR. It really should be deleted. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete : I agree that the article is baseless and unsupported by facts.In addition there is too much propaganda and medling by the organizers of this event. Like i said before this is an Encyclopedia and not a platform for someone's fifteen minutes of fame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.220.12 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly delete the article, because as long as the article is being edited by the president of the company (the fact is clearly evident or dubious), or its associates (a fact noted on the talk page), it is blatant advertising and a solid example of a conflict of interest. If we delete this article, it would be easier to track the authors and their intentions, if this article is created. This is the first AfD anyway, let's delete the article and make the biased authors know their wrong. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: If this page is not deleted and is dealt with via other means like COI or ANB, the process would take ages to complete. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strongly delete: I think that the article should be deleted because any edit made, which attempts to make the article to be of a NPOV is deleted. I have tried to work with the authors of the article and have provided appropriate citations where needed in the "history" and "controversies" sections specifically. However my versions have been constantly deleted or reverted without discussion. The new material added is simply promotional for the pageant and does not cite any references. I have been working on the article for more than a week now and as the article history would suggest I have made numerous attempts to come to a consensus on this article with the other editors. They fail to comply by the rules and regulations set by Wikipedia and therefore I very strongly recommend this article for deletion. If my edits are to be deleted by the company editors, why not delete the article as clean up is IMPOSSIBLE. SholeemGriffin (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete This article and its contribution history prove most beauty contests, like this one, are unencyclopedic business venures. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Could you please elaborate on how the crap quality of an article and/or its sorry history of censorship or whatever mean that the subject is unencyclopedic? Or do you have something else in mind? Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say anything about the quality of the article, or about censorship. I was talking mostly about the COI and edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Censorship" was my poor way of describing an editor's deletion of what she didn't like to be broadcast. And I'm sorry if I misunderstood, or stlll misunderstand. We can agree that this article has seen edit warring, and that one side has had a COI. And I'm willing to believe that this event isn't notable. I'm not sure of the relationships among (1) a history (and also prospect?) of edit warring and COI, (2) non-notability, and (3) being an unencyclopedic business venture. Does (1) imply (3), or does the combination of (1) and (2) imply (3)? Morenoodles (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Slash and Burn This article is awful, I agree. It is a mishmash of advertising and misinformation, and most of the "references" do not support the claims of the article. However, I think there is sufficient notability for an article. The article should be cut down to a stub, removing all the crap, and the conflict of interest editors should be warned/blocked as necessary. Although I do understand how annoying it is to struggle to improve an article against editor's with wrong-headed agendas, I just can't get behind the nom's suggestion that "we are past the lets-work-together-to-improve-this stage." It seems like an admission that the article could be fixed. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) changed, see below[reply]
  • Question: Could you please elaborate on the notability, which you think is sufficient? Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll remind everyone that an existing COI and reference and tone concerns =/= deletion. However, I agree that it's not notable. G-news pulls up three hits, and nothing in books or scholar. If this were a well-known pageant it would pull way more g-news hits than that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it were well known in the anglosphere it would get more ghits in roman script. But I wonder about Urdu (which I can't read). Did you try? Morenoodles (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Advertising and mis-information. The constant reversal of any improvement undercuts any concept of keeping it. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as advertisement and breach of WP:COI. --Ragib (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Delete article is an advertisement for an obscure event and citing a youTube home made video hardly qualifies as a a sourceMarytee (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very very very strong delete The authors actually had the nerve to remove all deletion related tags on the article pageSaratahir (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article's nominator, I think your position that the article be deleted is clear. Although I am dismayed at this latest abuse by POV pushers of this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Yeah i didnt think of that:). I am studying the process of banning these users. Since i am very new to Wikipedia, i am unsure of the exact process. But these folks arent stopping with their vandalism and something needs to be done. If anyone here has any suggestions on how to do so please add your comments here. Thanks Saratahir (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you were new and unsure at 21:45, 13 June, I'm surprised by your confidence just 15 minutes later. The first thing for a newbie to do in a situation like this is to decide whether (1) to read up on what to do (and then read up, which will take a lot more than 15 minutes) or (2) pass on the matter to somebody else. Even if it's well intended, what's obviously mere bluster (which can't even decide if it's a "note" or a "formal warning") is unhelpful at best. Morenoodles (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment . Thank you for your commentsSaratahir (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. You'll see a comment signed by me near the top. But I didn't put it here. It was added in this edit by somebody who hadn't signed in. It does look like something I wrote elsewhere, yes. But if one side in a dispute is accusing the other of tampering with talk pages then that first side should be particularly careful not to do strange copy/paste jobs. Morenoodles (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to above question to me by Morenoodles: Sorry, so much is going on on this page I didn't see your question. I was going to say that there are enough sources to qualify it as notable, but after taking a good hard look, I'm glad I didn't. The sources are a bunch of bull. There is nothing there that constitutes non trivial coverage from a reliable source, I'm changing to Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. Due to the obvious and overwhelming bad faith that went into everything about this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. I'm tending that way myself. My gut feeling is that this is a little known non-event that would be unencyclopedic even if it were well known. But non-events (the minutiae of Big Brother etc) are of course a very big deal in this no-brow encyclopedia, so I must watch my gut feelings. Morenoodles (talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment about calling women cows/heifers and potential COI in that So, your gut feeling is what, that the women in this pageant are cows/heifers, or that all women are cows/heifers? Link to User:Morenoodles hiefer edit:[1] It appears you have a a serious COI against maybe women in beauty pageants, Pakistani women, or women in general. Maybe your gut feelings isn't much to go on. --Blechnic (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calm down a little. Your question: your gut feeling is what, that the women in this pageant are cows/heifers, or that all women are cows/heifers? And my answer: Neither of those two options. In more detail: (1) No women are bovine. And as a result: (2) The women in these pageants are not bovine. However: (3) Women in beauty pageants are presented rather as if they were livestock. Therefore (4) I should guess (but do not claim to know) that this contest too emphasizes the physical attributes of the participants much more than it emphasizes any skill (beyond rather simple body language, e.g. posture) or aptitude. Even if my suspicions were entirely, and verifiably, justified, this would not be grounds for deletion. Even if I'm not a raving misogynist -- and I say I'm not, but then I suppose even raving misogynists say they're not, so you may wish to judge me by my edit history -- it's clear that I have an opinion about beauty pageants: briefly, that they're ridiculous. (I venture to suggest that most people have some opinion about beauty pageants.) But you're saying that it appears [I] have a a serious COI. And what might this interest of mine be? Do you have some evidence that I am affiliated with the outfit promoting "Miss Pakistan World", or some other outfit promoting a rival to it? Morenoodles (talk) 07:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not an hysterical woman, but thanks for the additional allusion to women as cows and hysterics. Nwo, what, you're saying that you didn't post the "heifer pagaent" under your name? Your conflict of interest is in your calling women cows. Or beauty pagaent contestants cows. Or Pakistani women cows. It's your post, your signature. If someone has kidnapped your account and posted under your name, you might want to take care of it. It's not a heifer pagaent. They're not heifers. They are women. --Blechnic (talk) 07:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand where I have alluded to women as hysterics. I haven't additionally alluded to women as cows; instead, you asked me what I was saying, and I explained (hard to do this without further mention of "cow" or similar). You're asking me about this edit. I made it. It mentions heifers. You asked me what I had in mind, so I replied. It appears that you are not interested in my response, so I wonder why you asked the question. Now, I find sexism loathsome, and hope that you believe this. But I don't expect that you believe it, just as I don't expect that you should believe anything that I say about myself. So let's suppose for a moment that I called women cows, or even that I think that women are cows (an idea that I find alternately revolting and, in a way laughable): where is the conflict of interest? Or to put it another way, just what stake do you think I have in the fate of this article, and what's your evidence for your belief? As this is getting off-topic, you may wish to proceed on my user talk page. Morenoodles (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm, when I saw your edit of Gwen Gale's page, I assumed you had gone and deleted your "heifer pageant" comment. My bad, you went to justify it. I would never call the women in a beauty pageant heifers. For any reason. And if I felt someone else "heiferized" them I wouldn't join in. --Blechnic (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hello Could we discuss this somewhere else? You guys are way off the AfD topic here.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. Seems to attract at least media attention see [2] and Google News Archives comes up some potential sources. [3]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just three news results, all from practically the same source over a span of three years. That's what you call media attention. And even this is good for an article, Indian references are discouraged in Pakistani articles as they have a biased opinion about things. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even 1 in depth secondary source satisfies WP:NOTABILITY. There is absolutely no WP:INDIAN-SOURCES-DISCOURAGED-IN-PAKISTANI-ARTICLES provision anywhere in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Even if the coverage was negative, the coverage still counts. --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but with major revisions. After briefing reading the article, the pageant itself seems as notable as other regional beauty pageants that send representatives to Miss World, so this isn't a notability issue for me. However, there are MAJOR parts in the article that are written with NPOV issues. One line that stands out when I first glanced was, "To the delight of all involved in the pageant, and especially its creator, the successes of MPW have begun to meet all expectations and ambition." in the History section of the article. Reads almost like a line from a novel. With editors who are knowledgeable with this pageant and references, this article could be kept and a good 50% of the article ( advert phrases and unreferenced statements ) removed. smileydude66 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rewritten in future. Okay, I was misled to think this was the Pakistan regional pageant for Miss World. Nevermind... Not really a notable pageant yet, especially when the international pageant in its namesake (Miss World) is not even attached to it (Miss Pakistan World) in any way. Delete for now and can be restarted in the future when the pageant is "expanded" and the article claims it will be. smileydude66 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article needs tremendous clean up and it should be freed from advertisement tones, but it doesn’t mean it needs to be deleted. If you have grounds to ban the concerned editor/s, so be it, in order to avoid advertisement materials injected to the article. Regarding its notability, it produces 43,000 hits under Google search here, 229,000 hits under Yahoo search here, and 8,900 under MSN live search here.--Richie Campbell (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't presume the google results make a certain article worthy of notability. Search for my name and you'd get a thousand decent hits for me. That doesn't make me notable. You should read WP:GHITS first. I believe Google testing this pageant would only bring results that almost always resemble each other. And half of the time, written and sent as a PR device by the same people whom we don't want editing this very article. Check out some of the stuff that come up in the search results, sometimes inappropriately titled "Sexy Hot Miss Pakistan", something that takes you to a X-rated website. I wouldn't compare notability on the basis of hits on search engines. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you google for "brad pitt", say, you'll get links to porn pages; this doesn't mean that most of the links for him are worthless or that he doesn't merit an article. Hundreds of hits for "miss pakistan world" might mean nothing; tens of thousands of hits for it do mean something. However, there's something very strange going on. Right now, the top hit in google is "Natasha Paracha is new Miss Pakistan World" from something called merinews.com. I quote it: THE ANNUAL beauty pageant held in Islamabad this weekend, had a cool eye feasting for fashion lovers in Pakistan. [...] It was the sixth annual beauty pageant held in the country. [...] A large number of Pakistani beauties from across the world, thronged Islamabad and took part in the contest. Sonia Ahmed, the pageant founder says, “Pakistan's slow changing movement to liberate its women prohibits such an event. Women, who want to stand up for change and progression, have no choice but visit Canada or elsewhere to participate in such contests." (my bolding) So it was at Islamabad. Indeed, it was so obviously at Islamabad that Islamabad was "thronged". But it's prohibited in Pakistan, so took place in Canada or somewhere. What's clear is that the writer is so overworked or uninterested that she can't even manage to make a coherent pretense of knowing anything about this event. This "news" story is complete crap. Morenoodles (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think that the search engine test is a reliable way of arriving at the conclusion that MPW is a notable event. If you take the time to read through a few of the many hundreds of search results of MPW, you will find that they are repetitive and many are in fact direct copy pastes or simple rephrased versions of a single article. The sources can also not be classed as reliable because they are not from reliable sites. Notable websites for Pakistani content like the websites for newspapers return zero or just a few (<= 2) results: Dawn, Jang, The News, The Post, The Frontier Post, etc. The only media attention the whole event has had is due to Mahleej Sarkari calling President Musharraf 'a hunk' or due to the new Miss Pakistan being a UN employee. It is a shame that this pageant has been established since seven years but only recieves two hits from reliable and notable sources of Pakistani content. It is given much attention from the Indian media due to the above mentioned events, however, sources for Pakistani content from an Indian media sources usually have biased views. SholeemGriffin (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The promoters of this event seem to have put a huge amount of effort into publicizing it and seem to have had some success. "News" stories about it are numerous. But credible news stories, stories depending on first-hand observation rather than the recycling of press releases, seem very few. There's little or no evidence that attention is being paid to this event other than by its promoters and participants. Morenoodles (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the above comment was left here by you, Morenoodles. Please add your signature to the end of it. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 06:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. And sorry about forgetting earlier. Morenoodles (talk)
      • No worries. We all forget it at times. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 09:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Searching for "miss pakistan world" -wikipedia on Google returns 47'100 results. To me it looks like the competition has attracted enough worldwide attention, judging from the number of the Google results. So to me it looks like we should have an article on this event, but I cannot say whether the current article is what we should have. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage found by Capitalistroadster and NerdyNSK. An article on a notable subject having had major COI contributions is a reason to clean-up and re-write, not deleting. I don't subscribe to the "We must destroy this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "coverage". NerdyNSK points out that there are thousands of Wikipedia-unrelated ghits, but doesn't say which look good. CapitalistRoadster is more helpful: see [4] and Google News Archives comes up some potential sources. [5]. Let's investigate. Roadster's first link is to "Islamabad beauty is new Miss Pakistan World" (lifestyle.in.msn.com, from "Indo-Asian News Service"). It tells us that Natasha Paracha from Islamabad has been crowned the new Miss Pakistan World in an annual beauty pageant, and there's a photo that's presumably of this pageant, but we're not told where it took place. It brought young Pakistani women from around the world to compete for the crown, but where? Google News Archives has three hits. (1) "San Francisco woman is Mrs Pakistan World", from dnaindia.com, says that was short-listed for the competition and crowned Mrs Pakistan World by voters online. (2) "Pakistan Has Changed under Musharraf" appears to have been deleted. (3) "Agents of Change or Miss-Representations" (Times of India) only mentions "Miss Pakistan World" in passing. I haven't yet read any firsthand account by a journalist of this event. (I'm not sure that I've seen any that doesn't come with long quotations from Ahmed or similar.) It's hard to avoid the conclusion that even in "news sources" it's a non-event (or website microevent) hyped by the PR industry that has been so busy right here in Wikipedia. Morenoodles (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (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.