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. "Delete" arguments based on WP:AIRCRASH are not particularly compelling because that page is an essay.  Sandstein  08:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian C-130 Hercules accident[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Norwegian C-130 Hercules accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Not notable per WP:AIRCRASH. Nobody notable on board which is a criteria for military crashes. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-For one thing, I don't see that there is a criteria for military crashes about notable persons on board. Besides, I think it would be a shame not to have an article about this crash, as this is a very unusual event, and no other known website keep track of incidents like this. Oz1sej (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not a database of aviation accidents. And WP:AIRCRASH, which is the relevant WP:ALPHABETSOUP for this, states that for military aircraft, either a significant change in procedures or a Wikinotable (bluelinked) person on board is indicitative of notability (barring extensive and long-lasting coverage). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 16:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and per WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, military 'copter crashes, not poissibly notable at this stage. Speciate (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Hercules fixed-wing aircraft is not a 'copter. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable, does not make the inclusion criteria as per WP:AIRCRASH. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Can be covered in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present), no need for redirect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A highly notable accident and has been the top headline in Norway and Sweden for 2 days. Fatal aircraft accidents in Scandinavia are quite rare. The 5 killed were all military officers. A very large-scale search effort is going on in a difficult terrain (the aircraft appears to have crashed on top of Sweden's highest mountain) and will probably last a long time. Nanobear (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This story has been front page news for 2 straight days in Sweden and Norway, there is a huge search and rescue operation going on and this accident will be refered to in the future. Its been refered on most global television channels and has been the top headline in all of Scandinavia for 2 days straight. This accident has generated thousands of articles on national media in Norway and Sweden aswell as a notable amount of coverage on international media. Mcduck (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the outcome is merge, a redirect to List of C-130 Hercules crashes would be the best thing. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd have to disagree. Including a small part in and redirecting to the military exercise the aircraft was part of at the time of the accident (Cold Response) would make more sense to me. That's the setting for the accident, after all, which I'd argue is a stronger connection than the aircraft type. (Though looking at the discussion, it seems likely the article will, at least for now, be kept.) /Julle (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is the first major crash for this aircraft and could lead to further consequences, for the time being I would say maintain it and see how things develop. Sierra-Alfa-Mike (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major story in Scandinavia. Per WP:GNG also.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a story that has evolved much since the first delete !votes.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not news and most military accidents are not really notable unless they kill someone important or hit something important. The threshold level for a stand-alone article has to be far higher for military accidents then if it was a civilian airliner. No reason why it should not be included in List of C-130 Hercules crashes and the type article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the tallest mountain in Sweden is "something important"? That is a landmark if I ever saw one. And they seem to have hit it since the plane exploded. Very rarely do planes like these explode midair. --Ysangkok (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mountain is not what I meant I really meant important buildings or structures. Military aircraft fly lower and sometimes faster than civil aircraft, they dont generally fly airways where they can be watched and warned. That said the C-130J is a new aircraft with modern avionics so it is designed not to hit things but when the aircraft was flying only a few thousand feet above the height of the mountain it should have missed it!. Nobody is saying it is not a tragic and sad accident and our thoughts are with the friends and relatives of the five lost aviators. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - clearly passes WP:GNG, and doesn't fails WP:NOTNEWS in my opinion. Major event in Scandinavia. Also think that this deletion-discussion should have been delayed a little, per WP:RAPID, as the article already have evolved a lot since nomination, and when the deletion discussion ends in 6 days there will probably be a completely different article. The best thing would be to nominate this article in 14 days or a month, when the article have evolved even more and evolved away from a news story to a encyclopedic article. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, merely another case of CFIT, aircraft not notable (and NOT the first crash of the type), add to List of C-130 Hercules crashes and re-direct.Petebutt (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to be the first crash of the Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules variant, that was introduced in 1999. Nanobear (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The reports on the found debree says they are spread over a wide area which may be a result of something that happened in the air. Time will show if the accident is notable or not. --Jpfagerback (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to be a controlled flight into ground. No techincal or mechanical issue with the plane. According to Norwegian newspapers they may have flown tactical. I don't have enough experience with the requirements of en:WP to vote for delete or keep. Just wanted to put my 2 cents into the mix. --Jpfagerback (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguments for keeping on the basis of the 2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash are flawed because that crash caused considerable civilian damage as well as four civilian fatalities and also highlighted deficiencies in USMC maintenance doctrine and the resolution of those deficiencies.

• Keep - clearly notable. Tagremover (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a major event in Norway and Sweden with extensive news coverage and will go into history books because of the spectacular crash site Sweden's highest montain Kebnekaise. Julius Agrippa (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Those arguing "major story - clearly notable" should mind the unliklihood of WP:PERSISTENCE being met. Even a widely-spread "news burst" does not the WP:GNG automatically meet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep J 1982 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Major event in Sweden.[reply]
• Keep. The incident is of considerable significance more than being a "mere" aircrash. It's indeed a major event in both Sweden and in Norway. __meco (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a presumably fatal (since body parts have been found) crash into the highest peak in Sweden (which the vast majority of Scandinavians know by name) by a Norwegian military aircraft. Its on the front page of every Scandinavian news organisation I have checked, From Denmark to Finland, and have been so for days. Sertmann (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Funny how freak accidents with 1-2 fatalities in the US are kept: 2002 Tampa plane crash (2 dead, B-class article!) and 2010 Austin suicide attack (1 dead), yet the first fatal crash of the newest version of the world's most popular tactical airlifter doesn't qualify. I can't find the offical policy, but I am wondering if US events are inherently more notable? Is it okay that we don't cover the Chinese citizens crashing into buildings just because the Chinese newspapers doesn't report on it, because they aren't reminded of 9/11? --Ysangkok (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first loss of a C-130J the RAF lost one in Iraq (ZH876). MilborneOne (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said "fatal". --Ysangkok (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on that WP:OTHERSTUFF because they are criminal acts, not accidents. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash isn't a criminal act. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now per Mentoz86. Most of the arguments here have a core of solid reasoning, but also seem to depend to some extent on speculation, because this is such a new and rapidly-changing topic. Better to make a call on deletion when things have settled out more. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other millitary aircraft crashes has been kept (2008 San Diego F/A-18 crash etc.), so why not this aswell LOLfan18 (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With the existence of the article List of C-130 Hercules crashes, somone will know what to do. We don't have articles about every Chinese or U.S. military aircrash. We Norwegians think that everything we do is so special. If we are proven wrong, we will eventually get over it. This accident is a dime a dozen in the rest of the world. --Gerrymanders (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerrymanders has been identified as a sockpuppet.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is quite offensive. Do you think anyone is proud of this crash?. No, not every crash with a plane has a separate article on Wikipedia. But when a crash like this one happens (these kind of crashes are very rare in scandinavia) it is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not wikipedia for Scandinavia. With the world as a backdrop, nothing in the article indicates that the crash is notable. "Proud"? I'd venture a guess that soldiers/combatants who oppose Norway in Afghanistan, have a less sentimental feeling about the accident then you might. In addition, this wikipedia is not exclusively for those sympathetic to NATO/ISAF. Military airplane crews die every day. Nothing notable yet about this crew that died in bad weather. --Gerrymanders (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we should delete this article because combatants in Afghanistan are potentially angry at Norway and doesnt care about the death of five people? hmmm. No this is not Wikipedia Scandinavia, it is a Wikipedia were articles are made on notable subjects. A crash which is very rare in Scandinavia is notable and should be included. No matter what some Afghans or Americans thinks.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very rare bicycle accident on Main Street in Hicksville, Alaska outside building/property number 1212, in bad weather. I am not expecting an article about that. Military aircraft/crews test themselves in adverse conditions/bad weather. Nothing notable about that. That there are few military aircraft in Scandinavia (even when counting the ones holed up in Afghanistan or going to/coming from there), does not make this crash notable. It wasn't even a combat mission (which might have added some notability). This crash is not a notable subject, according to the text in the article and the text in this discussion. --183.88.34.4 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note a combat loss would actually make it less notable. MilborneOne (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, reevaluate after 14 days/a month. The reason for this crash is still very much up in the air (no pun intended), it has been established as a major event during a NATO exercise, and most assuredly has the attention of the entirety of Scandinavia. - Kenneaal (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now - reevaluate later. The notability of the crash is yet to be determined. Liimes (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An event which already have plenty of reliable sources and there will definitely be more to come. As far as I know, en:wp is not about to run out of space any time soon, so I see no reason to delete this article. TommyG (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this news story has been dominating the headlines of two countries for four days and has received coverage from around the world. Clearly meets the general notability guideline irrespective of the air-crash guidelines. Evaluating the lasting notability of the event at this time is not ideal (which is why it often pays to wait before hurriedly starting AfDs), but experience shows that this sort of accident is going to be the topic of long-term media attention, particularly within the two affected countries. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, important. Much media visiblity in Finland and I think other nearby countries too. --Olli (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Deadliest air crash in Sweden for 35 years. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The news coverage of this is overwhelming. Someone needs to fix WP:AIRCRASH, because it currently contradicts every other SNG out there, because they are all supposed to have an initial statement that if the subject meets the GNG, then that is separate from the SNG, which is only supposed to give the presumption of existence of coverage. Silverseren^C 18:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasons: a) news coverage (major news for several days, dominating the news cycle in several countries), b) the aircraft being part of a NATO exercice (Cold Response), causing debate in Sweden over the very presence of NATO military forces on Swedish territory (example: Kraschen sätter fokus på Natos närvaro, Svenska Dagbladet) and c) deadliest aircraft accident in Sweden for 35 years. I'd like to point to Wikipedia:RAPID, as well. Give the article a chance before you take it to AfD. /Julle (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These all are very good points. Nanobear (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Major news for several days" does not satisfy WP:PERSISTENCE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. A tad difficult to say more when "several days" is all that's passed, though. Which is why I think Wikipedia:RAPID makes sense, and we could afford to wait before we possibly decide to delete it. Wikipedia is no crystal ball, but we don't need to make sure that no one ever encounters an article which could possibly turn out not to be notable. Also, I didn't argue we should keep it because it had been major news in several countries for several days at the point – but yes, I did and do consider it a contributing factor. /Julle (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now This accident will make into the the list of C-130 accidents. It may or may not be interresting enough for a standalone article but nobody can tell at this time, a typical investigation runs for about a year. The Swedish Accident Investigation Board is a dependable agency that will provide ample verifiable sources. Full steam (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This accident will make into the the list of C-130 accidents - which is where it should stay until it is determined to be notable enough for its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Google News search for "Kebnekaise" in the last month: 2050 articles, all related to this accident. Kvasir News search for Norwegian press only: 1550 articles. Mcduck (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:AIRCRASH, "if an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article" then it qualifies for a standalone page if it meets WP:GNG. As this is the first crash of the C-130J variant, it definitely should be added to the list of C-130 crashes. And as it meets WP:GNG, it therefore also deserves its own page. This event is big news in scandinavia and has resulted in the (presumably temporary) grounding of the Norwegian C-130Js. If the 1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash deserves it's own page, given that no one notable was killed, than clearly the Norwegian equivalent deserves the same. WarwulfX (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Apples and oranges; the Fairchild crash was the result of significant chain of command failures and led to significant changes in procedures. As opposed to, tragically, a plane just flying into the side of a mountain. (See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Also this is not the first crash of a C-130J; see comment above regarding ZH876. Also is there any WP:PERSISTANCE for this case of CFIT? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that the above quote was truncated in favour of the author the article as written isIf an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports. So it may qualify as a stand-alone!!Petebutt (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of the facts:

• • not notable as a military crash
  • not notable as the first C-130J loss
  • this is not a Scandinavian newspaper
  • There were no notable affects of the crash or its aftermath
  • Clearly fails the criteria in WP:Aircrash, which is the over-riding criterion.Petebutt (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are distorting the facts. Because it passes WP:GNG it doesn't need to pass WP:AIRCRASH. Also note that AIRCRASH isn't even an official policy. It is also not relevant where the news happen, so you are misguiding people when you tell them it's not a Scandinavian newspaper, cause it's not an English newspaper either. The fact that we do use the English language sadly causes an English/American bias. Also, it is too early to know if there are any notable effects of the crash. There wasn't any serious aftermath to 2010 Austin suicide attack and 2002 Tampa plane crash either, but we're still keeping those cause they pass WP:GNG. Tell me why WP:AIRCRASH is the over-riding criteria here, but not concerning the 2002 Tampa crash. Tell me why Qantas Flight 32 is notable, if it is not because it is the first A380 issue (not even a loss!). --Ysangkok (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIRCRASH deals with aircraft accident notability, so it is not applicable to intentional and/or criminal acts like 2010 Austin suicide attack and 2002 Tampa plane crash. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also WP:What Wikipedia is not#When you wonder what to doPetebutt (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "no notable effects": as I've tried to point out above, this has put focus on the fact that NATO is involved in military exercies on Swedish – neutral – territory (something most Swedes had missed until the crash), and rekindled the Swedish debate on whether or not Sweden should join NATO and what the Swedish relationship to NATO should be. A few different examples of opinion pieces (the first hits when I did quick search in Mediearkivet ("The Media Archive")) from different newspapers in different parts of the country:

"Kraschen sätter fokus på Natos närvaro", Svenska Dagbladet 2012-03-18; "Lägger ner allt eller gå med i Nato", Sydsvenskan 2012-03-16; "Natolandet Sverige", sv:Sydöstran 2012-03-19; "Inte lätt att vara neutralitetskramare", sv:Blekinge Läns Tidning 2012-03-19; "Svensk militär vardag", Helsingborgs Dagblad 2012-03-20; "Man hjälper sina grannar", sv:Mariestads-Tidningen 2012-03-20; "Ärligare med fullt Nato-medlemskap", sv:City Malmö 2012-03-19; "Tala klartext om Nato", sv:Skaraborgs Allehanda 2012-03-21; "Fredsframtvingaren Sverige", Dala-Demokraten 2012-03-21; "Sverige är aktivt i krigföringen" Dala-Demokraten, 2012-03-20.

I think there are other reasons to keep the article as well, but I would happily argue for its inclusion simply based on this. /Julle (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:PERSISTENCE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing how the debate I pointed to is ongoing, it's certainly not lacking. Whether it will have a lasting effect is of course difficult to judge, but seeing how this accident has been an important part of fueling the (as far as I know) most intensive debate on the NATO question in Sweden for years, I'd say it's already played a political role. And if I'm going to repeat myself, I might as well quote what I wrote above: "A tad difficult to say more when "several days" is all that's passed, though. Which is why I think Wikipedia:RAPID makes sense, and we could afford to wait before we possibly decide to delete it. Wikipedia is no crystal ball, but we don't need to make sure that no one ever encounters an article which could possibly turn out not to be notable." Still, I'd be happy to include most accidents that spark nation-wide debate on foreign policy. /Julle (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Put simply, I think the discussion above shows that the aviation workgroup's guidelines for notable military accidents no longer has the consensus of the overall community. Wikipedia is one project; we should and we do greatly welcome the work and opinions of those most closely involved with the different subject fields, and usually defer to their judgment. But the final judgment is that of all us us here who take an interest;sometimes the general standard has been broader than the workgroup proposes, sometimes narrower, sometimes different. they've given their opinion, and if most of us think otherwise, Nobody owns a project or a guideline, just as nobody owns an article. In this case I agree myself with the view that they are too restrictive: public interest in general overrides almost any specialist considerations. the relation of GNG to the special guidelines is not fixed--it's a matter for decision by the community in each case. I will usually argue in favor of the specialist guideline prevailing in cases where only the specialists would be interested, but in cases like this, as this sort of accident is a subject of public interest, then it makes sense that the general guideline of the GNG should prevail. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be all well and good except it does not meet the GNG per WP:PERSISTENCE/WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Let's be honest, quite a few of the Keep !votes are, no doubt, based on the "it's in the news, it must be notable" rationaile. If this is kept, one trout says that a couple of years down the road it goes through AfD and gets deleted based on a failure of notablity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I very much doubt that this will be a short spike of interest in the Swedish news with no further discussion or analysis to follow. I might be wrong, of course, but few accidents, even when people die, get the same amount or attention or spark this kind of political discussion. And as WP:PERSISTENCE points out: "However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." I'd agree that there probably won't be much more written about this in English, Chinese, Italian or Swahili. In Swedish and Norwegian, though? Yes. But Wikipedia is an international ecyclopedia, and if you're not reading Norwegian or Swedish, you're pretty much missing the entire discussion. If an event has to have world-wide persistence, so to speak, then very few articles will be considered relevant.

(And if we who belive this is wrong and it goes through AfD and gets deleted based on a failure of notablity a few years from now? Well, then we'll be wrong and it'll be deleted. No harm done.) /Julle (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petebutt:I do not understand your argument. Why do you mix the phrase, Scandinavian newspaper into the discussion? 109.232.72.49 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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