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. FWIW, a merge discussion would have been more useful, though the closure of this AfD doesn't preclude one now. ansh 666 04:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018[edit]

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

Because Switzerland holds so many referendums, we generally have a single article on all the referendums in a given year (Swiss referendums, 2018 for this year). There is no point in having this separate article when it can be covered in the main article (the useful text has already been merged there, but the merger was undone by this article's creator). Number 5 7 13:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now confirmed that the article's creator is a sockpuppet and has been blocked. I tried to G5 the article, but one of the canvassed users has since made some major edits so that G5 was no longer valid. Number 5 7 15:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I think several editors are missing the point here. This is not a suggestion to remove this material from Wikipedia – it's noting that it should be included in another article as per the usual format rather than having a separate article. Number 5 7 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Would you like to comment on how thoroughly WP:BEFORE has been properly implemented?
Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure – I've been writing referendum articles on Wikipedia for over a decade, so I therefore consider myself pretty well-versed in the usual conventions for Swiss referendums and deemed there to be no need for a separate article. Number 5 7 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an item deserves its own, separate article. Why? Because that item enjoys independent notability, per Wikipedia 's criteria. And the subject of the contested article quite evidently does. This does not affect the quality of the list to which it belongs. -The Gnome (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extremely poor sourcing on this. It's basically a promotional narrative device for a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists who've been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade with zero public notability to show for it. SPECIFICO talk 14:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International newspapers or agencies which covered the Sovereign Money Initiative include: Bloomberg Businessweek, City A.M., Global Finance, Handelsblatt Global Edition, Reuters, The Daily Telegraph and The Economist (between 2015 and today).
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Part of the problem with your article is that you are unwilling to differentiate primary sourced, opinion, and incidental mention of your cause from independent secondary coverage or analysis that would indicate notability. Stuffing the page with lots of marginally-related and marginally sourced or incidental content can't cure the problem. SPECIFICO talk 16:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my article. Everyone is welcome to improve it!
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Yep, sure thing, just so long as we don't delete it -- right? SPECIFICO talk 01:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to assume that, as an experienced editor, you should be used to WP:BEFORE? The guidelines seems to clearly state that an article to be improved on a notable subject should not be deleted but actually improved. You are welcome to help if you wish.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The "Positive Money" crowd may or may not be in the wrong but this has nothing to do with the AfD: The referendum is a fact, it is going to happen, and it is a (most) notable event. This is not about the soundness of the proposed initiative; it's about the subject of the article, whose notability is debated. On the basis of reliable sources alone, there is truly no debate: It's a stone cold, slam dunk, ball busting notable referendum, whether we're laughing or crying about it. Come June, I hope we all take a deep breath, but, until then, the article carries a fully worthy subject. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying it's not notable. What is being said is that there is no need to have a content fork from an article in which it is already covered. Number 5 7 09:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree since I find the subject independently notable (and very much so) and deserving its own, separate article. Perhaps, as the creator of "hundreds of articles" on Swiss referendums, you feel that we need to keep them neat and tidy together in a list and only in a list. That may be acceptable for votes on items of relatively minor importance. But a one-paragraph description of this particular referendum (inside a list) does not do justice to its significant subject. The issue here is fractional banking itself, for pete's sakes; not some CEO's salary. The subject deserves its own, separate article. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* - as well as being somewhat promotional, there's already the mentioned overall year article. The other referenda of the year don't have articles - this certainly is not special enough to require it. The summary in the article is already present, and somewhat more neutral, so there doesn't seem a great deal of benefit to be bought. Many of the current sources are either WP:OR or non-neutral. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the overall yearly articles only includes short summaries about the various referendums held and it is not uncommon to have articles on popular initiatives in Switzerland. However, if you see elements of this article which can be improved, you are welcome to contribute or comment about them.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Nosebagbear, the biased verbiage has been removed, while most sources are now reliable and neutral (except where the two sides' arguments are presented). The issue of the referendum remains of enormous importance for the world of finance, as attested by sources. You might want to revisit the text, now, as it stands, and examine if it addresses some of your objections. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look later - many thanks Nosebagbear (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I'm still not positive about it, reference quality is significantly improved, so I am happy to go keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nose, I am still not seeing more than primary source, opinion, off-topic and other sourcing that does nothing to establish notability for this separate article. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO The proportion of OR has dropped significantly - there are still multiple sources that either are poor or marginal, but the absolute number of acceptable sources has risen sufficiently. Regarding the separate article notability - there are sufficient sources to justify it - referenda are almost always individual, it's just because the Swiss have numerous ones they are usually grouped. However that is primarily because there is less/insufficient sources for each, not because there is any particular requirement for that to be the case. I've clarified my vote as a weak, as it is, but I do believe it is correct. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, SPECIFICO, I'm amazed that you have not changed your opinion at all about the text after such an overhaul. You claim there are "no more than primary sources in it" when, in fact, there are only a couple of them which present the opposite views, as is the honest thing to do. The overwhelming majority of sources are third-party, major media, publications by major organizations, and scientific papers. Going over the text, I see no WP:OR; if I did, I'd remove it. You know what? I think you've allowed your anger against the sockpuppet to cloud your judgement; otherwise, I mean if the article had been created by someone else, you'd have no issue with the subject's notability, I'm sure. Anyway, take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I could be mistaken. Could you list the 5 strong sources you think are independent secondary and factual reporting that demonstrate notability? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Sure. The Daily Telegraph ("Switzerland to vote on banning banks from creating money"); Global Finance ("Swiss To Vote On Reclaiming Fiat Power"); Reuters ("Sovereign money scheme would hurt Swiss economy"); Handelsblatt ("Castrating the Banks"); The Economist ("Shake your money makers"); Bloomberg Businessweek ("Why Swiss Vollgeld Vote Has the Central Bank Nervous"); Forbes ("Swiss Monetary Reform Referendum Is, Sadly, Driven By Ill Informed Loons"); Le Temps ("Les partisans de l'initiative «Monnaie pleine» lancent la campagne"); Die Tageszeitung ("Vollgeld, voll geil?"); La Repubblica ("Svizzera, un referendum contro privatizzazione della moneta e finanzcapitalismo"). There's more. -The Gnome (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions, press release rehashes, opinion, all the sort of sources that verify it exists but nothing substantial enough to warrant a standalone article. A section in the general article of these Swiss flash-in-the-pan initiatives is warranted. That's it. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for "five sources" and I give you ten full-length, dedicated reports in major media, and this is what you have to say?! A referendum about changing radically the way banks operate is nothing unusual, just a "flash in the pan"?? You're in denial, man. I rest my case. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article as it has sufficient notability and reliable independent sources. It will also allow to improve it as it very likely that many more quality articles will be published in the next two months until the vote (material to add to the current article). Also, the reasons for deletions are wrong. Most referendums have just short descriptions yearly articles and little or no international coverage. This one is different as shown by the references and by its uniqueness.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Adèle is the article's creator and unfortunately has been canvassing/WP:VOTESTACKing other editors on this AfD.[1][2][3][4]. WP:VOTESTACKing because these are all editors who !voted to keep the last article that she created when it was AfD'd (she did not notify the editors who did not support keeping the article). Number 5 7 15:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She's also frantically adding poorly sourced and tangentially relevant material to "her" article. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your comment, Number 57, no one opposed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positive Money and Specifico was already aware of this new discussion. However, to be as fair as you suggested, I also gave this piece of news to the two users who 'commented' the above-mentioned talk.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - as per nom Lyndaship (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Lyndaship. Perhaps you'd care to examine the text as it currently stands, after a major overhaul, and review your concerns about it. Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather keep. We already have several articles on separate referendums in Switzerland. Maybe, there are some problems with sources, but the subject is important, no doubts: Switzerland is the first country voting on a similar monetary system, and it is attracting the attention of other world (See that article in English, in Handelsblatt; about the initiative (shortly) and some refs to its reviews see a Bloomberg News artcile). --Tamtam90 (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of single issue referendum articles in that category (e.g. Swiss alcohol referendum, 1930) are ones that happened to be the only referendum in Switzerland that year, so there was no combined article. Also, yes the subject is important and would therefore be covered at Swiss referendums, 2018. The point is that there is no need for a separate article. Number 5 7 00:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that the four-sentence summary on the yearly article is as informative as this one? Anyway, the guidelines are clear about the notability criteria and those are met here.
Adèle Fisher (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

You're welcome to expand the text at Swiss referendums, 2018 – it's not limited to four sentences (which was all that was worth merging at the time I attempted to do so). Number 5 7 15:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, the argument that "Switzerland holds many referendums" (and, therefore, let's pile'em all in a list) does not hold water for a second. It is a very long time since a referendum of such importance has been held in Switzerland, in terms of financial rules, if not in the whole western world. So, the existence of a list does not mean that all referendums are of equal importance. This one needs to be presented as it deserves, i.e. in depth, with a panoramic viewpoint, and properly sourced.

Second, the June 2018 referendum has already been the subject of numerous articles in the media, as well as discussions on television around not just Europe but the US and Asia, as well. It is astonishing that contributors to this AfD would consider the sources as "poor" when we already have in the article major media outlets reporting on the referendum and its potentially significant consequences (The Economist, The Guardian, Handelsblatt, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, and so on). And as we approach the date of the referendum, the coverage is intensifying.

Third, have the AfD's contributors understood what the referendum is about?? Has WP:BEFORE been properly implemented? The change now being debated in Switzerland, and on which the citizens of country will be called to vote in June, will completely change the way the banks' financing system works there. And this, moreover, in Switzerland, a major international center of finance & banking operations. I find it unthinkable that the article is being considered for deletion. If it did not already exist, I for one would create it immediately. -The Gnome (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gnome, do you have citations for us so that we can review the TV coverage around the world. That would be helpful. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been and continue to be many and extensive debates, including television debates, about the issue being voted upon in the upcoming Swiss referendum. About the referendum as such, there have been debates mostly in Switzerland, in and out of parliament. They appear to be mostly unavailable in full. For example, there was an extensive debate between UBS CEO Sergio Ermotti and an economist (see here; a public debate between the head of the Swiss Bankers Association and the initiative's lead campaigner; various parliament debates on the referendum (here or here); etc. Perhaps the TV haul will not impress English speakers. Yet, even if it did not exist at all, the coverage in printed and online media would suffice for the subject to be worthy of inclusion as an article. -The Gnome (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So Gnome, if you only have primary source Youtubes that is exactly the sort of thing we find in attempts to promote non-Notable subjects into WP articles. This has gotten little to no secondary coverage taking it seriously except to describe what's on the ballot. This is pure promotion, like hundreds of thousands of other events that do indeed occur but do not warrant their own WP articles. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean by "primary sources". Debates between supporters and opponents of the referendum's subject have been held on television. Debates have taken place in Swiss parliament too. Some of them have been televised and some of the televised ones have been posted up on YouTube and other places. You asked for video clips. That is it.

Yet, once again, even discarding television (on account of language, etc), the coverage in mainstream media has been quite extensive. This is a notable subject; no two ways about it! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the canvassed editors. As for WP:BEFORE, I've created hundreds of articles on referendums, so I think I'm quite aware of the usual conventions on how we deal with Swiss ones. Number 5 7 00:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Number 57. I do not understand your comments. What exactly are you saying or implying here? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am noting the fact that you are one of the editors that Adele requested comment here in the belief you would also support keeping the article. Number 5 7 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. That is correct: I was notified of this AfD by Adèle Fisher, and I must say I'm glad I was since this is an article quite clearly worth keeping. Accident prevention, way I see it. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, it's a kooky initiative launched by kooks, as far as I can tell. These things happen in direct democracies, see e.g. several of the articles listed in List of California ballot propositions. It's still extensively covered, making it notable. Coverage exists not only by the international media cited in the article but of course also by leading Swiss national papers since 2014, e.g. Neue Zürcher Zeitung ([5], [6]), Der Bund ([7], [8]), Le Temps ([9], [10]). More coverage is easily found by searching for the German or French title of the initiative, "Vollgeldinitiative" / "initiative Monnaie Pleine". For what it's worth, the German language Wikipedia considers each Swiss initiative that has gathered the required 100,000 signatures automatically notable because of the coverage these things always generate. Sandstein 06:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve until outcome of vote will be known on June 10, 2018. In case of rejection, include in Swiss referendums, 2018 only. However, if this Swiss federal popular initiative would be approved by voters, it would not only be of national importance in Switzerland and justify a separate lemma. Switzerland would give up the fractional-reserve banking system of nearly all industrial nations and replace it with a system where all Swiss Francs would be issued by the Swiss National Bank only. This would certainly draw a lot of international attention. BBCLCD (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the outcome of the referendum is known. For the thing about canvassing, yes, it is arguable that it is canvassing, but on the other hand, no one !voted Delete on the Positive money AfD, so it is normal that only Keep !voters got messages. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this is another one of the editors who was canvassed by Adele. Number 5 7 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Suppose, someone alerts contributors who voted in a previous AfD, when that AfD had gone unanimously one way; let's say they all voted to delete. Would that be canvassing by definition? Are we not allowed to alert others if they and everyone else had voted one way? "Mother of Mercy, is this the end of WP:CO?" -The Gnome (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is Yes that is canvassing. Are you really going to the mat defending a sockpuppet with 100+ disruptive accounts? Really? SPECIFICO talk 15:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see me protesting the ban on the sockpuppet? Nope. Did you see me defending the canvassing? You didn't. Did you see me taking sides in the Swiss referendum? No, again. Since the beginning all I defended is the subject's notability. Nothing else whatsoever. Scripta manent, etc. The question I posted above, though written lightly, is serious. Your answer to it is that we are not allowed to alert any contributor to AfD#2 if they had participated in AfD#1 where the decision was unanimous. Fair enough, that's all I was asking. I'm not comfortable with such a state of affairs, but so be it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather artful or disingenuous "summary" of what I said. WP is not a self-publishing platform for cranks and kookabies. It's easy to get something or other in the media. Especially when digital content is free to the publisher. Money, water, religion, etc. all attract this kind of stuff. So what? SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your rather unfair accusation that I was "going to the mat" for a sockpuppet. You keep confusing the validity of an argument/idea/issue with its notability. In this, you're entirely wrong. There's an article in Wikipedia about the notion of the Earth being flat, there's another one about the divine entity of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The ideas behind such concepts may be silly but the concepts deserve their place in Wikipedia because (wait for it!) they are (drum roll) no-o-o-o-table. End of story. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's clear you don't understand our notability criteria, how to differentiate independent, secondary sources, and how to count the hundreds of RS that discuss Spaghetti Monster or the tens of thousands that discuss "flat earth" the closer will know what to do with your contributions to this page. Also, don't assume everybody you insult is male. Half of them are likely to be the other way. SPECIFICO talk 12:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome, if not ridiculous. You asked for television coverage; I provided it. Then you asked for "five sources"; I provided ten. Next, I don't understand what is an reliable source. This, after I provided almost a dozen links to media such as The Economist, Bloomberg, and others, which contain extensive, detailed and dedicated coverage. Meaning, the articles are exclusively abt the referendum, they discuss at length the referendum, and some even offer their views on it (mostly critical). Yet, you dismiss such extensive and dedicated coverage as "passing mentions", the texts from all that serious media (written by pro reporters or econ.professors) you call "press releases" (!), and what is actually reportage for you is "opinion". This, dear fellow, is denial, as I said.

As to my use of ...pronouns :-) they're not meant to imply gender but generality. I'm getting this last bit of nonsense out of the way before a mountain is made from yet another molehill. -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Whether the instigators of the referendum are "a fringe group of deflationist monetary activists who've been flogging this stuff for nearly a decade" or a bunch of Nobeal laureates has nothing to do with the subject's notability - is what I tried to make you understand with my example of loony ideas supported by fringe groups, such as Flat Earth. I tried, and failed. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. ATZNA 07:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are there kooks involved that don't know what they're talking about? - yes - a great many. Are there also experts that are sympathetic to these ideas that do know what they're talking about - yes, including former governor of the bank of England, Mervyn King and chief economist at the Financial Times, Martin Wolf. Reissgo (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of the canvassed editors. Number 5 7 09:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps, Number 57, you could consider dropping this particular stick and backing slowly away from the dead horse. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've made 24 edits to this AfD (rather more than my 15), perhaps you should consider taking your own advice? Number 5 7 11:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make as many contributions to this discussion as you must, Number 57. The horse flogging is not a reference to the number of edits you've made but rather to the exact same argument about "canvassed editors." Why you persist in pointing out that this or that contributor has been "canvassed" is beyond me. What difference does it make? Carry on, regardless; regards, The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed !votes are usually disregarded by the closing administrator. Number 5 7 13:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins might disregard canvassed opinions only to the extent that there is unambiguous vote stacking. There is no hard and fast rule, as far as I know, that obliges admins to disregard canvassed input - and for good reason! As it happens, I've been "canvassed" a few times in the past, as I was here, and every time my input was against the intentions of the canvasser! :-) Case in point right here (but, in your raging quest to eliminate the article, you cannot see it): I was notified of this AfD by a firm PM-believer and how did that end for the article itself? It was completely changed (see its history) and all the abject, unsupported, overweighted nonsense was replaced by somber, sourced background. -The Gnome (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Gnome is highly motivated. But the worst part is that @Reissgo: is himself one of the real life advocates aligned with Positive Money, who promote his self-published nonsense deflationist theories. On WP, Reissgo never misses a chance to push cherrypicked or misappropriated (SYNTH) article content citing his idol, Baron King Mervyn of Lothbury, or the news writers who recite Positive Money's anti-commerce propaganda in print and web venues. From a community POV, Reissgo's comments here can be disregarded. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the views of Reissgo (real person, according to his own user page: Michael Reiss). Once again, personal views about the validity of the argument involved in the June 2018 referendum do not matter in the slightest. This is almost exclusively about the subject's notability. The input by Reissgo in this AfD is as legitimate as yours or mine. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI Wp:spa disruption does not matter around here? Very refreshing. Thanks for your opinion. SPECIFICO talk 13:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose accounts are typically and rightly frowned upon. In Reissgo's contributions record, to be fair, I see more than one subject. As to the potential for a conflict of interest, we need to be careful. I have a COI when, for example, I post up an article about my shop or my biography. I do not have a COI when I post up an article about a person I happen to admire or an ideology I happen to believe in. That is not COI but something else. If a Wikipedia editor is an acolyte of Positive Money and posts about subjects related to PM, this is not COI but grounds for potential bias, which is a similar looking yet different animal. We should be careful, otherwise the Wikipedia alphabet soup can turn quite nasty. -The Gnome (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put, Reissgo. And let's not forget Michael Kumhof going off the rails. But they're so many. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 20 April 2018 (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.