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. Consensus is that, based on available sources, this is not an independently notable topic, and suffers from original research issues. Several "keep" opinions must be discounted because they only assert that the article is "valuable", or similar, without addressing the relevant criteria of our inclusion guidelines, such as the availability and quality of sources. There is some interest into merging some content into David Pearce, and if there's subsequent consensus for that, the article can be restored for that purpose.  Sandstein  07:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abolitionism (bioethics)[edit]

Abolitionism (bioethics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Almost entirely synthesis. WP:FRINGE/PS applies. Sammy1339 (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original research; the only scholarship directly related to abolitionism is attributed to one person, David Pearce, who is fairly non-notable Pawg14 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, searches come up with nothing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it stands - the sources are mostly about the general concept of suffering and not about this particular use of the term "abolitionism"; the neologism is not adequately supported by the sources. (I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a casual google it appears to be a term in transhumanist bioethics, (though RSes are thin on the ground), but not more widely in philosophy. Google Scholar on "abolitionism" "bioethics" shows a few minor academic papers on the topic, though I don't really know if they're suitable for notability of a philosophical term - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - agree with David Gerard above. But if sources are improved, strike out my delete vote. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. [Disclaimer: my work is cited - otherwise I'd do some editing to strengthen the entry.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcpearce (talk • contribs) 08:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added more focus on David Pearce as he is a key advocate of the philosophy, but obviously he can't play that up due to COI :) Deku-shrub (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - this is valuable information and shouldn't be lost to people who just "haven't heard of this before" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.244.180 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there RSes that would convince someone this was "valuable information" in the field of philosophy? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a valuable, credible philosophical position and deserves to remain on wikipedia Fredrik Bränström (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you bring sources that show it is, as you claim, valuable and credible in the study of philosophy? That's what the article is lacking - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Fredrik and others, and think it would be a loss if this valuable article got deleted. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have RSes that would convince someone this was "valuable" in the field of philosophy? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel this is being treated with an unfairly high standard of WP:NOTABILITY. Doesn't seem WP:FRINGE/PS because (a) it's treated seriously by philosophical authorities, (b) it doesn't seem to oppose any sort of scientific consensus. Empamazing (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So bring the cites. I literally ask above to be convinced, but it'll take actual verifiable third-party coverage in reliable sources (even specialist ones) - David Gerard (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has citations from WP:RS, e.g. the piece on BBC Radio. What do you contest about that one? Empamazing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC is not generally considered a reliable source for judging the notability of philosophy jargon terms - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article identifies abolitionism as a "bioethical school and socio-political movement," not as a philosophical term. But in either case, I think BBC would be considered a reliable source. I guess that's where our disagreement lies. Empamazing (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article can use some work, especially the history section which serves only to place abolitionism into a long-term religious historical context. The term may be relatively new but is definitely notable. It is a social movement based on negative utilitarianism. Also check Google books for references to abolitionist bioethics and Pearce. Keystroke (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's a sudden influx of comments from accounts with a very sparse Wikipedia editing history, and without having brought the actual cites. Did someone inadvertently issue something that has functioned as a call for votes? - David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This got brought up on Facebook in a two-way comment conversation. I saw it there and felt I should contribute. I suspect others did as well. I don't think it qualifies as WP:CAN because there was no mention in the conversation that anyone should vote, much less vote in a particular way. I'm happy to be corrected on that. Empamazing (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread seems to be promoting canvassing: https://www.facebook.com/groups/vegan.transhumanists/permalink/620461634768335/ Pawg14 (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a quick search on Facebook after reading this, and also found this other thread. Sigh: https://www.facebook.com/groups/hedonistic.imperative/permalink/10153422569096965/ NeatGrey (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thread that brought me was different than either of those, just FYI. Empamazing (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was a third one? Someone's been working hard at the canvassing - David Gerard (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already said that one wasn't canvassing. It was on someone's wall. I hope you're being mindful of any preexisting biases you have in this discussion. Empamazing (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • My preexisting bias is that obscure neologisms that even advocates say are mostly substantiated in message forum posts don't warrant Wikipedia articles - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • I mean that you seem to be trying to decrease the quantity of transhumanism/rationalist-related content on Wikipedia, or at least make it more negative in tone. Even your comment just now is concerning. I gave the example of a BBC citation as evidence for notability, but you instead say people are using "message forum posts," which seems to clearly be highlighting the weakest argument against your position instead of engaging with the best ones. (I also think this thread is unproductive, and we should focus on the content of the AfD now.) Empamazing (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, I'm not. Although there was a lot that was a badly self-referential Walled garden of ill-sourced content, but most of that got cleared. However, the general problem of subject areas with terrible sourcing that doesn't pass Wikipedia muster is not somehow a problem of me just being mean, as you make it out to be. Rather than trying to edge up to personal attacks as you are now doing, perhaps finding solid and convincing sources for the article would be more productive - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm actually surprised David Pearce's work 'The Hedonistic Imperative' doesn't have an entry of it's own - not to mention the fact that this entry is up for deletion. I think the reason this particular entry may seem a bit light is because many transhumanists with very similar ideas are spread out and don't realize there is a single philosophical school of thought that encompasses a fundamental aspect of what they believe. It's extremely premature to consider deleting this entry, especially given the explosive growth of the transhumanist movement at the moment. HedWeb one of the most talked about works among the ethical transhumanist community and, increasingly, members of the rationalist community interested in transhumanism. There is simply no reason to delete this entry right now. Bzzzing (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Also, David Gerard - I read what you wrote, and I think it's difficult to give citations when those citations are often threads in various forums or comment threads. The fact that "Abolitionism" and "bioethics" don't show many published papers on Google Scholar is strangely strict metric to use as notability, is it not? Bzzzing (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no, not really. Neologisms of primarily forum or Facebook usage don't generally make Wikipedia. Are you seriously positing forum and Facebook posts as substantiation for a philosophical jargon term? - David Gerard (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the David Pearce article. Essentially all of the sources explicitly discussing this article's topic are about Pearce or by Pearce, so it's cleaner to put this content there, minus some irrelevant bits. "Abolitionism" is very hard to Google, because of all the sources talking about slavery, but I don't think we're going to find anything supporting this as a notable term independent of Pearce. (I see there's a canvassing warning at the top; I have no connection to any canvassing.) NeatGrey (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with Pearce re notability. TimothyJosephWood 10:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: canvassing noted and more eyes invited at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Abolitionism_.28bioethics.29 - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge with Pearce. Despite this nom, no evidence yet produced that it is a "bioethical school and socio-political movement". Refs are all for quotes from various long-dead figures. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if there were substantial public or academic discourse about this subject, the description given by the article is so vague as to be worthless. "Abolitionism is a bioethical school and socio-political movement that promotes the use of biotechnology to eliminate suffering." Well, what human endeavor is there which doesn't have the elimination of suffering as it's ultimate goal? Furthermore, what human endeavor actually stands a chance of doing so? This isn't a notable "bioethical school and socio-political movement," it's naval gazing by academics and transhumanists. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does not deserve an article here. If not delete, then merge the content into a more suitable article, such as Suffering. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is pretty clearly false, that all (or even a large majority) human endeavors or bioethical theories seek to eliminate suffering. You should listen to this BBC radio show or read this response to the proposition of reducing the suffering of wild animals, to see how some people respond to the idea. Christianity, for example, has a ton of rhetoric about how suffering is good and necessary (can cite if necessary). It's pretty contentious, even if it does seem like common sense in a way. Empamazing (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity rationalizes suffering, but then holds up the promise of heaven, in which there is no suffering. All art is done to increase pleasure, which necessarily (and by definition) decreases suffering. Medicine is done for the express purpose of reducing suffering. Technology, when not expressly done to reduce suffering, is done to promote convenience, which is a minor reduction of suffering. Love is about pleasure and war is about gains which will reduce the suffering of one particular group (even sectarian wars are often done to appease deities, with the ultimate goal of those deities reducing the suffering of the warring groups) while peace is defined as a lack of suffering... The list goes on and on. I mean, the very concept of 'motivation', which underpins every endeavor ever taken is fundamentally bound up with the reduction or elimination of suffering. Seriously, name anything you've ever done and why, and I can -without distorting the truth in any way- put that in terms of the elimination or reduction of suffering. Most of the time, you wouldn't even need to include the 'why,' because discerning the way the action in question reduced suffering would be trivial. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a huge gap between reducing suffering and abolishing it. You seem to think they're more similar to each other, but I think they're hugely different in many situations, like wireheading, intervening in nature, or thinking earthly suffering is good because it leads to pleasure in heaven. I think you can give a justification for most human behavior as a way to reduce suffering, but you can do that for plenty of other things, like abiding by social norms or increasing autonomy or increasing survival rates. But I think the key evidence for the purposes of whether Abolitionism is a distinct topic on Wikipedia is just the fact that is has provoked such controversy and that its "followers" have come to such counterintuitive conclusions (not to mention that it's been discussed as a distinct movement/ideology in numerous WP:RS). Empamazing (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, there's no fundamental difference between reducing suffering (or anything else) and eliminating it. It is literally a matter of degrees. That's so basic a concept that I'm truly shocked anyone would suggest otherwise without having their tongue firmly planted in their cheek. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people want to reduce the size of government, but few want to remove it entirely. Anarchism is a completely reasonable Wikipedia topic. Counterargument? Empamazing (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I point out the incredible fallacy of equating humanity's most common concerted effort to cooperatively ameliorate suffering with suffering itself? If that doesn't sink in, then allow me to spell it out: suffering is bad, by definition. It's always undesirable. (Don't try to claim short-term suffering for long-term gains as an exception, because the whole principle of that idea is a net reduction in suffering.) Meanwhile, government (as a concept, not specific governments) is always desirable. This isn't apples and oranges, this is apples and late 60's American built muscle cars.

That being said, yes, anarchism is not fundamentally different from the desire for small government, it's just a matter of degrees. The fact that not everyone wants to push that idea of shrinking government to its logical conclusion just shows that most people grasp the fact that a certain amount of government is always desirable. So at least the comparison is object to object, instead of, say, apples and the existential implications of solipsism. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I don't feel either of us have more evidence or arguments to bring to the table at this point. Thanks for discussing, and maybe we can resolve this disagreement another time. For what it's worth, I hope you're right! Empamazing (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd love to think you're right. But aren't there many secular and religious ideologies that seek to rationalise suffering rather than aim at its long-term abolition? By all means add a Criticisms section - just "naval gazing by academics and transhumanists" as you put it. The whole entry could do with strengthening (IMO). But this is different from arguing for its deletion. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are lots of ideologies that rationalize suffering. But they all also claim to offer an end to it in some way. I'm not denigrating the idea, mind. Finding a way to end suffering would, by definition, be the single greatest thing ever accomplished (so long as that's the only thing brought to an end), but it's just such an incredibly broad notion that it's not feasible to have an article about it. I mean, literally every single school of thought in bioethics is about reducing or eliminating suffering. It's a fine subject for a book, or a paper. It's just not a good subject for an encyclopedia. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after adding the most important information to the Pearce biography. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In response David Gerard's request for reliable sources, here's a listing of some examples of when "Abolitionism" has been mentioned in print (limited to books I either own or have heard of; though I'm fairly certain there are more I haven't seen)

-"Ethics Matters" by Charlotte and Peter Vardy An excerpt: "Abolitionists tend to have a really optimistic view of the future and believe that technology can and should be used to eliminate the causes of human suffering, thus making the world progressively happier. Many Abolitionists are doctors, scientists, and IT innovators."

-Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement edited by Calvin Mercer and Tracy J. Trothen

-Cyborg Selves: A Theological Anthropology of the Posthuman by Jeanine Thweatt-Bates

-Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity by R.U. Sirius and ‎Jay Cornell

-Transcend the Flesh: Transhumanism Debate by Tobiasz Mazan

-Michael Avon Oeming's "The Victories: Transhuman" graphic novel describes Aabolitionism as one of the "intellectual currents that circulate[s] through the wide river of Transhumanist thought."

These are just a few of the books I'm aware of that mention "Abolitionism". If you need excerpts, or links, I'll try to provide them. I'm genuinely curious, David Gerard, what else constitutes notability? I joined Wikipedia as an editor several months ago, and I'm really struggling to understand why you think this page in particular should be deleted. Bzzzing (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE to my above comment:

After reading through some of the past comments, I felt I should add some information on the sources I listed. The first book I mentioned, 'Ethics Matters' was written by Dr. Peter Vardy and his wife Charlotte. One would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source than Dr. Vardy when it comes to the specific subject of religion and transhumanism. The second, 'Religion and Transhumanism', was written by Calvin Mercer and Tracy Trothen, both of whom are PhDs and university professors. Jeanine Thweatt-Bates book 'Cyborg Selves' is one of the more popular and commonly cited books about Transhumanism and religion. The 4th book I listed, 'Transcendence: The Disinformation Encyclopedia of Transhumanism and the Singularity' was written by an icon of the counterculture/hacker/transhumanist/libertarian communities... I don't even know how to describe R.U. Sirius (aka Ken Goffman) without feeling as if I'm underestimating his impact on culture. Nevertheless, I believe he is a fairly reliable source. I'll stop now and possibly update later, since it looks like we're getting close to wikipedia's "scheduled maintenance". Bzzzing (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blatant canvassing by Davidcpearce, with personal attack: [1] (There's a copy on archive.is at GGtOF in case that Facebook post disappears.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this have to do with me? I listed some reliable sources. Are you now moving the goalposts? Seems to me like a police officer who stopped a driver with no cause, and then ends up trying to arrest him for resisting arrest. Can we debate the actual merits of the page here? Bzzzing (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing, which is why it wasn't under your comment - it's a separate issue concerning this extremely problematic AFD. @Davidcpearce: has been caught blatantly canvassing, after denials of such - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, please assume good faith. In many years of Wikipedia editing, I've never urged anything but KEEP - including entries for groups, individuals and philosophies that I profoundly disagree with. I'm not sure what you mean by canvassing. If, say, the Flat Earth Society entry were at risk of being deleted, then I'd publicly let them know. But this is very different from soliciting votes - or for that matter an expression of intellectual sympathy with Flat Earthers. Or in your judgement, is it best if potentially interested parties in any deletion debate _don't_ know it’s under discussion? --Davidcpearce (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing explains what is meant by the term. In short, a call to action among editors otherwise uninvolved in a situation which calls for a consensus in order to influence that consensus is considered canvassing, and canvassing is considered disruptive. In this case, the links seem to show that some members were calling on any editor interested in this subject to come vote to keep this article, which is a clear-cut case of canvassing. While it's true that we should always assume good faith, when there is clear evidence of misbehavior (as is the case here), it would be ridiculous to expect editors not to mention it, or not to draw attention to it, or even not to 'out' the editor responsible. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your canvassing included a direct personal attack on me, you have already demonstrated a lack of good faith in this matter - David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, you are an outspoken critic of transhumanism in all its guises and favour deleting many transhumanist-related Wikipedia entries. If this misdescribes your position, then I apologise (seriously). MjolnirPants, lamenting the latest round of deletionism is not misbehaviour unless one believes that Wikipedia deletion debates are best conducted without the widest possible discussion.--Davidcpearce (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, MjolnirPants... this is per the first sentence of Wikipedia's page on Canvassing:

"...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Some here seem to be trying to use the rules in a way counter to their true spirit. Some people who disagree with you have appeared in the debate, so it is suddenly "canvassing". Tell me, how does one discover there's even a debate happening? Is the only true and noble way to accidentally stumble upon it?

But as I said... none of this really matters. No one has addressed my point, which makes all of this moot. I listed several reliable sources showing that Abolitionism is a well known and used term. Are there any responses to that? Specifically David Gerard, does that have any effect on your opinion about the deletion of this page, and if not, why not? Bzzzing (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stop reading at the first sentence, then. Seriously. I've seen this exact argument a hundred times, and it's just as fallacious now as it has ever been . The links clearly show a call to action directed at a large group of editors who were very likely to vote a certain way. Unless you can produce some evidence that the call to action was made to multiple groups of people, you have no ground to stand on. David, the same thing goes for you. If you have no evidence that this call to action was made to a wide variety of people, then you have no right to claim that it was an attempt to broaden the discussion. The links have been posted and seen. This is clearly canvassing. At this point, it would be best to admit to it and either try to correct it (by making further calls to action to groups not likely to vote your way, such as skeptics and those who have expressed criticism of transhumanism in the past) or try to mitigate the damage done in some other way. As things stand, I really have no idea how many of the one sentence votes above to keep are based on actual consideration, instead of ideological loyalty. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like pointless procedural rule arguing, engaged in with the express purpose of trying to avoid talking about the actual merits of the page. The fact is, there is no reason there should have been a call for deletion in the first place, and I have shown evidence of that. Ignoring that evidence and focusing on some obtuse interpretation of the rules seems disingenuous and, honestly, like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

But nevertheless, lets look at your argument. What would you have Davidcpearce do? What do you want? If you truly think that some malicious canvassing was done, then ignore the votes that have no actual substance or point to them. Does any of that have an effect on your opinion about the deletion of this page? Bottom line is that the facts are the facts no matter where they come from, and this focus on canvassing is a sort of backwards, twisted, turned-around version of the argument from authority. Abolitionism is a well known term, it's used widely, it's in print, in papers, and in talks. I've shown that, no one has disputed it. So why are we still here? This debate is being needlessly stretched out. Bzzzing (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like pointless procedural rule arguing, engaged in with the express purpose of trying to avoid talking about the actual merits of the page. So in effect, you're claiming that disruptive editing is acceptable when you're right. Um. No. Also, it takes two to argue, and you're number 2.

But nevertheless, lets look at your argument. What would you have Davidcpearce do? Oh, I dunno. Maybe exactly what I already suggested he do? Seriously, you're clearly arguing to argue. If you don't have any actual point, it's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse.

Abolitionism is a well known term, it's used widely, it's in print, in papers, and in talks. So you claim, yet finding RSs for a definition of the term is still a problem. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing worth keeping in the article. See WP:SYNTH and WP:FRIND. jps (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge what info is possible to the biography. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Very selective merge Not seeing a lot to be saved. Perhaps the second sentence of the Philosophy section could be moved into the BLTC Research section atDavid Pearce (philosopher). If so that section should be the target of the redirect. Everything else is covered in enough detail and most of the rest of this article would be undue or is poorly cited. AIRcorn (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2016 (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.