Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nim (programming language): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Nim (programming language): Canvassed comment. |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2015 April 26}}</noinclude>
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
The result was '''no consensus'''. I do not see anything close to consensus in this discussion. Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified), but there is no consensus whether these sources actually create sufficient notability. The votes are slightly skewed to the keep side due to canvassed users, but certainly there are also several long-time Wikipedia editors who are arguing keep. One can try again in a couple of years and see how the sourcing situation has changed.--[[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 08:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
===[[Nim (programming language)]]===
{{not a vote|1=another user asked you to, like here: http://forum.nim-lang.org/t/1075/1 or here: http://irclogs.nim-lang.org/31-03-2015.html}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nimrod (programming language)}}</ul></div>
Line 31 ⟶ 38:
:::Example of contributions to NIM by the community [https://vimeo.com/123840727 Video showing contributions over time] [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 17:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*'''Keep''' The company where I work, http://www.snapdisco.com, has recently switched to Nim for our internal software development. (We develop software for [[image processing]] and [[computer vision]].) We initially developed our software in [[Python (programming language)|Python]], which is webservice-friendly and has [[NumPy]] and [[SciPy]] for numerical computing, but we switched to Nim for its unique combination of coding expressiveness and runtime performance. Because Nim compiles to C, we can integrate our Nim code into our Python code as Python extension modules. We are not the language creators, but our software is proprietary. How can we prove that we are using Nim? (Disclaimers: 1. This Wikipedia account, from which I'm commenting, was created for the purpose of commenting on this AfD. 2. I have never edited/contributed to the Wikipedia page for Nim, so I have no vested interest there. 3. I have never committed any code to the Nim language, so I am not a "creator". 4. My company ''does'' use the Nim programming language. 5. I am an active member of the Nim user community.) — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 14:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:jboyme|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/jboyme|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*: Also, here's another independent, published source: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 In this article from April 17, 2014, Nim(rod) is described as a language "on the rise" by an independent reporter, along with [[Clojure]], [[Julia (programming language)]], [[OCaml]] (whoops, that's hardly a new language...) and [[Racket (programming language)]] (whoops, also not so new). But the section on Nim (slide 9) is clearly significant as required by [[WP:GNG]] ("more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material") and the article is clearly an independent secondary source. — [[User:Jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:Jboyme#top|talk]]) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC) <small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:jboyme|jboyme]] ([[User talk:jboyme|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/jboyme|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
*::I don't believe that qualifies as a [[WP:SECONDARY]] source. {{tq|A '''[[secondary source]]''' provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.}} It doesn't look to me like the author was doing any more than just copy-editing the primary source for space, the same way a news organization might copy edit a press release, also without adding their own interpretation or analysis. I don't see anything here that represents his own ideas. I certainly don't get the impression the author downloaded the compiler and tried it out as he would have to for an actual review. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 16:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 83 ⟶ 90:
:::That argument is [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists]]. Just because those haven't been deleted, doesn't make this article subject notable. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing|list of Computing-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Northamerica1000|N<
*'''Keep'''. As a programmer I find this language to uniquely possess a diverse set of useful features which for me make the language notable. The features are described in the first paragraph of its article. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 03:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Line 133 ⟶ 140:
*<ins>'''Keep'''</ins><del>Comment</del>, that was a now existing [[Special:Diff/648590837|requested]] article. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) <small>(updated to '''keep''' based on {{tlx|openhub|nimrod|nimrod}}. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|talk]]) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC))</small>
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF4F00;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<
*'''Keep''' There seems to be sufficient evidence that it's notable. I;'m not at allan expert here, but it meets the ordinary requirements. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
*:The problem is that the only actual independent, reliable sources we have about the subject are a mention [http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-rise-and-fall-of-languages-in-2013/240165192 in Dr. Dobb's] and a paragraph in [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9 InfoWorld]. Apart from the [http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321 other Dr. Dobb's article], which was written by the language creator and so does not count as independent, the only other arguments I have seen here are [[WP:ITSUSEFUL]], [[WP:ITSNOTABLE]], [[WP:ITEXISTS]], [[WP:BIG]], and of course [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]]. It's pretty clear that this topic doesn't pass [[WP:GNG]] as written - to keep it we would essentially have to create a new notability guideline for programming languages based on how many people use them on GitHub. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 03:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 140 ⟶ 147:
::::{{Reply to|IO Device}} It already exists, it's at [[WP:NSOFT]].―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 16:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''</s> I would like to continue the argument that Slashdot is a reliable source for programming languages notability. Slashdot is a [[WP:NEWSBLOG]]. It is a publication, like a magazine that has a very large readership. While it allows readers to submit blogs, it provides editorial control, through both it's voting system, and it's comment section. Articles on Slashdot that make it through to a actual article about programming languages should be considered reliable secondary sources.
:In addition, you have also made the argument that [[WP:BLOGS]] are not to be used as reliable secondary sources. Please note: 'Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.' [[WB:BLOGS]] Goran Krampe is a noted expert in the field of Computer Languages [[http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1482379]] [[http://www.researchgate.net/publication/221321272_Advanced_issue_tracker_in_smalltalk]] [[http://www.artima.com/forums//flat.jsp?forum=155&thread=305311]] [[http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1176692]]. He is one of the original Guides for Alan Kay's Squeak Smalltalk, has worked with some of the best programmers in the workd. Based on your own guidelines his blogs may be considered, and I aruge, SHOULD, be considered reliable. [[http://goran.krampe.se/category/nim/ Goran Krampe's articles on Nim]] <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--><small>'''Note''': An editor has expressed a concern that [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Itsmeront|contribs]]) has been [[WP:CANVAS|canvassed]] to this discussion. {{#if:|([{{{2}}} diff])|}}</small>
::::<small>Duplicate "keep" stricken. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 02:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)</small>
:::It means we might consider an [[WP:SPS]] reliable for certain things. For example, we might accept an [[WP:SPS]] as acceptable for establishing certain facts about the subject, e.g., that Nim supports term rewriting macros and that they do whatever they do. It does not mean we accept that because an expert wrote about the subject in his blog that that makes the subject notable. Reliable for establishing facts is not the same as reliable for establishing notability. And the reason is that the essence of notability here on WP is not that anyone ''should'' take note of the subject, it's that ''they did'' and that they did it in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. A blog is never that. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 07:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 167 ⟶ 175:
*::There is a slight overlap between the copy-and-paste move, so a history merge wouldn't be appropriate (that would leave Gregh3285's earliest revisions to the current article with nowhere to go). See [[WP:PV]] for the general principle. — '''''[[User:Mr. Stradivarius|<span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius</span>]]''''' <sup>[[User talk:Mr. Stradivarius|♪ talk ♪]]</sup> 02:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF4F00;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Nakon|<
I saw Nim for the first time on the Rosetta Code site tonight. I was impressed by its conciseness, so I decided to so see what, if anything, Wikipedia had to say on the subject. I was please to find a very quick overview, an indication of possible spheres of utility and a direction to further sites. I am informed by the notices that the article relies overly on primary sources that the article in not perfect and that this computer language currently has minority interest. Well, yes. Wikipedia is a dynamic site and will always contain some articles of that sort by its very nature. However I am utterly bewildered why anyone should wish to remove the article because it does not fulfil perhaps overly stringent guidelines for citations. Are you sure you're actually trying to inform people are are you just trying to stand in judgment over what constitutes a notable citation. It's the strength of Wikipedia that an article on Nim can appear, albeit imperfectly. Nim does not and will quite probably not appear in any edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. It's the USP of Wikipedia that it appears here. [[Special:Contributions/188.29.80.41|188.29.80.41]] ([[User talk:188.29.80.41|talk]]) 02:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC) (I'm a fairly regular user of Wikipedia who does not wish to get embroiled in debates such as these).
====arbitrary break====
Line 176 ⟶ 184:
The result was '''no consensus'''. Due to the controversial nature of the debate I have included a note. The arguments put for by dom96, Delirium, Erik.Bjareholt, Itsmeront suggest that the subject passes GNG based on sources such as but not limited to, [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2685357/javascript/experimental-javascript-compiler-higgs.html Infoworld], [http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321 Dr. Dobbs], and others. Those favoring deletion believe these sources are not sufficient and the article require additional sourcing. There appears to be a lack of consensus. I am not an admin, so reverting if contested is not an issue.
It had been opened for nearly a month this no comment for a week. {{re|Padenton}} has contested this close so admin intervention is required. [[User:Valoem|<
*'''Comment''' I have been a bit lazy regarding this, given that I am the one who posted the not a vote tag. I have now tagged those I suspect are most likely to be the canvassed users. I tagged users based on their activity aside from Nim (programming language). The links to where they were canvassed are in the header above. There were additional locations in the IRC logs where it was done as well, but I didn't find any useful information there as to who found out from there. I do not envy the admin that closes this and has to drudge through the marshes on this. Note that while I have tagged 6/7, there '''are''' other keep and weak keep arguments, including some that were indeed based on policy. Some are by experienced editors, some are by inexperienced editors which I did not feel comfortable assuming as canvassed. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 03:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Line 183 ⟶ 191:
:::If this article isn't worthy of being in the main namespace, then just delete it. Half-measures like this aren't good for anyone. [[User:Philip.wernersbach|Philip.wernersbach]] ([[User talk:Philip.wernersbach|talk]]) 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' despite strenuous efforts the sources to support [[WP:GNG|notability]] simply aren't there. The article cites an array of unreliable and obviously primary sources (GitHub, slashdot, reddit, blogs, etc). The only ones which look more respectable are [http://www.infoq.com/presentations/nimrod] and [http://www.drdobbs.com/open-source/nimrod-a-new-systems-programming-languag/240165321] and since both were written by the creator of the language they can't be considered completely independent of the subject. I don't think the sources presented here are much more impressive. [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2685357/javascript/experimental-javascript-compiler-higgs.html] and [http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/the-rise-and-fall-of-languages-in-2013/240165192] are obviously trivial mentions. [http://www.infoworld.com/article/2606823/application-development/146094-Ten-useful-programming-languages-you-might-not-know-about.html#slide9] is a bit better but we can't base notability on what amounts to one slide in a presentation.<br />We also have various other arguments, but none is consistent with our notability guidelines. It doesn't matter whether people think that this programming language is interesting, whether it is used by people, or whether it is recognised by someone as a language unless it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Someone argued above that there is some kind of systematic bias against availability of reliable sources on this subject. I think the exact opposite is true: Wikipedians tend to be interested in technology and the open-source movement, and tend to prefer sources which are available for free on the internet. An open-source programming language is exactly the link of area where I would expect a particularly exhaustive search of the available sources. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 19:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I'm not really convinced by the SPA keep votes who were canvassed. I think it really fails GNG and it cites a lot of sources that aren't really reliable anyway. The deleters above have made a much more convincing argument. <span style="text-shadow:#A2E1FC 2px 2px 9px;">— [[User:Kikichugirl|<
::The above comment is a result of canvassing in #wikipedia-en, and must be discounted for the same reasons noted in the comment. Or are we saying the canvassing has been unbiased? --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 22:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
:::When you charge canvassing, you need to provide a link to the diff, please. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 22:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
::::What happened was someone came into IRC discussing this AFD, but in fact, they were more for supporting keeping of this article. Indeed, I was notified, which is permitted, but not canvassed, because that implies an inclination to make editors vote a certain way. No one asked me to comment in favor of delete on this AFD. I simply saw it being discussed and decided to voice my 2cents. I did not participate in the IRC discussion, I just saw it as I was going about my day. <span style="text-shadow:#A2E1FC 2px 2px 9px;">— [[User:Kikichugirl|<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype; color:#000000;">kikichugirl</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kikichugirl|<span style="color:#8A37F0;">oh hello!</span>]]</sup></span> 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::Indeed, canvassing is often appropriate. In fact, any post on a noticeboard fits the definition of 'canvassing.' The reason the posting on the nim irc is inappropriate [[WP:CANVASSING|canvassing]] is that it was both off-wiki (see 'stealth canvassing') and a biased audience (see 'vote stacking'). We can argue whether or not the posting of it on the official wikipedia IRC is inappropriate stealth canvassing, but the nim IRC is certainly more of a violator on this front than the official wikipedia IRC due to its lack of transparency. I do concede that the message in the nim IRC is not a biased message (not 'campaigning') as the forum post originally was, though there were other postings to that IRC in the logs, but as stated, it has other issues transparency-wise and audience-wise. However, I did not see the message in #wikipedia-en. If it was in some way arguing for one view or another, that we can talk about. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
::::::That's a nice attempt at spinning things to suit you. But make no mistake, your post is one of a selfish hypocrite, and this whole page is nothing short of an embarrassment. The day of Wikipedia are limited; it won't be long before it is surpassed by an automatedly-written alternative. Just you wait. --[[User:IO Device|IO Device]] ([[User talk:IO Device|talk]]) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::::No spin here. You're welcome to read it yourself. As for an automated Wikipedia replacement, speaking as an AI student, I find that highly doubtful. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per Hut 8.5. The sources are trivial, or not independent, or [[WP:RUNOFTHEMILL|run-of-the-mill]] fluff. [[User:Reyk|<span style="color:maroon;">'''Reyk'''</span>]] [[User talk:Reyk|'''<sub style="color:blue;">YO!</sub>''']] 06:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Very simply this language has come to my attention. I am not a follower of blogs, tweet, ... social media etc. I do not expect to see an article in the New York Times or Washington Post regarding this language in the next 10 years. I come to wikipedia to learn about things. It would be a shame if I could not find out about this here. I think it should remain. I do not post often which in some opinions diminishes the weight of my words, but please consider I have decided to expend some of my precious time for this. [[User:Brucekg|brucekg]] ([[User talk:Brucekg|talk]]) 17:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)brucekg
*'''Delete'''. Whilst well-referenced at first glance, the citations are primarily to user-generated content such as Reddit, Nim's own website, and other unreliable sources. I am also disappointed at the apparent meat-puppetry/vote-stacking on this debate. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
*<s>'''Keep'''</s> I would argue that if OSCON has found Nim notable so should wikipedia. [http://www.oscon.com/open-source-2015/public/schedule/detail/42497 OSCON 2015]. Andreas has been invited to speak at a very popular convention. We have continually showed the editors that the references are expert reviews of a notable programming language [[WB:BLOGS]] which can be considered since the authors are experts. We have shown that a news blog with editorial control has featured Nim [[WP:NEWSBLOG]], we have shown that Nim is extremely popular by citing github stats and inclusion on [http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2015/01/14/language-rankings-1-15/ RedMonk]. You have waved your hands and turned up your nose or called it fluff but you have not answered why these editoritial policies should not be applied. They clearly show that Nim is notable. [[User:Itsmeront|Itsmeront]] ([[User talk:Itsmeront|talk]]) 07:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
::Only one !vote per person, please. You've already !voted. [[User:Msnicki|Msnicki]] ([[User talk:Msnicki|talk]]) 09:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
:::His 3rd vote in fact. ―<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px"> [[User:Padenton|<span style="font-family:Old English Text MT;color:#C00">Padenton</span>]]|[[User talk:Padenton|✉]] </span> 02:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
*'''Weak Keep''', if only because of the Dr. Dobbs source. I know it's written by the language creator, but I still feel it's good enough as it has been ''published'' by an independent publication who obviously decided it was important or notable. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] <sup>([[User talk:Lankiveil|speak to me]])</sup> 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||