Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (4th nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I think a consensus has been reached here. This close has no prejudice towards redirection, or appropriate mentions of the subject on related articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kohs

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gregory Kohs (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)

Minor critic of Wikipedia. Does not appear to have sufficient independent reliable source coverage or notability. Previously deleted three times. Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient independent sources giving non-trivial coverage to establish notability. The last discussion was over six years ago. Most of the sources for the current article are more recent than that. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are enough verifiable references to grant some degree of notability; I just found one on FoxNews.com that I added. The previous deletions are not relevant to this discussion if the article has been substantially improved since its last incarnation six years ago. At the very least, the article could be redirected to the MyWikiBiz article. I don't see what is gained with a deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no person should be burdened with one of these lodestones given the incompetence of the average Wikipedia editor and the revenge and defamation motivations of more than a few. Mr. Kohs' life has not been the subject of any in depth consideration - anywhere. It is impossible to adhere to Wikipedia's policies in the absence of in-depth, quality work about him, most importantly the Website's so-called "Neutral Point of View" policy. For instance, 95% of Mr. Kohs life is devoted to his hobbies, his family, and his work as a market researcher. Yet the Wikipedia article about him devotes 60% of its space to his involvement in Wikipedia criticism and internet entrepreneurship. Let's consider the so-called "reliable sources:"

1. Idea of paid entries roils Wikipedia - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16793247/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/idea-paid-entries-roils-wikipedia/#.UavgY9LBPTc An AP article entirely devoted to Kohs involvement in the 2007 dispute over paid editing in Wikipedia. Article mentions him plenty - but is not about him, rather the paid editing fight.

2. A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=M1yNL0iI5T0C&pg=PA142 An entirely passing mention in an essay collection. The entirety of the Kohs related content is one sentence: "For example, Gregory Kohs was shut out of the site after he launched MyWikiBiz as a service to write entries for businesses." This sentence is cited to the above article Idea of paid entries roil Wikipedia. Adds nothing.

3. How Can a Small Business Get on Wikipedia? http://blog.intuit.com/marketing/how-can-a-small-business-get-on-wikipedia/ A blog. They are almost always no-nos for Wikipedia "biographies of living people." This blog merely quotes Kohs providing advice to companies on how to deal with Wikipedia. Contains zero biographical information about him. He's just quoted.

4. Gregory Kohs, publisher of MyWikiBiz.com, Philadelphia http://www.business-superstar.com/superstar-of-the-week/gregory-kohs-publisher-of-mywikibiz-com-philadelphia/

A Q&A at a website designed to promote entreupreneurs. Not the quality press. Not academia. The author of the Q&A is the same person, Phil Hall, as the author of the intuit blog. But no matter, not a suitable source for constructing a neutral biographical article.

5. Press Release - Announcing a new Wikipedia criticism site http://wikipediocracy.com/press-release/ Self-explanatory. A press release. That merely mentions Kohs name in passing.

6. Wikipedia Blocks a Pay-for-Play Scheme http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-blocks-a-pay-for-play-scheme/2796 Another blog from 2007 that mentions Kohs bannination over MyWikiBiz (his paid editing venture) that is both a "blog" and contains no useful biographical information.

7. Wiki-palooza Part III: The world of wikis and how b2b marketing can win in this game http://www.funnelholic.com/2008/08/06/wiki-palooza-part-iii-the-world-of-wikis-and-how-b2b-marketing-can-win-in-this-game/ A... wait for it... wait for it... blog from 2008 about "sales, marketing and things that drive revenue" that has a short Q&A with Kohs about MyWikiBiz and paid editing for corporations at Wikipedia.

8. Welcome to MyWikiBiz! http://www.mywikibiz.com/Main_Page - This is self-published source that doesn't contain any information about Kohs at all - not even his name (though it is a link to the business that he started).

9. A Whois lookup on the wikipediocracy.com domain name. http://www.whois-search.com/whois/www.Wikipediocracy.com This is not an acceptable source for a "BLP" ever, certainly not to either provide biographical information about the subject, nor to establish "notablity" in Wikipedia parlance.

10. The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16#48 Apparently a link to a book that makes no mention of Kohs at all, although it does mention MyWikiBiz in two paragraphs within its 14 chapters.

11. Newspapers abound in cyber resources http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SAEC&p_theme=saec&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAFE7E10DB1886F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

an article, apparently carried in the san antonio express news, from 1997 that mentions kohs in passing as the writer of an "e-zine."

12. CT in you clinical practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15461297

Links to an abstract of a survey of radiologists which Kohs co-authored. Biogrphical information? Zippo.

13. what's wrong with accepting money to write on Wikipedia. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/technology/whats-wrong-with-accepting-money-to-write-on-wikipedia-469640/

This is in fact the same AP story as source 1, just with a different headline. (Misusing and attributing wire stories this way is a very common tactic on Wikipedia that few notice).

14/15/16. All are articles written by Kohs, not about Kohs (not even autobiographical). For instance - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/

17. A Foxnews.com article about Wikipedia and porn that quotes Kohs. Once. No biographical info. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/

So to recap: None of "sources" provided treat Kohs in depth. Sources 3,4 6 and 7 are blogs that mention him briefly, only in connection to MyWikiBiz. Source 1 is the only mainstream news source of the 10, exclusively about MyWikiBiz thing in 2007. Sources 2 and 10 and 11 and 17 are passant mentions (10 is so passant it doesn't mention him at all). Source 5 is a press release that mentions Kohs only briefly. Source 8 is a link to his site that does not mention him at all. Source 9 is a "Whois" lookup about a domain registration. Source 13 is not a new source (identical to source 1, just made to look like an additional source).Dan Murphy (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Biographies of living people often focus on what makes the individual notable. Discussion of the subject's hobbies, family or day job may needlessly violate privacy. In this case, the subject is primarily notable as a pioneer of the steadily growing paid WP editing industry. That is the main focus of the article, as it should be. The independent sources discuss this in some depth. The site that criticizes Wikipedia also serves a valuable purpose, and is given due mention by independent sources. Some of his work is quoted, but this is not the essence of the article. Removing the article on the basis of "I don't like it" would indeed be bias. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that hobbies, etc. is private, irrelevant, and non-notable information. But since Dan Murphy's response discusses at length the problems that the article has with sourcing, your accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is nonsensical. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The independent sources give a fair view of what makes the subject notable, not in terms of where or whether he went to kindergarten, but in terms of his important contributions to the evolution of the internet. Obviously he has sometimes taken a position that will be unwelcome to some editors. We should be careful to discount that in making the notability decision. The NBC article would in itself be sufficient to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obviously we should discount that in making the notability decision. But you bringing that up in response to Dan Murphy implies that he is guilty of expressing that sort of opinion, and I don't believe his post does that. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Greg wants to have this article deleted then Keep but if he wants to have it kept then Delete. Wait, no. I got that backwards. If he wants it kept Keep if he wants it deleted Deleted. Unless he's misrepresenting his intentions. In that case if he says he wants it deleted then he must mean he wants it kept hence delete. And if he says he wants it kept then he must surely want to have it deleted hence, keep. Whoa, that's wrong also, I had you there for a second. Obviously if he wants it deleted he would try to put the article as far away from himself as possible. I'm a Wikipediocracy member hence my proximity to the vote is relevant. So reverse it. Pretend Kohs is delete => real Kohs is keep => Wikipediocracy must vote keep. I think. Unless... he anticipated that voters here would anticipate that in which case... if he says delete then we must keep but only if Wikipediocracy is staffed by Australians. Because Australians are originally criminals, hence Wikipediocracy is populated by ex-criminals. And you can never trust ex-criminals hence if a member of Wikipediocracy such as myself believes that Kohs wants to have the article deleted but says he wants it kept but anticipates that voters here will believe he wants it kept when he wants it deleted... then obviously a Wikipediocracy member such as myself is not reliable and the case must be that if Greg Kohs wants the article deleted but says he wants it kept but anticipates that voters here will believe he wants it kept when he wants it deleted but a Wikipediocracy member states that it must be the case that Greg Kohs wants the article kept but says he wants it deleted but anticipates that voters here will believe he wants it deleted when he wants it kept, then obviously obviously the opposite of whatever I just said is true. Except that criminals are people who are used to not being trusted so they often say the opposite of what they really believe. So the only possible answer is .... what in the world can that be!??!!?
Anyway. Really delete it. Or better yet waste a whole amount of time arguing about stupid stuff some more. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closure on an AfD is generally binary: keep or delete. It could be accompanied by a comment that there seems to be support for a merge. This next step could then be discussed on the talk page by interested editors, and if agreed implemented in the way that was agreed. Merge is done when the subject article has no chance of becoming non-trivial and the subject is part of the target, like an island in an archipelago or a subsidiary of a parent company. The merged content becomes a section in the target. A redirect is to an article with an alternate name for the subject, or to an article section that discusses the subject. I don't see either applying, but that can be discussed separately. This discussion is over whether the information should be purged from Wikipedia.
To make an unrelated point, I consider that Mr. Kohs has made significant contributions to the evolution of the web, which is why I started the article. But without wanting to imply any lack of respect, I would say that at this stage in his career he is at the lower end of notability according to Wikipedia criteria. If he asks for the article to be deleted it should be deleted. If not, it should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, it is very clear at the AfD page that merge is a viable result of an AfD. The problem is that so many people are stuck in the keep/delete battle mentality to the point that rational middle paths are rarely considered and often ignored once suggested. You are also wrong about when merges or redirects are appropriate. Articles about people are often merged into or redirected to articles about groups or events with which the person is associated, even if there is no section for that person in those articles.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDA is quite right, AfDs result in merges or redirects all the time. Aymatth2, you need to improve your understanding of the process. — Scott • talk 12:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" is a reasonable outcome if it is obvious how it will be accomplished, usually when all the content of the source article can be comfortably fitted into the target article. Examples would be a description of an island in an archipelago, an album by a rock band, a subsidiary of a parent company. In this case, much of the biographical information would not really be appropriate in the article on the company. The decision on how much to merge and how much to drop would be controversial. Better to first gain agreement through the requested merge process. On the other hand, MyWikiBiz seems to be a one-person company and could reasonably be merged into this article. Most of that article is about Kohs, and nothing would have to be dropped. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A single-purpose account making a point about other stuff the nom has created. Nothing to do with the article subject. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Question: Why did Gamaliel nominate this particular article for deletion? What was his motivation? Reason I ask is because Gamaliel found it important enough to create Wikipedia's article about Lavabit. That article really concedes that even though Lavabit was launched in 2004, it was never notable for anything until July 2013, when "it was revealed that Edward Snowden was using the Lavabit email". In fact, if you look at all of the references used to support Lavabit's coverage prior to Snowden, Wikipedia points to several archived screen shots of Lavabit's old website, to Alexa.com, and to an incredibly flimsy "source" called Possibility.com. That's our standard for reliable sourcing to establish notability? So, do I have this straight -- Gamaliel feels that Lavabit should be enshrined in Wikipedia because it became notable because one notable person once used it famously? But, a biography about Gregory Kohs should not be kept, because Kohs became notable because he interacted with one notable website and used it famously? If we have an article about Lavabit, where is Wikipedia's independent article about White Ford Bronco, Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, or Schleicher Intimus 007 S? Now, this question will get shouted down with various "don't attack the nominator" complaints, but really... why does Gamaliel display two different standards for notability in Wikipedia? If it weren't for Snowden, would we have an article about Lavabit? What makes Lavabit notable -- provably notable -- if it weren't for Snowden? - Q for G (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasons are stated above. My motivation was based on the fact that in the past, critics of Wikipedia like Mr. Kohs have objected to having Wikipedia articles at all, due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, etc., so I was interested in eliminating a potential WP:BLP issue. You are welcome to disagree, of course. I don't much care one way or the other. This is a pretty minor matter. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think his business is clearly notable although as an individual it's a close call with respect to GNG. Merge what needs to be merged if this ends Delete. No opinion on notability here but my opinion of my erstwhile nemesis has evolved over the years. I think he's swell. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I agree that it makes sense to merge the two articles, but it is easiest to merge the article on the company into the one on the person. I have roughly merged all the content from the MyWikiBiz article into Gregory Kohs. The expanded article holds together as a discussion of the internet activity that has made Kohs notable. I can't see a merge in the other direction working. Most of the well-sourced material in the MyWikiBiz article is in fact about Kohs, and does not belong in a discussion of the company. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that User:Dan Murphy quickly reverted the addition of material. I have restored it. The material added is from MyWikiBiz, and is sourced. Whether these sources are good can be discussed separately. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has done it again! Surely efforts to improve an article during an AfD by adding relevant, well-sourced material is encouraged? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The version that Dan Murphy so strongly objects to is here. Looks good to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE if there's sufficient reason to believe that the subject wants the article deleted.
A) User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek are WO (Wikipediocracy) regulars, and so associates of the subject and admirers I gather. As such, it's reasonable to consider then as spokesmen for the subject. Obviously the subject himself is not going to come here and request deletion -- he can't, actually -- so heeding the thoughts of his associates is the closest thing we're going to get to knowing the subject's wishes, I think. I'd like to hear from other WO regulars such as User:Tarc to confirm (or refute) this, but as it stands its reasonable to assume that User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek speak for the subject. And even if not, since the subject hates the Wikipedia, it's reasonable to assume that he wouldn't want an article here. And we should err on the side of caution in BLP matters.
B) If its accepted that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is in play, then we should certainly honor it, because the subject is only marginally notable and is clearly not "well-known" or a "public figure", which are the criteria for honoring a BLPREQUESTDELETE. He might seem well-known to us in the world of Wikipedia but he's not well-known in the world at large.
If WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is not in play, then he's probably notable enough, but I would still suggest possibly considering a WP:IAR delete on the grounds that hosting the article is just too much of a long-term headache (constant watching, having to engage with people who hate the Wikipedia (which is tiresome), AfD's, vandalism, edit warring (there's one going on right now at the article), neither "side" ever being happy with the article, the danger of libel being committed during these heated discussions and the possibility of litigation being initiated for this or some other reason, and so on) for the very small encyclopedic value of retaining what really is a quite marginal article. It's a net loss for the Wikipedia, which is why WP:IAR comes into play. IIRC we've deleted articles on this basis once or twice in the past. Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is sensible advice. I have changed my vote to "Delete". There is a good chance the subject objects to the article, and anyway keeping it is not worth the hassle. Should MyWikiBiz also be deleted on the same grounds? It is largely a discussion of Kohs and his battles with Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is right (see below). I don't like getting dragged into an edit war, but still... The article should be kept and expanded by merging in MyWikiBiz, as shown in this version Aymatth2 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting "Herostratus:" "User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek are WO (Wikipediocracy) regulars, and so associates of the subject and admirers I gather. As such, it's reasonable to consider then as spokesmen for the subject." Can't speak for Marek. However, your assumptions about who I "admire" or are my "associates" are completely false. Your statement "It's reasonable to consider them as spokesmen for the subject" is completely idiotic and unreasonable. As unreasonable and illogical as suggesting that I am an associate of and spokesman for Jimmy Wales (or you) simply because we all contribute in one way or another to this website.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There's no need to be insulting. I'm trying my best to help work this out, OK? I'll grant all that you say (without necessarily agreeing with it), but I still contend that, given the totality of what's been posted and my take on the overall vibe, it's reasonable to act as if WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is in play, especially if we want to interpret it liberally, which I think it'd be in the spirit of WP:BLP to do.
I call on the person closing this discussion to address this and describe whether she considered WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to be in play and if not why not, and if she doesn't do this I wouldn't consider it necessarily a fully-considered and valid close.
Incidentally, to my other point: the page is on my watchlist, and engaging editors on that article means being called "completely idiotic and unreasonable" and a lot worse. This is tiresome and wearies the soul, and wastes time that could be spent on more pleasant pursuits such as attending a shabby bear-baiting demonstration in the parking lot behind an abandoned shopping mall outside Franklin, New Hampshire -- or really, most anything else. But somebody has to do it. If my fellow editors would spare me and my similarly-situated colleagues this task, it would be a kindness. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources would be sufficient for anyone unconnected with WP., and the article is as it should be primarily concerned with the public aspects of his life. Deleting this is a abject and disgraceful surrender , a foolish admission that WP is incapable of editing on controversial BLP subjects. That's what our enemies try to say. NPOV is meaningless when it translates as NPOV only up to the point where it become difficult. Freedom from censorship is meaningless if we self-censor because we think it's too hard to be objective. .If we are not capable of editing something, the solution is to become capable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you feel that this subject does not qualify for WP:BLPDELETE ? Tarc (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, do you? As to your point, bleh. I've seen you do this before DGG -- I've nominated articles for deletion based on that fact that they're a mess a and always will be a mess, and you're like "Well, the solution is to fix it then" and years and years later they're still a mess and probably will be forever. It's not clear to me how that helps the project. It's easy to say "Keep, and let other editors take care of it" you know. Are you gonna engage on this article DGG? Bleh. Look, there are some things we can do well and some we can't, and knowing what one can and cannot do well is functional. Hosting an article on the particular individual Mr Gregory Kohs is one of the things we can't do well. Declining to host one article when we can't do it well does not render the rest of work here meaningless, that we can't host other controversial BLP articles, that we're abject surrender monkeys, or any of that. Functional organizations need to be able to calmly evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of carrying an item and casting this as a rerun of Horatio At The Bridge is not the way to look at this, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Gregory Kohs has a problem with either article he just has to click the Contact Wikipedia link at the foot of any page, including this one, and explain his concern. I don't see how WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play until he does that. Both articles seem neutral and both have been around for a while. Neither are high-maintenance. There was the usual flurry of changes when this one was started in June 2013, then nothing until this AfD was started. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make it sound so simple, like this is a routine, man-off-the-street individual, but it really isn't given the history of acrimony with Jimbo and other Wikipedia dwellers. The subject believes that if he expresses a desire for its deletion, it'd attract a small horde of editors who'd want to keep it out of spite; to call for retention would make the horde vote to delete. You're under the impression that this is a simple and straightforward online encyclopedic matter, but it really isn't. At the end of the day we have an article about a guy with a small online business who has given a smattering of interviews about it. The sum of human knowledge won't be dented if the Wikipedia does not provide information about Kohs. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I started the article, think the subject is interesting, and would like to expand it to something like this version, which gives more well-sourced information. For all I know, Gregory Kohs would like that too: a lot of people would love to have a bio in Wikipedia. I can't see anything offensive about the article, and it has not attracted a horde of spiteful editors. This discussion does not seem to be moving towards consensus, so by default the article will be kept. But If Gregory Kohs expresses concern by email, that can get passed to an admin who can close this as "requested deletion, no consensus, delete". Simple. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well if this is your threshold for notability, there's not much more one can say. If you want a true challenge though, look through the archives of the Daniel Brandt deletion discussions. If you could get that article recreated, that'd be quite an impressive notch on the wiki-headboard. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (no redirect please) and merge one or two well-sourced facts into the business article, for colour. Not enough significant coverage in multiple independent sources that aren't addressing the business. This is Wikipedia gazing at itself. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dan Murphy's comprehensive analysis of the sources and the outcome of the last three AfDs. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency to have an inflated view of the notability of Wikipedia-related topics, such as the Wiki Wiki Shuttle, that I think is on display here. I'm sure many of us get really worked up about Wikipediocracy, but the purpose of this project is to be an encyclopedia to the world, not to our own parochial concerns. Leave the internet navel-gazing to the Daily Dot. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gregory_Kohs_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1151017680"