User talk:Felix QW

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi Felix QW! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! --Kmhkmh (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for the warm welcome! Very kind of you! Felix QW (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The armour formula[edit]

Hi Felix, I read your comment about deletion of the armour formula page. And I agree with you. I searched for very long time and asked in multiple mathematical forums what the formula was called in English, but no one seemed to really know. Later I talked with a French who knew what the name was in French and thereby I found the English name and I discovered that it already existed on Wikipedia. Feel free to delete the article. With that said, I think many of the differential pages need to get a Simplified English version; it's pretty hard for the beginner/intermediate person to understand many of the pages as they are on a very high academic level that are abstract. Even myself who had differential equations at university have a pretty hard time understanding the mathematical notation (because they are written as "proofs" and not as "formulas". Thank you for some good research. Benj5378 (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Inverse function rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inverse. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to user pages and sandboxes[edit]

Information icon Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Fixed-point logic. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm very sorry, that was clearly unintentional. Will double-check in the future, promise! Felix QW (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The language of closure[edit]

Hi Felix QW, I see that you contribute in maths and are also interested in logic. That's good, because I think I can approach my question for you about the language of closure via the side door of logic in language, in particular negation. To get right to the point: I was interested in the wording of your closure of the merger discussion at Talk:Politics of France, where you said, "closed with no consensus to merge". However, looking at the arguments and the lop-sided tally, I think I might have said, "closed with consensus not to merge". Because of the position of the negative particle before the noun or before the verb, this pair of expressions mean very different things to me: the latter conveys two things: 1. we have a consensus, and 2. the consensus is "do not merge"; the former says to me, 1. we do not have a consensus. I wonder what your thoughts are about this. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Mathglot,
Thank you for your message! I completely agree that no consensus to merge is not the same as consensus not to merge; this was one of the first merge proposals I closed, and I followed closely the precedent of other closures I saw on Wikiproject merge. When I close merge discussions now I am more specific on the closing statement.
That being said, I think that logically no consensus to merge is also not the same as a "no consensus (whether to merge)", but merely the negation of "consensus to merge", leaving open whether there is consensus "not to merge". So in that sense the closing statement leaves that open, finding merely that since consensus to merge has not been reached, no merge is to take place. Felix QW (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is my Reference Valid[edit]

Dear Felix QW,

I am working on an article called the 'List of Mathematical uses of Latin letters' and I am not sure if reference number 9 is valid. I have come to you because you are an active mathematician and you thanked me for an edit on this article. If you could help me out, I would be very pleased! Kabiryani (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Kabiryani,
Thank you very much for your efforts! I admire your tenacity. Unfortunately, I think that the algorithm has chosen a particularly difficult task for you to start out with.
The problem with referencing a list of notation is that it is hard to see what you are looking for sources on. This is because even if a notation is widespread in mathematics, it can be very difficult to find a source saying specifically that it is a common notation. In addition, like in many Wikipedia lists, not every item on this list is particularly well-written. In this particular case, a lot of the mentions are of topics from university mathematics which will mean very little to you.
For all these reasons I would suggest that rather than going through the list one by one and trying to find a reference for every single point, try to find decent and explicit references for the most clear-cut cases (like the physical constants) and then move on to more rewarding work! For instance, I think your last edit from the IUPAC list of constants is brilliant, and the source authoritative.
Just also to answer your question: The MathWorld reference doesn't establish A as a symbol for an Abelian group and I removed it (in fact, it uses it for an element of the group), but I am not sure you will anything better for this entry, so just leave it unsourced until someone has a better idea what to do with it. Felix QW (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Felix QW,
Thank you so much for the advice Felix! I think I will just add all the symbols from the IUPAC list and the Earliest uses of Various Mathematical Symbols website and leave it there for someone more experienced to finish! However, before I leave this article, I would like it to be placed under the scope of the Mathematics WikiProject to be rated. This article would be better suited within Wikiproject Mathematics than WikiProject Writing Systems. I do not know if you have the power to do this but if you do, your help would be greatly appreciated! Kabiryani (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear Felix QW,

I have been looking for someone to adopt me on Wikipedia recently and you have been very helpful and kind to me. If you would like to adopt me please notify me. I'm sure you're very busy so if you would prefer not to become an adopter then you can just remain an informal mentor to me!

Best Regards, Kabiryani (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Kabiryani,
It is difficult to find out what "adoption" actually means - but it seems mainly to involve taking some interest in your progress and answering your questions, both of which I'd be more than happy to do.
Although I am currently a university lecturer in mathematics and computer science, I taught A-Level mathematics and physics at a sixth-form college from 2018 to 2020, so I think I have an idea of what may or may not know.
While I am also very busy, so is everybody, so that shouldn't stand in the way.
So, if you like, we can go ahead and put the "Adoption" stickers on our userpages! Felix QW (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Felix QW,
Thank you so much for adopting me! I am putting the sticker on my user page now. Mathematics, Physics and Computer Science seem to be the most important subjects in modern astronomy so I'll be working on those! It's great to know that I have a university standard mentor! I will also hopefully find some time in the next few weeks, to write my own article! Kabiryani (talk) 08:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, folks. Take a look at Mentorship program. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 14:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rapeseed oil[edit]

Hi, I've done your requested move to Rapeseed oil. Will leave it to you to sort out the redirects and tag, give me a shout if any issues though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! I sorted out what I could see, including also the entries in Vital articles, the navigation box, the list of vegetable oils, and the outline of food preparation. Felix QW (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The WikiProject Merge Barnstar The Merging Barnstar
Thank you so much for yourwork on the WikiProject Merge noticeboard, and the merging of articles. You, and your work, are appreciated. Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 15:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! Your enthusiasm around the whole WikiProject Merge and related endeavours is a great source of inspiration and admiration for me! Felix QW (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Data Mining Process[edit]

Dear Felix QW, I have just added a reference that proposes new data mining process model to the data mining wikipedia article, and I was very surprised that someone keeps deleting it for no reason and by justifying that with self citation.

The data mining article is full with citations to articles that compares the process models rather than proposes new ones, which i belive is less important and can also be accused by self citation. The same applies to the published work and the citation of other reserchers and research groups.

I belive that the reference a new data mining process model is correct and supported by a published journal article published by a reputable publisher (IEEE). If we apply what the other side argue for we need to delete all references to other researches and scientific papers and we can simply everybody with self citation and promoting their own work.

Thank you for considering this point of view and I kindly request reverting the deletion of the reference and preventing others from deleting it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] 

Anti-anxiety medication merger[edit]

Hi, Felix. When you have a chance, if you could weigh in at Talk:Anxiolytic#Merging_from_Anti-anxiety_medication, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Doctormatt (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your post on Talk:Anxiolytic#Merging_from_Anti-anxiety_medication. Personal attacks are really hard, and your post really makes me feel better. Thanks again! Doctormatt (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am really sorry, Matt, that you have to deal with this. In many months of mainly working on page mergers I have never been insulted in such a way before. Thank you again for helping to implement the merger - it is highly appreciated! If you are stressed about any of it, just walk away and let the ordinary editing process run its course. Normally I do carry out the mergers I close, but medicine is one of those topics where I just don't trust myself copying content around without inadvertently falling foul of referencing standards. Felix QW (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Felix. I appreciate the advice. Cheers! DoctorMatt (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you![edit]

The Detective Barnstar
For dogged investigation of Rhodesian/Zimbabwean copyright for Rhodesian banknotes at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 October 1#File:Rhodesia ten shillings 1968.jpg Whpq (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much for the recognition - I really wasn't expecting it! Felix QW (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LendingClub/LendingClub Bank Merger[edit]

Hey there! I'm just stopping by to let you know that I'm planning to put a request in the edit queue about some lingering inaccuracies and redundancies that are on the LendingClub page following the merger of the LC and LC Bank pages. Another editor on the LendingClub Talk page suggested doing that, and it seems like a good idea to me. If you think another course of action would be better, please don't hesitate to leave feedback on that LC Talk page thread. Thanks again for executing the merger in the first place. If you're able to help more going forward, that's great. If not, I totally understand. Cheers! EFlynn at LendingClub (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for helping clear out Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information. Your help is greatly appreciated! Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CCI Question[edit]

Hello. Thank you for helping out at CCI! I was wondering about your edits at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20211215 in regards to the photos. You've made deletion request sections for English Wikipedia and Commons files listed at the CCI. However, I noticed that there doesn't seem to be any deletion requests made by you on either Wikipedia projects about the GFDL files. I was wondering if you had planned to nominate these potential copyvios for deletion but didn't get around to doing so. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your comment! I am a little confused by the instructions in the heading of the CCI page:

There is no need to open a possibly unfree files listing. Administrators may delete images from multiple point infringers presumptively in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Evaluators who are not administrators may section images into a "deletion requested" section for administrator attention.

As the possibly unfree files process does not exist anymore, but is apparently the predecessor to WP:FFD, this sounded to me as if the only action non-admins should do is section the images. Am I missing something? Felix QW (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Those instructions do look out of date. On the latest case, here's what the Files section instructions looked like. I'll ask on Wikipedia:Discord to see which is more recommended: nominating the files themselves or putting them in a Deletion Requested section. There's a dedicated channel to CCI there if you're interested. You can find me and other users there if you wish to join :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333: Any updates regarding the process? Otherwise, I would certainly be happy to open a formal discussion. Felix QW (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't mind a discussion to have the Images section harmonized (older cases and newer cases). The cases after 20211215 seem to be text only. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please could explain why this image is not photographically reproduced? Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure! There are several layers to the copyright of such an image as the magazine cover you posted. In principle, such an image could violate the copyright on:
  1. The photograph of the magazine cover. Generally, however, scans and photographic reproductions of two-dimensional items are considered to lack the modicum of creativity requird to attract their own copyright.
  2. The magazine cover itself. This is protected as a work of literature in the wider sense, as it contains a textual composition.
  3. The photo of the artwork depicted in the magazine cover. Again, as in 1) above, unlikely to attract copyright in the first place.
  4. The artwork itself. This is what I was referring to in my edit summary. The artwork is not a photograph, but a painting, whose copyright in Poland and other countries with copyright terms determined by the year of death of the author is still running. This invalidates it from being moved to Commons, where uploads have to be in the public domain in both the US and the country of origin, but is fine on the English Wikipedia where we only care about the US copyright situation. Therefore it can be used freely on this project without having to comply with the policy on non-free media, but should not be transferred to Commons, where it would be deleted.

I hope this clarifies things, otherwise, please feel free to ask again! Felix QW (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completed move request[edit]

Hello @Felix QW, I have moved the page Mode-k flattening to its older and current title on your request. Please open an RM as advised here by the RfD closer. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Aafi! Just for clarification: Shouldn't the move request be opened by the user who would like to move the page? I really have no opinion other than that the newest title with the misused parenthetical disambiguator was against titling policy. Felix QW (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Felix QW, There are two possible understandings about the closer's comments, that an RM be initiated right away once the RfD was closed by that closer as no-consensus, and as such the request at the RMT should have been declined, contested and converted into a regular RM. However, I have taken the words in a different way and understanding and brought the article title back to its previous shape. In such a case, I'd personally feel the same as you and at the same time, listing this at RfD was something that could have been avoided, and the article title could have been restored by just making an immediate request at RMT. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So should I just open a generic "to ?" RM without a specific target title? I am always happy to help, just unsure what the best policy is here. Felix QW (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TheAafi: Done, see discussion here. I figured that is better than risking escalation to a silly move-war between using different placeholder variables. Felix QW (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credit union central moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Credit union central. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and it needs to be structured correctly. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BoyTheKingCanDance: The page was created as part of a necessary content split from an article which before covered to unrelated concepts under a similar name. Of course, it still needs to be notable as a topic in its own right. Have you performed a search for sources to establish whether they exist? If not, I am sure I will find academic sources to verify the content.
Regarding the structure, what is missing in your opinion for the page to be a standard stub article? Felix QW (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi my friend User:Felix QW, actually it seemed to me to be just a big slab of well-written text, without an obvious lede, even though what you or someone else had written so very well seemed ideal by topics to be divided into sections. This was a secondary reason, and if you look at the draft, you will see that I've tried to create a structure. I haven't changed what you wrote so well. What do you think? Please change it back, or reorganise it in a different way, if you don't like it. The real issue is that too much of the content is unreferenced at this stage. But I am sure you can fix that in five minutes. Let me know if you'd like help. Keep up the great work. You're a credit to Wikipedia. Very best regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got a reply[edit]

Hi. It is me again. In case U haven't noticed yet, I want to remind U that I have replied to your message but under another IP address (I still don't know Y my address keeps hopping).

I can also C that U also accused me of evading blocks. Don't panic, because I am returning to the capital city tomorrow hopefully, meaning that I will find myself blocked under the 197.238::/16, 197.240::/16 and 197.244::/16 ranges.

Again, this is the request I made, which I no longer want it to be answered. (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your message! I have just assumed that this is what happened, since the IP itself was blocked for block evasion. I have no knowledge of the matter, and there was absolutely no accusation of my own intended. I merely saw that the IP making the request had been blocked and therefore there is little point in continuing to process the request. Felix QW (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I am the same person who made the request, and also who has closed it, but under another IP address (again?). I think I will manually archive it, or please can U archive it instead? (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All media requiring a US status confirmation category[edit]

Hello. You might be interested in the backlog at Category:All media requiring a US status confirmation, as you've helped go through copyright in images at CCI. These are also organized at Category:Images with an unknown US copyright status if you want to focus on a specific country. Thank you for the help :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Binary prioritization[edit]

@Macrakis: My apologies for posting this on my talk page, but I am currently abroad until after July 17th and the WiFi at the university I am visiting is blocked from editing anywhere else.

The page name is in fact a bad translation from German and should apparently be called binary priority list. It seems to have been formally described in a 2010 conference paper for which Google Scholar counts 77 citations (Bebensee, T.; van de Weerd, I.; Brinkkemper, S.: Binary Priority List for Prioritizing Software Requirements). To me, that would put it just out of reach of PRODdable territory. Felix QW (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you return, I suggest you move the article to the correct location and rewrite the content, which is currently a mess. --Macrakis (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm moving this discussion to Talk:Binary prioritization. --Macrakis (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Logic programming articles[edit]

Hello Felix QW, We had a discussion at ICLP 2023 last week about the state of the Wikipedia logic programming articles, and what we might do to improve them. Perhaps you could email me privately at my Imperial College address, and we can start a discussion. Of course, we can also discuss it here, to bring in a wider community. Many thanks, Robert Kowalski (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good to hear from you! I am currently sorting out the category tree, so that we see what we actually have in terms of articles. There seem to be quite a lot of concepts covered, but much of it seems to be quite a poor shape.
In particular, Logic Programming is not great as it stands. I updated the Todo list on its talk page with some ideas, but I suspect that the whole endeavour will be a quite a bit of effort. Felix QW (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Felix. I believe that ALP now appreciates that it needs a community effort to improve the LP pages. I will discuss this further with the ALP president, with a view to setting up an ALP-backed working group to agree on the most important changes that are need. It would be great if you could help with this effort, as it seems that no one else in the LP community has your familiarity with Wikipedia criteria and procedures. Thanks again, Robert Kowalski (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My main concern with this approach is that off-wiki coordination is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, and if there are any changes that people object to, any form of concerted effort based on off-wiki coordination will highly likely lead to trouble. I think the best thing to do would be to find a place on Wikipedia where everyone interested in logic programming, including of course anyone from the ALP community, could chime in with their ideas and decide on how to go about implementing any of them.
Unfortunately, I am not quite sure yet where such a centralised place could be. Felix QW (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again, Felix. I have taken your advice, and created a user page and sandbox, in which I have placed a draft replacement for the Prolog section of the article computer program. I would welcome any suggestions and advice before I replace the current section with the proposed draft.Robert Kowalski (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I didn't even notice this section, which is indeed very poor. I also do not understand at all how Prolog has apparently "evolved" to become goal-oriented; to me this is inherent in the resolution procedure at the very heart of what makes Prolog Prolog. Felix QW (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like your draft very much! It is certainly a good overview. It might just be somewhat too long for such a general article. Felix QW (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, it would make a lot of sense at Logic programming#Prolog, which is currently mainly historical and actually quite light on what sets Prolog apart from other logic programming languages. Felix QW (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again, Felix. I have begun to think along the same lines, namely that it is too long for the computer program article. The declarative programming article might be a better place for it, whereas the logic programming article would benefit from a complete rethink. Regarding the declarative programming article, you might like to have a look at this:
and this: Robert Kowalski (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having studied a number of articles, I now propose to extract the gcd part of my draft article, and start a new section in the Algorithm article, just before the Classification section I will remove the subsection labelled "logical" and incorporate it into the new section Robert Kowalski (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)of the Algorithm article. I will see how much of the rest of the draft can fit into the Computer Program, Declarative Programming, and other LP-related articles. Thanks for your help.Robert Kowalski (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like an excellent idea! I have assembled a to-do-list for myself at User:Felix QW/Logic programming, so it looks like we are approaching the issue from opposite ends, me working from the detailed articles up and you down from the high-impact overviews. Felix QW (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Binary priority list for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binary priority list, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary priority list until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]