Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 1 October	3 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Thompson (politician)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. He was a low-level labour leader in Canada, and is now a candidate for political office. Notability not established. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Politicians get notability by winning an election, not just running in one. The cited articles about the petition in Trinidad aren't enough to make him worthy of an article yet. Madg2011 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Magnolia. FUNgus guy (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-elected candidate without WP:GNG established outside of his campaign. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Good references are lacking.Mariah200 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won, but this article is not credibly demonstrating that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy. Being the first black person to be elected leader of a small, not independently notable labour union local is not an instant notability freebie in and of itself in the absence of a WP:GNG-satisfying volume of reliable source coverage — but the sources here are not getting him over GNG, as half of them are primary sources, two of the four that are real media just glancingly mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else, and the other two real media hits don't even mention his name at all, and are here solely as technical verification of stray facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with getting Thompson over a notability criterion. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone else. Andrew Base (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2019 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Kevická

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability (WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 09:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteGood sources are missing. WP:GNG is not established hereMariah200 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2019 (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.

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron A

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

Can't find any reliable sources about this music video director besides credits. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per earlier in the life of this article PRODS. Sadads (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any sources giving significant coverage, so can't see how he passes GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:32, 8 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 08:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mickael Abbate

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

Not finding any real sourcing on this director. Of note is the article was also deleted on the French Wikipedia. Sam Walton (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - since many short films and documentaries appear in the Cannes film festival, they are not all notable. We usually delete articles about film producers, or if needed, redirect their name to their most famous film, which is not relevant here. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2019 (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.

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Hairy Audacious Goal

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

This seems like an unnotable phrase better suited for Wiktionary, full of weasel words, original research, and missing citations. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't appear to be a notable phrase and there isn't any significant use outside of the book that coined the phrase. All the listed "notable examples" don't actually use the phrase Big Hairy Audacious Goal. Maybe merge into to Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. Peacock (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2019 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov

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

This page has already been deleted from the Russian and French Wikipedias, and this article has been tagged as a possible hoax for over a year. Therefore, a discussion is necessary to decide whether it is really a hoax that needs to be deleted. Clearly, there are serious concerns about the verifiability of many aspects of his biography that need to be addressed, as this article itself states in its "Criticism of biographies" section. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in some sense this is just a procedural nomination, given my lack of familiarity with the sources on which this article is based, as well as my lack of a firm position on whether this article should be deleted or not. In other words, in creating this AFD, my main goal is to provide a venue for other editors who understand this issue much better than I do to discuss whether WP:V and other relevant guidelines are adequately met in regards to this biography. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if this discussion is closed as keep, I would like the hoax tag to be removed once and for all. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAMING? There are reasonable doubts about the reliability of most of the information in the article. What else is it if not hoax?·Carn !? 14:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous nomination, nothing has changed since then. The criticism is largely based on WP:OR, particularly an e-mail correspondence with archives and related self-made conclusions. A reliable published secondary source analyzing the validity of claims is required to reach definite conclusions. Brandmeister^talk 09:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this person did exist then he was a notable person, and if not he was a notable fictional character. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether he actually existed or not seems fairly irrelevant when there is a mountain of stuff written about him. As long as that's verifiable then he's notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do not have the time (or even really the ability) to go through the sources and determine if any of them are reliable and significant, deciding that sources are bad and should be discounted is not WP:OR. If wikipedia goes through and determines that every source written about Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is bad because the sources are either contradicting other, established sources about events or because they are patent nonsense, then he should not have an article. If a historian (or, preferable, 2 or 3) does the same thing and publishes an account about it, then he is notable and we can write about it. We don't write articles about the earth not being flat (though we do write them about the earth being round), we write articles about the belief that the earth is flat (possibly with sections on proofs that this belief is wrong) based on other people researching believers and writing about same. Rockphed (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable person as a participant of Resistance. There is a lot of published reliable sources claiming that. There is several paragraphs about him in the book about participation of Azerbaijan in World War II of Garash Madatov, there is an article about Jabrayilov in Azerbaijan Soviet Encyclopedia. And nothing which can proof that he is hoax. Only original research of some Wikipedia users. I visited house-museum of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov in Shaki, had a discussion with the director of the museum, Javanshir Jabrayilov, who is the son of Ahmadiyya, made photos of awards, documents, original photos from France and letters to him. Also Javanshir Jabrayilov gave me all scans of the documents and photographs of Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov. Yes, there are some unclear moments in the biography of Jabrayilov. But it doesn't mean that all biography of Jabrayilov is "Soviet-era hoax". It is normal that there are many unclear moments in the events of World War II. But during the discussion on Russian Wikipedia everybody confirmed that Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov really took part in Resistance. In 1970s he visited France, we can see how really participants of Resistance (Rene Chambar, Louis Lasbareilles etc.) greet him. We can see how they visited memorial for Soviet victims. This visit was also documented in French "Sud Ouest" newspaper, where we can also see a photo of Jabrayilov. According to the article from this newspaper, maqui Jabrayilov was saved from a prison in Montauban while he was the prisoner of the Germans during the war. Later with the maquis of the region, he had to participate in the liberation of Montauban, Toulouse and Rodez. We cannot ignore these facts. We also cannot ignore the fact of the presence of French awards of Jabrayilov in his house-museum (Croix de Guerre, Croix des services militaires volontaires, Insignia for the Military Wounded, Croix du combattant etc.). Médaille militaire we can see only in the historical photos, which Jabrayilov brought from France[1][2] (as his son said to me this medal was taken from him in Moscow in 1966, when Jabrayilov was invited to greet Charles de Gaulle). French Caserne Bernadotte^[fr] archive also officially confirmed Jabrayilov's participation in the Resistance movement[3]. In 2016 a plaque with the portrait of Jabrayilov was unveiled in front of the Mausoleum of Cabertat, close to Montauban[4]. So, according to the rules of Wikipedia, Ahmadiyya Jabrayilov is really notable as a participant of Resistance to have an article about him in Wikipedia. Interfase (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, and dare i say, WP:ANYBIO as an enduring part of the historical record (ie. national hero or example of postwar propaganda), that the articles on other WPs have been deleted are not a reason for deletion, in this case due to the generation of reports/discussions about this, it actually contributes to his wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lot of info. Appears to pass WP:GNG. But may require proper cleanup to suit wiki.Mariah200 (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename like ru:Миф о Джебраилове as The myth of Jabrayilov per Not the hero: what is the use of debunking "de Gaulle's personal friend". Demand "if this discussion is closed as keep, I would like the hoax tag to be removed once and for all" is inadequate. See Warsaw concentration camp case - states (be it the USSR or Poland) have many resources to turn myths into documented "reality". However, you should not allow Wikipedia to be used for this. It is against WP:EXCEPTIONAL. A lot of information in the article is given according to sources representing either Soviet or Azerbaijani propaganda. Information from Wikipedia articles diverges into a thousand places and then these places will be used to “confirm” the lies written on Wikipedia.·Carn !? 12:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article should not stress it's Wikipedia history so much, too much of this is about the deletion of Russian version. The sources for this are sparse. Unfortunately, majority of coverage is not in English, and worse, some of it is in Cyrillic so it means it's hard to search for people who don't use this alphabet. I think this can remain, with the lead containing the warning some have disputed the veracity of this issue. Hopefully one day a proper scholar, at least, a journalist who publishes in English, will tackle this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Russian case is an informative example for general public about how Wikipedia works. This is useful for promoting Wikimedia values (which is very important task) and the whole sourced article is notable. Also for "this page has already been deleted from the Russian and French Wikipedias" — Russian one has new version. --ssr (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2019 (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.

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of films created with Davinci Resolve

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

This seems like trivia and a way to promote DaVinci resolve. A random sampling of 20 or so of the articles listed make no mention of DaVinci Resolve either. Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it fails WP:NOTESAL. Wikipedia should only have such lists if reliable sources have published the same topical kind. That does not appear to be the case here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are 1000 or more block busters, they would all end up on this list as they would have articles, and it would be ridiculous in size. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are plenty of examples given at DaVinci Resolve#Media produced using DaVinci Resolve, so this could just be redirected there. I'm inclined to think that section is sufficient and a standalone, exhaustive list is unnecessary and excessive. postdlf (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that use of the software contributed to the "award winning" or "blockbuster" characteristics of the films.--Pontificalibus 15:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, would a category be appropriate for this? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any encyclopedic value, it would be like having Category:Movies projected in movie theatres using NEC DLP Cinema projectors. Besides, such obscure tech trivia is rarely mentioned in the articles.----Pontificalibus 12:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The category version of this would need to meet WP:CATDEF. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks to above editors for explanation. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2019 (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.

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 and redirect to Pokémon (anime). Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon (2019 anime)

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

First of all, it has not been confirmed that this is a separate anime. It could easily well as be just the 23rd season of the 1997-present anime. There's also little sources and refs on the article at all. The page also describes this new "anime" as being a soft reboot, when nothing about that has been confirmed. It's too early to determine if this is a new anime or just the 23rd season of the current anime. Until then, this page shouldn't exist and should be merged with the 1997 anime page. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, drafting this page would be great too, in case this anime does turn out to be separate. But for now, we don't know that. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid confusion, I mean "anime" as in the whole anime, not the individual "seasons" or "series". The latter of which I think the "new anime" is. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and WP:SALT to Pokémon (anime) as there is a concern of this being recreated given how large the fan base is. That being said, I feel it is safe to redirect this to the anime article (where there is a mention) until more information is known. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. WP:TOOSOON as we don't even have a footage from the anime. Every coverage it has gotten so far is WP:ROUTINE teaser/announcement/first look. Does not meet WP:GNG which requires indepth coverage in reliable secondary sources. The topic is very likely to be notable, but not right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2019 (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.

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 speedy delete. Speedy as G5 StarM 21:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crewe Railroad Museum

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

This small museum does not meet notability guidelines. There does not appear to be any significant coverage in independent sources - there is little more than directory listings mentioning it. It's Yelp page, for example, has zero reviews. I'm not sure it is even a viable organization - it cannot even maintain its own website: http://www.crewerailroadmuseum.org has been taken over by someone selling granite tiles. Peacock (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find indepth/significant reliable sources on this subject, sources that have been found have mentions only ie. "For example there’s the Crewe Railroad Museum and NS still has a small yard there...", i note that all the information contained in this article is at Attractions#Crewe, Virginia, comfortable with this given the historical importance of the railroad to that town. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G5, creator is a known sock. Cards84664 (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (toy line)

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

Non-notable toy line. The article is just an unneeded toy catalogue. TTN (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate list of toys, that can easily be mentioned in passing on the main movie page somewhere._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:15, 3 October 2019 (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.

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 redirect to List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2009#April. Sandstein 18:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MV Sea Horse

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

Aside from a bit of routine coverage when hijacked, there's nothing that indicates to me this rises above WP:NOTNEWS. Madness ^Darkness 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Madness ^Darkness 16:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per NOTNEWS. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2009#April. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2019 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 23:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia at the 2020 Summer Olympics

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Consider draftifying until a more recent date. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ethiopians athletes qualified to the 2020 Summer Olympics Games in the athletics discipline. Nimrodbr (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as @Nimrodbr: said, Ethiopian comptitors have qualified in the athletics with Samuel Tefera and Habitam Alemu both qualifying and is expect to be more athletes being revelaed for this nation. HawkAussie (talk) 01:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: the 2020 Olympics are next year. I would be extremely surprised if Ethiopia didn't send athletes to them. However, this article cites no sources and I didn't find any on a very cursory search. I will reevaluate if somebody puts forth sources (or even suggests a good set of search terms for finding sources). Rockphed (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ethiopia is clearly going to be very notable at the 2020 Olympics. I'd expect the article to be eventually fixed and improved along the way. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what's the point of deleting if at some point it will have to be created again? Gianluca91 (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ethiopian runners will almost certainly participate in the notable event to be held in less than 12 months from now, particularly finals of long-distance events. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2019 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Socks or not, almost nobody wants to delete this. Sandstein 08:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devid Naryzhnyy

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does meet #7 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. Skaters who qualify to the Junior Grand Prix Final can be presumed to have the ability to compete in the free skate at the World Junior Championships (criteria #2 at WP:NSKATE; only 6 teams can qualify to JGPF whereas 20 ice dance teams would compete in the free dance. Articles have been created for skaters at similar points in their skating career (i.e. qualified to JGPF, but have not yet competed at World Junior Championships) without being flagged for deletion; for example, Avonley Nguyen / Vadym Kolesnik. Sunnyou31 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep What’s going on? This is ridiculous. I don’t know why it has to be deleted ...... but whatever you do with it, somehow they will compete Junior World Championships 3months later. It’s waste of time to discuss about this. I don’t get why onel5969 insisting on this. There are many figure skaters’s creation made like this and I never saw the discussions of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonibyjourne (talk • contribs) 04:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Struck, a blocked WP:NOTHERE user. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- — Jonibyjourne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep well.I guess the user who made this discussion misunderstood about

Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability. WP:NSKATE clearly says : “For notability guideline for ‘all’ figure skating-related subjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability.” So it does meet #7 Skaters who qualify to the Junior Grand Prix Final.

Another Figure Skater Kamila Valieva she is also qualified for JGP final and never competed at Junior World Championship but her page is valid. Anna Shcherbakova when she was only competed Juior grandprix series her page was made and I dont recall any suggestion of deletion either. Lee Hae-in(figure skater) and Andrei Mozalev never qualified junior grandprix final and never competed JWC.

Just go watch 2019–20 ISU Junior Grand Prix Final qulified skaters names. I think figure skating fans have a right to know about who the skater is when skater is about to compete at JGP final.
Junior Grand prix final is even hard to qualify than JWC in FS world. It is really common who never competed at Finals but competing JWC multiple times. Guess original standard of wikipedia is a bit awkard anyway. Think I should suggest a revise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoniiieei (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Yoniiieei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Considering Elizaveta Shanaeva and Devid Naryzhnyy team’s qualifing Junior Grand Prix final for 1-1 it’s obvious they will be selected for Junior World Championships which is few months later.

Both Junior World Championship and Junior Grand Prix Final is the biggest event in figure skating considering they are the only 2 international competition giving points in Junior league. (it is counted for world ranking of figure skate) Also if Junior world championship is a only standard for deletion, they should consider qualified for Junior Grand prix “final” in first place. This is even more difficult to qualify than Junior World Championship. Have no idea why it isnt in the list. Maybe they only thought Junior Grand Prix series not final. 🤷‍♀️ My point is every year who qualified for JGP final, they were almost the same person who became top 3 of JWC(unless they got injured and drop the competition). if you cant believe me you can check the list from here. ISU Junior Grand Prix Final and World Junior Figure Skating Championships . Go and watch “medalist” of ice dancers. Deleting this article is only a waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanaones (talk • contribs) 06:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Joanaones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I did manage to find one independent source: [5].4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has been suggested to me that there may be substantial sockery here, which I didn't initially notice. Upon closer inspection, I agree this is likely, so I've backed out my close and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Qualifying for the JGP Final is more significant than qualifying for the free skate at Junior Worlds, especially as they did so with two gold medals.CaptainCanada (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - closer, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizaveta Shanaeva.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- for the record, my problem to be suspected as sockery (requested by user:Onel5969 has been solved by administrator. As my efforts to prove with reliable sources leaded to negative effect on previous article i will stay out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanaones (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- please consider most of users voted on ‘keep’ has many histories contributed to put sources on figureskating related articles, so it is presumed they have sufficient backgrounds. On the contrary, user voted ‘delete’ at AFD about Elizaveta Shanaeva and users put flagged on this article has no history contributing on figureskating related articles. They simply have lots of histories on managing wikipedia in general grounds. Also I remember onel5969 told me user doesnt know anything about figure skating when we had a personal discussions. It is not wrong users not having acquaintances on figureskating! for sure! but discussing and make consensus about notability has to be judged by “facts” that can be proved with decent common acquaintaces on the Sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoniiieei (talk • contribs) 23:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Figure_Skating/Notability#Notability_of_individuals: #7 ("Won a Junior Grand Prix event or qualified to the Junior Grand Prix Final.") should have been included at WP:NSKATE. Skaters who win gold at a JGP event are among a very small, select group of the top junior skaters in the world. This accomplishment is just as, or even more prestigious, than bullet #3 (Competed in the free skate at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships) which is included at WP:NSKATE. Also, Shanaeva/Naryzhnyy are #19 on the ISU season's best list (which is composed of international scores from both senior and junior events). That means S/N are competitive with notable senior skaters.

http://www.isuresults.com/isujsstat/sb2019-20/sbtsdto.htm Hergilei (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Qualifying for the JGP Final should have been included here WP:NSKATE. Junior figure skaters should have a somewhat similar notability rules than what Junior gymnasts have there.

Junior gymnasts are presumed notable if they meet any of the criteria below

Won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: USA, Russia, China, Romania (females only)
Won an individual gold medal, in the junior division, at an elite international competition*
Won an individual medal at the Youth Olympic Games or Junior World Championships

Athletics99 (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2019 (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.

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 redirect to .Feast. Sandstein 18:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hindia (singer)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Although there are sources covering the subject, the coverage is not in depth and more focusses on the band (from my interpretation of the sources, which are in another language, which I don't know). I don't see any indication of notability that allows this to be a stand alone article to the band. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to .Feast. Per WP:CHEAP and the coverage presented in the article. This singer is not adequately notable. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there's too little available about this singer. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2019 (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.

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 rename to Death of Elizabeth Shin. Nearly all !voters seem to agree that the information contained with-in has elements of an event. The consensus, even taking into account delete !voters who might not have revisted the discussion and thus might feel differently, seems to be that while it is an event, it is a notable event. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Shin

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

Classic case of WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. While her death was tragic, she does not meet requirements for an article. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; a tragic accident, but neither the student, the event, or the lawsuit stemming from it rise above routine news coverage. TJRC (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but WP:NOTMEMORIAL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per everyone else.Andrew Base (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The accident is heart breaking, but neither the girl nor the event satisfy the conditions . Nikoo.Amini (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm going to go against the grain here a bit on this one but I think while the person herself doesn't meet notability requirements, the situation and following coverage may. A quick Google related to the Shin v MIT lawsuit suggests that it may have been a notable enough event, with coverage continuing even in 2017. However I agree with above the Elizabeth herself is not notable enough. I would support a move to Shin vs Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a minor reorganization and addition of info to fit the title. I see that even recent suicides at MIT reference back to this case in news coverage. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 07:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Keep - The fire was definitely notable, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Please bear in mind that WP:BIO1E states that if we had an article about this incident, then this page should be deleted and redirected to that article. But since we don't have such a page, this article is appropriate. So from a policy standpoint, the only two options I can see are (1) rework this to be a page about the incident or (2) keep. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 14:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The fire and its subsequent lawsuit were both notable. A single article either titled after the fire or after the lawsuit would be encyclopedic. Obviously any biographical information about Ms. Shin outside of that context would need to be removed.4meter4 (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Death of Elizabeth Shin. This event and its aftermath have attracted significant, persistent coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. That's what this article is actually about, anyway, despite its title. The only biographical details it contains are reasonable background material. Madness ^Darkness 16:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ordinarily this would call for deletion - while the counterarguments against the WP:BIO1E-based deletion are well taken, most people also consider WP:NOTNEWS a problem and having a lot of sources does not automatically invalidate that concern - but as it is only a headcount carries the delete argument and all non-deletes came in the last few days; thus relisting in case that there was a shift in consensus underway during the last few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is an MIT problem, not an Elizabeth Shin problem, having read the article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep. Per My Name is Madness. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 16:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep per some others. Sustained coverage overpowers WP:NOTNEWS. ミラ P 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I oppose the new proposal to keep and rename. If we are now evaluating this as an event rather than a biography, then WP:LASTING applies. No one has identified a lasting effect of her death.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A 2017 article referenced back to this case stating "A Massachusetts trial court judge ruled in 2005 that an MIT housemaster and dean could be held responsible for the death of a woman who lit herself on fire in her dorm room." and this 2018 article references the Shin case saying "The suicide of Elizabeth Shin at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2000, and the lawsuit that followed, prompted colleges and universities to engage in vigorous suicide-prevention efforts." Only a quick 5 minute Google search so I'm sure there's more out there. Also there was similar wide coverage of the suicide of Han Nguyen and following lawsuit at MIT, nyt, globe, reuters etc etc which I absolutely think could be put into a combined article here. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename, meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT with plenty of sources covering/discussing this, Shin's death has led to significant and lasting changes in US educational institutions (as brought out by a number of editors above), agree that Death of Elizabeth Shin is an appropriate title for this article. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as suggested, since the consequences have had lasting changes.Djflem (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E. Just having14 sources and concerning a well known educational institution does not make it an encyclopedic article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per My Name is Madness. Bookscale (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MightyCall

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

Does not meet the rather high bar that is WP:NCORP, coverage is limited to press releases and routine funding coverage. I previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by the initial editor who made some neutrality edits but did not address the fundamental issue of inadequate sourcing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - likely covert advertising about yet another unremarkable startup. MER-C 17:17, 6 October 2019 (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.

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 redirect to Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. Sandstein 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Medicine of Sorocaba

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG. It is rare for individual faculties to be notable. Not seeing anything here that suggests this should have a stand alone article. Should be redirected to parent university. Prod declined a while back, so AfD is the next step. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if this is a graduate-level med school (it's not entirely clear from the article); Wikipedia tends to have articles on such institutions including the Pritzker School of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, etc. Delete if it's simply a division of an undergrad college, though, those don't tend to be notable. I do think that the article needs to be cleaned up if it's kept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that a faculty that awards PhDs (or Masters!) is inherently notable, if so, most universities would have dozens of subarticles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo. University departments do not normally get their own articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. As Kudpung already said, it is rare for university departments to get seperate articles. Luke (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2019 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Eight States

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

This page has existed for over a decade, but I'm not sure it refers to a term that is actually used. There are a few mentions in running text, but also "Big Seven" and "Big Nine" are used at least as frequently. Google results show more references to the old Big Eight Conference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not particularly common or well-known, it is cited in a significant way in the Congressional Record,[6] the scholarly paper "Status of preservice elementary science education in the Big Eight States: A comparison with New England", at least one book,[7] etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except the book reference includes Massachusetts and not Texas, and the scholarly paper refers to Data were collected from those states which have Big Eight schools, namely Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. (These will be referred to as Big Eight states throughout the remainder of the paper.) - a completely different topic of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - So there are a couple of definitions of the term and the article needs to be expanded/overhauled. The other two sources (I couldn't access the full paper because it was behind a paywall) are consistent and discuss the Big Eight in a political context. The Florida Department of Children and Families proudly states it is "#1 among Big Eight States for overall Child Welfare performance",[8] and the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services includes the sunshine state (in a footnote).[9] There's also apparently a third, international "Big Eight States" involved with the non-proliferation of weapons.[10][11][12] Clarityfiend (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it is irrelevant whether the "Big Seven" or the "Big Nine" are notable or not. The sports definition, on the other hand, can join its counterparts in the article. (Now if we could only scrounge up four more ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've rewritten the article to incorporate these various meanings. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's now a useful article on various uses of the term in different publications. It's well referenced. Passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry's topic seems quite notable and relevant. The actual name of the concept may vary between "big seven states" and "big nine states", however, many notable topics do not enjoy a consensus for their name and true meaning as many concepts are arbitrary and greatly debated over. This entry could use some expansion but seems to be okay otherwise.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2019 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surpura

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

not notable per WP:NGEO, no refs, no real info. See also WP:1S. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is mentioned in passing in K.L. Shrivastava; Arun Kumar (1 May 2014). Geo-Resources. Scientific Publishers. pp. 637–. ISBN 978-93-86237-36-1. but other than that it is a placename of some sorts in India, there's not much else there. But this article mentions "Surpura Village". Google search for "Surpura village" suggests this place. So it likely exists and is not a hoax and I think all populated places are notable per WP:NGEO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:Still, no significant information is provided by these sources regarding the village. See also WP:1S. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO we default to NGEO "Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:True, but, once again, One sentence does not an article make. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait for others to comment but I don't think that being an unreferenced WP:SUBSTUB is ground for deletion if the subject is otherwise notable. WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Article is about a village that has a dam and its own post office. Having a post office signifies that it has decent population. I have added some references and expanded the stub. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Sandstein 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worshipp Khanna

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

Like the last nominator, I see no evidence this person is notable. A search gives virtually nothing in the way of WP:IRS and this reads like a resume/advertisement. If we took out all the non-rs in this article, we'd be left with no sources and as I said earlier, I can't find anything suitable to replace them with. Also worth noting this is the third or fourth creation, it previously was created under Worship Khanna. Praxidicae (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (and consider salt). -- Begoon 08:51, 9 October 2019 (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.

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 no consensus. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)

AfDs for this article:

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the new creation of the article, I have added 18 more references than the previously deleted version. In my eyes, according to RS and notablity of wikipedia policy, they are reliable and notable. Lazy-restless 13:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per additional RSs since the previous nomination ended in delete. There is not a deletion rationale advanced by the nominator. Wm335td (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator please say what they think is wrong with this article? Some of the references look a bit ropey but without examining each one in detail there seem to be enough to indicate general notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 18:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99)

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

This page has pretty much the same problems as the edition-specific lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, such as List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. It's essentially just a transcription of the table of contents for every Dungeons & Dragons book published between 1977 and 1999, and no sources seem to discuss the monsters from that time period as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not belong on Wikipedia due to failing WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Developing a brand new list for notable articles and non-notable monsters that have at least one useful real world, third party source would be fine, but listing every single enemy and variant is just game guide material. There is no benefit for a general encyclopedia to go into such minutia, and it encourages the creation and recreation of all these non-notable articles. TTN (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TTN said almost exactly what I would have said were I to write my thoughts out. Rockphed (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has all of the same problems as all of the other D&D monster lists that have already been deleted or are currently up on AFD. This is essentially nothing more than a transcription of the table of contents of various D&D books, making it a game guide. It is not useful as a navigation tool, and it fails WP:LISTN as there are no sources that discuss this particularly grouping of monsters as a group. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a game guide, and no reliable sources that discuss this group (1977-99) should be put together, failing WP:LISTN and NFICTION. It appears a lot of dungeons and dragons lists have the same problem. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major feature of major game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean it warrants a standalone article. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like the others. A few blue links don't make this a notable list, let alone one of notable items. The sourcing is highly questionable and independent: it should be clear that citing Creature Catalogue helps nothing, since it's really just a game guide. No, this is, I'm sorry to say, way too crufty. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)

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

This page has pretty much the same problems as the edition-specific lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, such as List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. It's essentially just a transcription of the table of contents for every Dungeons & Dragons book published between 1974 and 1976, and no sources seem to discuss the monsters from that time period as a group. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not belong on Wikipedia due to failing WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Developing a brand new list for notable articles and non-notable monsters that have at least one useful real world, third party source would be fine, but listing every single enemy and variant is just game guide material. There is no benefit for a general encyclopedia to go into such minutia, and it encourages the creation and recreation of all these non-notable articles. TTN (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessary list. If someone wanted to find this kind of information, they'd go to a site dedicated to compiling it, so I see no use in it being here. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 13:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN. Rockphed (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Once again, it has the same problems as all of the other non-notable lists of D&D monsters. Its nothing but a game guide, it fails as a useful navigation tool, and has no sources discussing this grouping as a group, causing it to fail WP:LISTN. I'm honestly amazed at how many of these there were. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a game guide, and no reliable sources that discuss this group (1974-76) should be put together, failing WP:LISTN and NFICTION Taewangkorea (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major feature of major game. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that are major features of major games. However, notability is not inherited. The feature itself must be notable, rather than gaining it from the game._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is no rationale for the monsters of this specific time period to be listed._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:07, 9 October 2019 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance of Hell

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2019 (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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Revolution

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protected from Reality, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vengeance of Hell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Death (band). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manpareka Kehi Kavita

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going on your nom statement, this is worse because it's not even a book he's himself written, but rather an anthology he collated from others. However, if it were still notable we'd still have an article on it. I don't read any South Asian language, unfortunately, so using Google Translate it appears that all the sources in the article are either press releases or the book (or a translation) itself, none of which establish notability. There aren't really any other good sources found with a GSearch. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 October 2019 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 12:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aandhibehari

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

Non-notable work by Suman Pokhrel. A few users seem to have created articles about everything he's done, linked together by Template:Suman Pokhrel. The author is notable but most, if not all, of his works don't deserve a stand-alone article. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 10:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near WP:BK. Non-notable, not deserving a stand alone article. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lengthy Nepali Wikipedia version, but other Wikipedias have different notability criteria. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali Wikipedia is a mess, but we can evaluate the sources used there. Only one of those is independent (rest being different parts of the book itself), its SIGCOV but the publisher doesn't have enough reputation that it could be used for establishing notability. Even if it were, that's not enough. Coverage by actual Nepali RSes couldn't been found. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:01, 8 October 2019 (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.

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 redirect to List of Autobots. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metroplex (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. I would be bold here and just redirect the remaining character entries, no need to go through the 7 day process unless you have to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring my contentious history of doing that, there's an issue with these long forgotten articles where random fans will still undo redirects/PRODs because characters are "obviously important." I've re-redirected several articles that were AfD'd like ten years ago as well. TTN (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for redirect page protection then, these same fans can also just recreate a deleted page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (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.

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 redirect to List of Autobots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Supreme

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

Non-notable fictional character. The reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots where there is a mention of the character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots There is significant coverage in that list. The trivial article can be an easy redirect per WP:CHEAP. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:57, 5 October 2019 (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.

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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SRM transports

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

Fails WP:NCORP, only one of the references is about the subject. The reference added since the PROD is just a trade listing. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches show up very little. Author likely has a WP:COI (not a reason to delete, but still). Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I could find 2 articles that suggest it passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT: the first and second articles from The Hindu Business Line. I also found this Motor India article, but it mostly consists of an interview (and therefore is not a secondary source). I couldn't find anything else though, so it's a pretty weak case. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu Business Line goes out of its way to distance itself from the second article and undercuts its independence, "according to a company press release." -- Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted that to mean only the last paragraph is based on the press release - not that the entire article is echoing a press release. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two possible press releases, "SRM Transports has set a target of quadrupling its fleet..." or SRM releases a list of its vehicles, I think the former (& THBL's whole article being a rehash of the press release) is the more likely. -- Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Additionally, the company made international news as part of a tax evasion scandal in 2013. I added content and reference to the article on this topic.4meter4 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ref you added without providing a url only mentions the company in passing in the 17th paragraph of 19 as "The other major businesses are SRM Transport (Rs 75 crore) and SRM Hotels (Rs 30 crore)." That's not significant coverage. (I've added the url.) Cabayi (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment. The article is focused on the SRM Group of which SRM transports is specifically mentioned as a significant part (ie not one of the other smaller companies not mentioned in the article). The article is about the actions taken againt the companies in the SRM Group, of which SRM transports is one of three central figures among a collection of companies. As for a url, I used an internal database at my university library which requires an access code. I had no url to give. If its online somewhere else add one yourself. 4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for SRM Group, but not for SRM transports. And, as noted in my previous comment, "I've added the url." Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:45, 2 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 18:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bentra Golf Course

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A quick search for sources which may establish notability (under WP:SIGCOV) returns only directory style and TripAdvisor style listings. Which confirm that this small 9-hole pay-to-play municipal golf course and mini-golf facility does exist. But which do not establish notability. I'm not sure if there is a golf-course specific notability criteria, but notwithstanding WP:GNG, if a golf course had played host to a major international (or even national) competition, then that might help contribute to notability. As there would have been coverage of that. But I'm not finding anything. The overtly promotional tone is also concerning. And, while that could be addressed, if we take away all that bumf ("lush green land and stunning views", "renowned golf course architect", "stunning countryside views", "tranquil and idyllic", etc) there is nothing left of value. In short: delete. As WP:PROMO which doesn't meet WP:GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2019 (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.

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. RL0919 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Schlock Mercenary characters

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

Page has no secondary sources and most of it counts as original research. Not a very active user (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete huge sprawling mass of fancruft with no out-of-universe notability or secondary sources. The comic is clearly notable (especially given the long-standing negative relationship between webcomics and Wikipedia) but it's clear that there is little encyclopedic content on the characters. Summarizing the key characters on the main article should be sufficient; leave the rest to fanworks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main article is capable of handling descriptions of the characters. Merging seems pointless because a new summary would be better than trying to trim all that down. TTN (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would say that all of it is original research. I agree that this content isn't suitable for the main article either, and summarizing the key characters there should really be sufficient. We have no reason to try to replace the Schlock Mercenary wiki, after all, which can describe these characters in much more in-universe detail. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wish to add into two points: (1) there are no reliable sources but rather wikis and blogs, and (2) It's a huge and incoherent list that contains dozens of entries almost of of which are non-notable (there's a claim of 11 protagonists, which is absurd on its face). Bearian (talk) 15:22, 7 October 2019 (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.

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 no consensus. Opinions are deeply divided about whether the sources for this article are enough, qualitatively and quantitatively, to support a stand-alone biography. Even if one discounts some of the more questionable arguments and opinions, it's clear that there is no consensus about this question. And because the assessment of sources is a matter of editorial judgment about which people can disagree in good faith, it's not a question I can resolve by fiat. Valid arguments have been made on both sides. The article is therefore kept, for now, for lack of consensus to delete it. Sandstein 07:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen Berns

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Berns was a YouTuber known for her commentary opposing transgender rights advocacy. She recently died after she was diagnosed with glioblastoma; we now have a page largely supported with primary sources and fairly brief mentions in newspapers of Twitter spats she was involved in. I was not able to find significant coverage that would reach the threshold of notability outlined in WP:BASIC. Also worth keeping in mind WP:NOTMEMORIAL in relation to aforementioned notability problems and the article's list of various people who tweeted in support of her. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate and explain how the majority of sources are primary - this clearly is not the case at all. All sources bar Berns' YouTube channel itself are secondary and come from various online news outlets and are not created by Berns herself or anyone working for her, which per Wikipedia guidelines are acceptable. These sources also go into depth beyond trivial mentions, or documenting "Twitter spats".SilverStar6583 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment on this AFD. It's simply not true that "[a]ll sources bar Berns' YouTube channel itself" are secondary; "primary source" refers to sources which are written by people who are involved with events rather than an outside party summarizing these accounts. For example, the sources relating to her education and software development work cite GitHub pages and a picture from the GNOME foundation website; these are produced by people directly involved with the events in question, rather than secondary sources like newspapers, books, or scholarly journals commenting on them. For more on how to identify primary sources, I suggest reading "Identifying and using primary sources". With respect, I'm not really sure how to characterize the few news articles that exist as anything other than brief discussions of Twitter arguments; what we learn from, say, the Independent article is simply that JK Rowling followed her once and people were not very happy about this because of Berns' stated views. Generally what we're looking for in coverage is something more than, as our guidelines discuss, "brief bursts of news coverage". —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify which of these sources only cover her death or "Twitter feuds"? I have looked through them all and this simply isn't the case - I am asking this question in good faith. The reference of the article about J.K Rowling following her is entirely acceptable as in context, this was a reference for the sentence: "In June 2019, British author J.K. Rowling followed Magdalen Berns on Twitter, bringing her more visibility and prompting criticism towards Rowling from transgender activists." Can I also add that Berns was not known for her "opposing transgender rights advocacy." She was known for her pro-female rights advocacy, including the rights of female transgender people such as transmen and non-binary people whose sex is female.SilverStar6583 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As of 19 September 2019, edits have been made to include more secondary sources. I believe that these are inkeeping with the notability guidelines. Please discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverStar6583 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Pine457 (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen Berns was not a “cis” woman and neither did she acknowledge the term as anything but a deliberate insult.
It’s clear that this page has been created to disparage a young woman who died of cancer less than a week ago. If that’s not good enough reason to delete it then shame on all concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allhalav (talk • contribs) 13:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Allhalav: Hi and congratulations to your first edit. You may want to stick to arguments and sign your comments. Thanks, --Malyacko (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is well known among gender critical and radical feminists as well as the transgender activist community. The population affected / interested is no smaller than that of the niche transgender topics that also have wikipedia articles. 98.234.96.130 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only significant coverage from reliable sources in the article seem to be, as the nominator noted, from a Twitter feud, which is a clear WP:BIO1E situation. Other than some coverage about their death, i'm not seeing any meaningful coverage before that point to warrant having a biography article on them. Unless significant coverage of their life can be presented separate from a Twitter feud and their death, then deletion seems the only proper course of action. Silver seren^C 15:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not see how this is the case. Most of the sources cited speak in detail about her work and her views, and do not cover only her death or "Twitter feuds". Please specify which sources you are talking about. This is asked in good faith.SilverStar6583 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only reliable sources in the article, such as The Independent and The Post and Courier, discuss only a single event and an event that is far more about J.K. Rowling than about Berns. This very clearly falls under WP:BIO1E and does not confer notability to the subject. Unless you have further meaningful coverage in proper secondary sources, there isn't anywhere near enough notable coverage here for an article. Silver seren^C 18:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the records, I added a source from German weekly Der Freitag which is not about a single event. HTH. --Malyacko (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that post isn't part of Der Freitag's regular news reporting, but rather one of the numerous posts on its "Community" blog section where anyone can publish a piece. Not a reliable source. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which helps minorly in terms of notability, but it's still an article about Berns' death, it is an opinion piece, and it also gives very little information about Berns regardless. It more seems to be about the topic of transgender people and the writer's stance on that. Reading over it, there's literally no biographical information to use other than Berns' date of death and age at the time. Silver seren^C 19:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.33.206 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Magdalen was FOR the protecting rights and safe spaces (sports, etc) for lesbians and female born females. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.110.212 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Berns appears to have been a fairly prominent figure in the movements in question. The article needs improving but does not warrant deletion. McPhail (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@McPhail: Prominence is irrelevant without proper coverage in reliable secondary sources (and also hearsay without such sourcing). Do you know of any such proper coverage outside of the sources regarding J.K. Rowling? Silver seren^C 21:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is three days old and still constantly changing with new sources being added and old sources being discarded. I think it is highly premature to declare that the article is incapable of being properly sourced. McPhail (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@McPhail: The point of an AfD is to present such sources to show if an article topic is notable or not. If there are none to present, then that's that. As it is, almost all of the sources in the article currently should be removed for violating primary source rules and for synthesis of information. And there's a lot of bad WP:OR going on, such as linking to her Youtube channel and somehow turning that into a description of what the content is there without an actual source stating such a description. Or the link to her involvement in Google Summer of Code and that being used to reference her "teaching herself to code". That's pretty blatant original research not backed up directly by the sourcing. Silver seren^C 22:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of reliable sources beyond ones that mention one twitter incident means WP:BIO1E is an issue. Did a google news search and did not find RS to fix this problem. Rab V (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Notability guideline is satisfied. Berns is the central subject of this article at the National Review (reliable sources are not required to be neutral), which is not yet included in the article, but listed on the Talk page. She is the central subject of this article at AfterEllen.com. That's significant coverage in two reliable secondary sources. The multiple other reliable secondary sources, The Independent, Snopes, PinkNews, The Post and Courier, and this link from Inside Higher Ed still on the Talk page, add up to further significant coverage, as WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

To the objections:

"Largely supported with primary sources": "largely" is not "entirely." There could be a thousand primary sources and they would not count against inclusion. Secondary sources are present and sufficient.
"and fairly brief mentions in newspapers" actually help the case for notability. WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Multiple brief discussions are notable. Only trivial mentions are not notable. WP:GNG gives an example of what trivial means for our purposes: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' But the coverage in question here discusses the substance of the publicly articulated political arguments that Berns was known for.
"of Twitter spats she was involved in." The Notability guideline does not care about your opinions on the relevance or irrelevance of social media. If reliable sources cover X, then X is notable for Wikipedia.
WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not count against the article. It only means that if Notability is not met, then "but we need a memorial" isn't a counterargument. Notability is met.
Likewise, "it's still an article about Berns' death". Doesn't count against notability. We often learn the most about a public figure's life when they are dying, or after their death. This is to be expected, and back to policy: nothing says we can't use articles about a person's death.
WP:BIO1E simply does not apply. For the sake of argument, even if we were to say that the only coverage is of Twitter incidents, there are at least two such incidents: one with JK Rowling, and one with Rachel McKinnon. BIO1E applies only when we are talking about a single event. See WP:BLP2E which helps to explain BIO1E.
Bad WP:OR is a content dispute issue to be resolved outside of AFD. Not relevant to us here right now.
On the implication that it's a problem if we can't source biographical details from secondary sources: this is a misunderstanding of WP:BASIC which is very clear. "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." We need secondary sources for notability, but it is perfectly fine to use any number of primary sources for biographical content, and these do not count against notability. It is fine for secondary sources to focus only on the notable incidents of a person's public life. -Pine457 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC) — Pine457 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is yet another obituary piece that, somehow, still manages to say pretty much nothing about the subject, Magdalen Berns. It is just an opinion piece that doesn't even bother to give any actual information about the subject and their life. It's honestly rather impressive to have so many obituaries that give no usable biographical focus other than age and location. It conveys basically nothing to notability. And this doesn't contribute to notability in any way. It is a two paragraph piece discussing Rachel McKinnon and gives one mention of Berns. That is not how notability works and you seem to be misunderstanding how WP:BIO1E works. Coverage of Twitter feuds, especially when the articles in question are entirely about the other person in the feud and not Berns, does not convey notability. There has yet to be a single secondary source that actually discusses Berns to any direct extent, just opinion pieces of the authors' politics in relation to Berns existing. Notability has yet to be met in any fashion whatsoever, just inclusion of a bunch of mentions and primary sources. Silver seren^C 00:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This is yet another obituary piece that, somehow, still manages to say pretty much nothing about the subject, Magdalen Berns."

On the contrary, it contains several biographical details. It tells us her age, where she lived, what she was dying of, that she was a feminist, that she was a YouTuber with over 30k subscribers, that JK Rowling was one of her Twitter followers, that Berns was criticized by Rachel McKinnon, and it tells us some of the substance of her politicial views which made her controversial. Regardless of how much more we might wish it said, it is not a trivial mention, and it is a reliable secondary source. That is what WP:N requires. It is fine for secondary sources to focus only on the notable incidents of a person's public life. Biographical details can be taken from primary sources.

"And this doesn't contribute to notability in any way. It is a two paragraph piece discussing Rachel McKinnon and gives one mention of Berns. That is not how notability works"

That's arguable, and not as clear-cut as you seem to think. The relevant question here is only whether it is trivial, for which we have Bill Clinton's band name as an example. I would argue that because the controversy centers on the substance of Berns' views, and because the content of those views are described here, it is more substantive than trivial.

"and you seem to be misunderstanding how WP:BIO1E works."

With respect, I know exactly how it works because I read it today. This is not esoteric. It's right here in plain English. "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event" is when BIO1E applies. The secondary sources here cover more than one event, so BIO1E does not apply. This is very clearly worded, not a matter of opinion or interpretation.

"Coverage of Twitter feuds, especially when the articles in question are entirely about the other person in the feud and not Berns, does not convey notability."

Your opinion here is not backed by any policy or guideline. The relevant guidelines make no distinctions about the importance of events except that they be covered by secondary sources. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources to determine notability, not wiki editors' opinions on what sounds important.

I sympathize, I'm old and I want to feel like no social media is ever important, but differences of opinions are why Wikipedia has guidelines, and the guidelines do not differentiate between reliable sources reporting on Twitter discussions, reliable sources reporting on formal debates, or reliable sources reporting on a series of letters printed in an academic journal.

So there's no misunderstanding, she did not instigate these Twitter discussions. Other people found cause to argue about her as a public figure.

"There has yet to be a single secondary source that actually discusses Berns to any direct extent, just opinion pieces of the authors' politics in relation to Berns existing. "

I reiterate, it is perfectly fine to use any number of primary sources for biographical content, and these do not count against notability. It is fine for secondary sources to focus only on the notable incidents of a person's public life.

Berns is not notable for the quotidian details of her life, though of course those should be included where possible. She is known for her lectures on controversial ideas, and she is WP:Notable because the public discussions those lectures engendered spread far enough to be covered in reliable secondary sources. That is all that the guideline requires. -Pine457 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note: there is no editor consensus on National Review being a reliable source, see WP:RSP. Using a source whose reliability is iffy and is known for being partisan is questionable for controversial subjects like this and ill-advised when there is a dearth of other reliable sources that can balance it out. Rab V (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that it must be used with caution, and not for sourcing disputed claims. That's not a problem here, as there is nothing disputed about where she lived, that she was a YouTuber, etc. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply not notable on her own merits, with the only third party sources that are actually about her I can find is a hagiography in the National Review. And even if the NR source counts — which I don't think is enough, and is arguably not independent enough to satisfy WP:N — her entire notability rests on one thing: her death. However, she may warrant a mention in the Rachel McKinnon article. Sceptre (talk) 06:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the National Review, there is also the AfterEllen article mentioned earlier. Her notability begins before her death, as The Independent was calling her famous before that. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfterEllen would be a reliable source; I don't know that they have any public editorial policy and most of their content resembles blog posts. WP:RS also mentions sources seen as extremist are questionable. They have been denounced by former editors and other lgbt media organizations for having an anti-trans stance, see this link for details.Rab V (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not anti-trans. For those who are unaware, this subject is part of the controversy around feminist views on transgender topics. You can't use one side of that controversy to assert that the other side is extremist. For context, this editorial by The Guardian was likewise denounced as transphobic for saying such hateful things as "This is a complex issue that society needs to consider thoughtfully." -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any death is tragic but she appears to be famous only among a very small set of anti-trans activists who have latched onto her death to make some point; I had never heard of her before that. Her twitter account had 14K followers and her Youtube account had 30K; neither indicate any widespread fame. Paul Moloney (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This assumption about who's interested doesn't appear to be supported by the evidence. The article's creator appears not to have been motivated by the specifics of her politics, but rather because she was a well known Scottish person. Notability depends on coverage in secondary sources, not follower counts. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pine, et al. P.S., one of my biggest pet peeves at AfD is a misunderstanding of BLP1E, BIO1E, etc. Pine has it right. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So being in two Twitter feuds rather than one confers notability for a biographical article? Silver seren^C 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reference BIO1E and BLP1E because some editors erroneously believe that these policies state, more or less, that if someone is notable for one thing then it means the subject should not have an article. These policies (and their friends and neighbors like WP:CRIME), in actuality, address whether a participant in an event should have a stand-alone article independently of that event. For example, if there was a shooting on Sesame Street and the shooter was Big Bird, and Big Bird was not notable for anything other than the Sesame Street Shooting, then Big Bird should not have an article if the Sesame Street Shooting article exists. On the other hand, if Big Bird had independent notability, he'd have his own article in addition to the Sesame Street Shooting. That's why BIO1E/BLP1E do not apply here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except they perfectly apply. The twitter feuds, as shown from the coverage of them, were entirely focused on as events with the other people. Berns was not the important part of them. So mentioning the events in the real subjects' article, such as J.K. Rowling's, would be appropriate. But there's no notability to be conferred on the briefly mentioned other person in either event. Not without...well, actual in-depth coverage from secondary sources on Berns herself. Silver seren^C 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the actual guideline, BIO1E applies "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event". That is what the numeral 1 refers to. Any sincere attempt to claim otherwise must grapple with the actual words. This is not the place to argue that the guideline ought to be changed, nor to imply that it ought to have meant something diametrically opposed to its plain meaning. See WP:BLP2E if you're uncertain.

"So being in two Twitter feuds rather than one confers notability for a biographical article?" It can, if the Twitter discussions (about her, she was not in them) are the subjects of coverage in reliable sources. What it indisputedly means is that BIO1E does not apply. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly clear what your position is from this comment. If your position is that 1E does not apply because Berns is independently notable, you should say specifically why by pointing to significant coverage; simply averring a contradiction just begs the question. I don't think BLP1E is the specific issue here, but I can see why others brought it up: the coverage of all events is so paltry it would be easy to say only one event is even borderline notable. I would ask anyone who think Berns is notable to carefully consider the basic reasoning behind our notability criteria: we want coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. As it stands, we have to do significant original research to extract even basic biographical details: we don't have any secondary sourcing on her software development work, the article inexplicably deems it necessary to cite Wordpress blog "forwomen.scot" to even explain the circumstances of her channel's creation, and the circumstances of her death are entirely cited to primary sources. If there were sources available to improve the article to a reasonable standard, I'd support that—but we're working on nothing. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'we want coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."'

And that is for the specific items that confer notability. For example, we are not permitted to guess at McKinnon's motivations in encouraging celebration of her death, we can only report what the secondary sources say. But WP:BASIC says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article". I'm sorry to bold this at you, but this is the third time I've had to say it. We need to rely on what the guideline actually says, and it says we don't need to be able to source everything from secondary sources.

"As it stands, we have to do significant original research to extract even basic biographical details".

That is not what original research means. No one has had to call up Berns' family for biographical details, or synthesize additional assumptions out of the available sources. Primary sources are used, and primary sources are allowed.

"we don't have any secondary sourcing on her software development work,"

We don't need them. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article.

'the article inexplicably deems it necessary to cite Wordpress blog "forwomen.scot"'

That's a content dispute issue which can be resolved at any time, it is not a matter for AFD.

"and the circumstances of her death are entirely cited to primary sources."

Not true, both the National Review and AfterEllen are secondary sources, but this would be irrelvant even if true, since primary sources may be used to support content in an article. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the third time you've had to say something, people have almost certainly already heard you; the problem is simply that we disagree. Primary sources can of course be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject (what we're here to discuss); the amount of secondary sourcing available is a clear factor in how we judge notability (per WP:GNG, [a]vailability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.) As regards original research, I think you've missed several clear examples of it. For instance, we cite an image of Berns speaking at a conference to support the claim she "developed the Java ATK Wrapper, a module to translate Swing events for the Accessibility Toolkit.", but we have no way of knowing she was the one who developed it or what the ATK Wrapper was without some form of synthesis; the caption merely says she worked on it at one time. As regards National Review and AfterEllen, I'm not convinced that either are the reliable sources we would require to demonstrate notability. The AfterEllen piece is an editorial (not usually considered RS for statements of fact) and the National Review piece is from "The Corner", a blog section not subject to National Review's usual editorial standards. (Note that our RSP entry indicates people disagree whether NR is acceptable sourcing even in general). —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'If this is the third time you've had to say something, people have almost certainly already heard you; the problem is simply that we disagree.'

Then you disagree with the guideline, not me, since all I've been doing is quoting the guideline. Fine, but take it up at Wikipedia talk:Notability, not here. Pointing to the guideline while ignoring what it actually says is argument by assertion.

'Primary sources can of course be used to support content in an article, but "they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject" (what we're here to discuss)'

A fact I pointed out in my first comment, so quoting it back to me like it's news does suggest you aren't paying attention. My point is you should stop implying that the presence of primary sources is a problem. It is not.

'As regards original research, I think you've missed several clear examples of it. For instance, we cite an image of Berns speaking at a conference to support the claim she "developed the Java ATK Wrapper,'

If you think that wording is not supported by the link, go WP:FIXIT. That's a minor content dispute, not an argument for article deletion.

'The AfterEllen piece is an editorial (not usually considered RS for statements of fact) and the National Review piece is from "The Corner", a blog section not subject to National Review's usual editorial standards.'

WP:NEWSORG says "rarely," not never. Here they only need to be used for uncontroversial statements like where she lived. They're reliable for that purpose. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berns' critics misunderstood, or misrepresented, her position as having been "there is no such thing as a transwoman". Her position, as clearly and repeatedly stated, was in fact that transwomen are born male and therefore have very different experiences and needs as those people who are born female. She rejected the term "cis", believing that it was antifeminist to assert that females get a prefix to their womanhood based on their conformity to sex role stereotypes, and certainly did not have a stance on "ciswomen's rights". She did have a strong stance against male people adopting the identity "transwoman" and demanding access to lesbian spaces based on self-identification alone, which attracted her a great many critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.214.183 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the first part of what you say is true then we would have verifiability problem, in addition to everything else mentioned above. The rest of what you say does not dispute the content of the article. It merely objects to the language used and, if anything, seems to support the very claim that you are objecting to but I don't want to get into that as it doesn't really bear on the deletion arguments. What is relevant here is notability and verifiability. If we can not even accurately and reliably source the beliefs that somebody is claimed to be notable for then that is a complete verifiability fail and it also makes the claim to notability look much more tenuous.

She is definitely not notable as a YouTuber. Many other people have vastly more subscribers and do not get considered notable just for that. Similarly, she is not notable as a software developer. She does seem to be slightly more plausibly notable for her spats with, or championing by, other more notable people but notability is not inherited. Some of the controversies seem to confer some notability but I am not sure how much.

I'm not quite confident enough in her lack of notability to !vote "delete" here (I mean, the fact that I had heard her name and looked her up proves that the article serves some purpose) but what I am not seeing is anything that makes it a "keep" either. Also the article is pretty much an orphan. --[[User:

|DanielRigal]] (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If the first part of what you say is true then we would have verifiability problem,"

Everyone who has ever been criticized was also misinterpreted. The existence of someone's misinterpretation somewhere does not present a verifiability problem. We just include what we can source.

"She is definitely not notable as a YouTuber. Many other people have vastly more subscribers and do not get considered notable just for that."

Notability is not measured like that. She could have 10 subscribers and be WP:Notable, or she could have 10 million and not be WP:Notable. See what notability is not, Berns is a "Ted" in this example.

"She does seem to be slightly more plausibly notable for her spats with, or championing by, other more notable people but notability is not inherited."

The claim is not that she is notable because other notable people talked about her. She could have been talked about only by unknown people and she'd still be notable if reliable sources had covered the discussions. (Hypothetically. Realistically that wouldn't have been reported, but you see my point.) Notability depends on reliable secondary sources, that's all the guideline requires.

"Also the article is pretty much an orphan."

True, but that can be fixed later. It would be sensibly linked from Feminist views on transgender topics, and likely some in the See also section of that article. -Pine457 (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting - it seems like much of the above is a discussion as to what Burns' opinions actually where and whatnot.... that's more suitable for the article talk page instead of an AfD. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 13:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree, but the fact that we have a problem sourcing the basics of a ~~BLP~~ bio suggests that maybe the subject has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources either to demonstrate notability or to make a reliable ~~BLP~~ biographical article possible. That certainly is a matter for an AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be morbidly technical but this is not a BLP. In any event, the mere existence of a dispute about the content doesn't mean it fails inclusion guidelines. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 17:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Yes. That was a very unfortunate mistake on my part. WP:BLP can apply to the recently deceased and my brain flipped over into BLP mode and didn't flip back when I wrote that. I apologise if I upset or offended anybody. I've struck it out and replaced it with what I should have said. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say ~~weak delete~~ for the reasons I have given in my comments above. I'm still not 100% sure (hence the "weak") and I'm willing to rethink if better sources are found. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching to delete. I'm coming to see this article as a coatrack for axe grinding more than anything else. (I saw somebody attempting to insert the POV euphemism "gender critical" and, although that was very swiftly removed, it made me realise what was going on with this article.) I appreciate that some people are making genuine efforts to try to get it back on track but I don't think that this can succeed. There is not enough source material to ground a decent, neutral biographical article and, in the absence of sufficient sources, the article would be very likely to remain a battleground/dumpinground if kept. It may be that she does come to be seen as a hero/villain of a transphobic movement at some point in the future. If that does happen then the article can be recreated and explain how that happened, but this is not the case at the moment and it is certainly not our job to help that to happen. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete re:WP:BIO1E. Battleofalma (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, BIO1E does not apply. BIO1E applies (as per the policy) in the following situation: When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. That's not the case here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it does not apply, there should be significant coverage in reliable sources of this person's other works, and there is not. This article is hinged on a Twitter follow from J.K Rowling and a subsequent spat. I'd suggest that if Berns had not died this might be a WP:TOOSOON as coverage might've expanded but as it is, it just isn't there.Battleofalma (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I have just added information that speaks directly to her notability from a new obituary in the UK Morning Star newspaper. Brizzo82 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Star is a "reader-owned co-operative" with community written articles. They aren't a reliable source and don't confer notability for coverage. It's basically the same as using a Medium post. Silver seren^C 19:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the "reliable sources" guidance, Morning Star's reliability depends on context. It is openly partisan - described by the New Statesman as "Britain's last communist newspaper"- but it is a serious publication, founded in 1930, and quotes from its published obituary on a prominent left-wing figure are appropriate in this context.Brizzo82 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability depends on something being an actual reliable source and having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". IE being an actual news organization. Community-created material is inherently not something with reliable source backing (which is precisely why Wikipedia itself would fail the reliable source policy). Silver seren^C 23:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the Morning Star (British newspaper) here, it is an actual news organization. You seem to misunderstand how it works. It's community-owned, as is the BBC, but the content is not community-created. Try to make an account there and publish something; you can't. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Star is run by experienced, professional journalists. It may - as you say - include "community-written articles", but such articles would undergo an editing process, and are effectively the same as any opinion piece written by a non-journalist in any newspaper. The Morning Star holds a prominent and substantial place in the history of left-wing British journalism, dating back 90 years. The leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, said the Daily Star "is the most precious and only voice we have in the daily media". It is highly partisan, but openly so, and a source is not considered unreliable just because it is partisan (see Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources). Brizzo82 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The British newspaper Morning Star is included in the WP:RS/P list. Also, keep in mind that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage of her in reliable sources is paltry and tangential. Retinalsummer (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't matter even if it were true. WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Multiple brief discussions are notable. Only trivial mentions are not notable. WP:GNG gives an example of what trivial means for our purposes: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' But the coverage in question here discusses the substance of the publicly articulated political arguments that Berns was known for. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see these "multiple independent sources". So far we have a story about JK Rowling in the Independent and an obituary in the Morning Star. The rest are not reliable sources, or, in the case of the Evening Standard, trivial mentions. Youtubers are expected to "meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT" (see WP:NYOUTUBE) and I'm not convinced that the subject of this article does. There has not been significant coverage of Berns and there aren't enough reliable sources that cover her primarily and in-depth. Without that, it's going to be impossible to write a good article without doing original research, as has been mentioned above. Retinalsummer (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rest are not reliable sources, or, in the case of the Evening Standard, trivial mentions.

They are all reliable sources for at least uncontroversial statements like where she lived, which is all they need to be used for. No one has claimed that the Evening Standard's mention is not trivial, so that's a red herring. The shorter coverage in very reliable sources like The Independent, Snopes, The Post and Courier, and Inside Higher Ed are more than trivial mentions because they cover her controversial ideas, which are precisely what she is notable for. For comparison, the Evening Standard's mention is trivial, and it is by viewing these other articles against the Evening Standard's that we can see the others are brief but informative, not trivial.

Youtubers are expected to "meet *both* WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT" (see WP:NYOUTUBE)

No, an article never needs to meet more than one notability guideline. WP:Notability is very clear on this: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". One or the other is always sufficient. If the essay at WP:NYOUTUBE suggests otherwise, then the essay is mistaken. Policies > guidelines > essays.

there aren't enough reliable sources that cover her primarily and in-depth.

You're asking again for something that isn't required. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

it's going to be impossible to write a good article without doing original research,

Yet despite this assertion, the article has already been written without original research. The one, exactly one specific complaint about OR has already been fixed. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The vast majority of citations given on the page are not from what are widely known sources or widely regarded as reliable sources. The person has received almost no coverage by reliable or well known sources. Most of what is written can be contested based off of the reliability of the sources used. Helper201 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of citations given on the page

If there are some citations which don't count toward notability (and there are, for the most part we're talking about some primary sources), their presence also does not count against notability. There could be a thousand citations which don't help notability for one reason or another, but they wouldn't hurt.

are not from what are widely known sources

There is no requirement that they be widely known, although many are, such as The Independent, Snopes, The Post and Courier, Inside Higher Ed, National Review, Spiked (magazine).

or widely regarded as reliable sources.

There don't need to be dozens of reliable sources, but there are multiple, and that's what WP:Notability asks for. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pine457 does make a rather compelling argument for the case in question. --Prospero One (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How? They've given no argument for notability, which is the point of an AfD discussion. Silver seren^C 19:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plainly untrue. The first paragraph of my first edit was an argument for notability: 'The Notability guideline is satisfied. Berns is the central subject of this article at the National Review (reliable sources are not required to be neutral), which is not yet included in the article, but listed on the Talk page. She is the central subject of this article at AfterEllen.com. That's significant coverage in two reliable secondary sources. The multiple other reliable secondary sources, The Independent, Snopes, PinkNews, The Post and Courier, and this link from Inside Higher Ed still on the Talk page, add up to further significant coverage, as WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".'

By my count I've affirmatively argued for notability twice more since then. You may disagree with my arguments for notability, but it is utterly false to say that I haven't made them. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this entry should be deleted just because some people didn’t agree with Magdalen’s opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.60.90 (talk • contribs)

Indeed. That is not a valid reason for deletion, and I don't think that anybody is proposing that it is, but neither is agreeing with her a reason to keep the article. A Wikipedia article is not an endorsement of a person as being good or bad, only as being notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Part of me thinks this is WP:TOOSOON and too close to a memorial WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I also think we should wait and see. I suspect, unfortunately, she will receive more accolades in death than she did in life.Fred (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Frederika Eilers: Can you explain what sources you think make the article subject notable? Brief mentions do not contribute to notability, nor do opinion pieces in community sections of papers. So what exactly is left for coverage of the subject? Silver seren^C 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pine457.4meter4 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Can you explain this vote? As multiple people have pointed out, Pine has made no actual argument for notability, just against other policies. What exactly are the secondary reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject? Silver seren^C 17:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, no one but you has made this plainly untrue claim. Nor have I argued against any policies. See above, the first paragraph of my first edit was an argument for notability.

Putting aside the longer pieces such as the National Review, we still have multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, this much is clear (The Independent, The Post and Courier, etc). It seems the bulk of the disagreement comes down to whether the coverage in these sources is trivial or not. We do have some guidance on what constitutes a trivial mention: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.'

Ultimately, though, whether they are trivial or not is a matter for each of us to judge. In they end, they are non-trivial if enough of us decide they are non-trivial, or the reverse.

To summarize yet again, my argument for considering them non-trivial is that they are each about her ideas, and each can be used to source our coverage of at least one of those ideas, and it is precisely her lectures on controversial ideas for which she is notable. These sources are thus unlike Walker's mention of Clinton's high school band, as the coverage in each case is both longer and precisely relevant to what makes Berns notable. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the disagreements about the quality and significance of the sources, and the recentness of the subject's death, I think this would benefit from more time to let editors discuss the sources and perhaps surface new ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverseren: The sources for her scholarships, the WES and GNOME foundations. The National Review, Evening Standard, and Pink News I suppose you'd classify as "community sections", but I think they have a far reach.Fred (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except far reach has nothing to do with notability. Youtubers with millions of followers have far reach, but them doing a video on someone wouldn't contribute to notability at all. The whole point of notability is that there is coverage from reliable sources of information. And the problem with community sections is that anyone can write articles for them and they aren't subject to editorial oversight like actual journalists for the papers are. Hence, they don't meet notability standards as required by WP:N and WP:RS. Silver seren^C 00:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does remind me a bit of the discussion we had on the WP:WiR with Jimbo about the word 'dilettante'. In so far, as the sources for women described as such could probably be called community sections. Perhaps, we are not on the same page, but perhaps there is some guidance there. I really appreciate that there is a separate WP:PROF and WP:CRIME. I do not know of one pertaining to youtubers, activists, programmer, or something else we might describe Berns as. I see in this thread, you discredit the obituary in the Morning Star. I will plan to search for an obituary on Proquest to see if I can find a local Edinburgh newspaper, next time I go through the academic firewall.Fred (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

update: So, I had no luck in finding sources about Berns in Proquest or Scopus at the moment. There is a very short obit on Lecacy.com which was simultaneously published in the Edinburgh News. Also, I was quickly skimmed through Despina Stratigakos (2016:71), which mentioned a seven day grace period on wikipedia between AfC and AfD, but there was no footnote with further info. So I wonder if something similar might apply. I also see Posie Parker has now published in Spiked, so I anticipate other new sources appearing.Fred (talk) 23:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For youtubers, see WP:NYOUTUBE, according to which youtubers are expected to meet WP:GNG *and* WP:ENT. As far as I can tell, the subject of this article falls far short of those requirements. Retinalsummer (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article never needs to meet more than one notability guideline. WP:Notability is very clear on this: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". One or the other is always sufficient. If the essay at WP:NYOUTUBE suggests otherwise, then the essay is mistaken. Policies > guidelines > essays. (Copied from above, apologies, but it's easier than rewording it.) -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are mostly passing mentions or fail WP:RS (note that the Morning Star, as mentioned above, is not a WP:RS because it doesn't have proper editorial controls); even the sources that come closest aren't really very independent of her. Not enough in-depth coverage from sources we can reliably cite for statements of fact to write a proper article. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say the Morning Star doesn't have "proper editorial controls"? What's your source for this? Brizzo82 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an assumption about bias, reliable sources are not required to be neutral. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in other, above, discussion about MS : The British newspaper Morning Star is included in the WP:RS/P list. Also, keep in mind that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". Pyxis Solitary (yak) 11:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is now another source focusing on Berns as the primary subject, from Spiked. Preempting the objection: discussion of death doesn't count against notability. We often learn the most about a public figure's life when they are dying, or after their death. -Pine457 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another article by someone who has never published anything else for the news site in question and who isn't on the list of actual columnists for the site. Interesting. Silver seren^C 17:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that's supposed to vaguely imply that it's somehow unacceptable, but it's fine and normal: it's called guest journalism, and it's subject to the same editorial review as anything else they'd publish. To your claim of "another," the National Review's coverage was from a journalist under their regular employ, as was The Independent's, and so on. -Pine457 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable in the UK. Improve content wherever necessary, edit with neutrality, and keep bio. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 10:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject is notable in the UK." What does that even mean? Do you have reliable secondary source coverage from the UK to back up that claimed notability? Just making the claim that a subject is notable without evidence is pretty much worthless. Silver seren^C 17:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Independent, Spiked, and Morning Star. It is to be expected that more sources are UK-based, since that's where she lived. -Pine457 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Coverage exists for more than one event and it appears significant. Weeks ago the article might have been deleted per WP:BLP1E, though not anymore. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm satisfied with the sourcing given the subject matter. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions says it is for discussions without much participation, or without much policy-based argument: 'relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable.' Please consider undoing the relist and giving us a proper close. -Pine457 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe a "no-consensus close" is preferable in this instance. I believe a clear consensus can be reached. I believe this AfD will benefit from a second relisting, as more time passes since the subject's death. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time the AfD has been re-listed: #1 on 24 September 2019 and #2 on 2 October 2019. It's not unusual for an AfD to stay open for 30 days, but regardless of how much interest or not is generated by a relisting the AfD cannot stay open indefinitely. This AfD was created on 17 September 2019 — it should be closed on 17 October 2019, even if it's a "no-consensus" close. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 13:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Relisting is not intended for discussions with many participants and policy-based arguments. It is supposed to be used if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy. This outcome, where there were many participants and policy-based arguments, and "no consensus" would apply at the time of closing, but the discussion gets relisted anyway, is what the guideline made pains to discourage. If you're still unwilling to close it, I won't ping you again, but I think the guideline was misapplied. -Pine457 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There were relatively few dispassionate experienced editors participating in this AfD. This discussion can benefit from other voices. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two valid reasons for relisting, and that's not one of them. If you think it should be, you should suggest it at the guideline's talk page. -Pine457 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think "relist" would be one of the options available to the closing admin at the normal closing time, and they can figure out for themselves whether it's the right one. Fwiw I think I'm dispassionate and experienced. Dispassionate because I'd never heard of the person before a few days ago and am not at all engaged with the areas where she was controversial. I happened across her name, did a web search, and found the wikipedia article with the afd template on top, so I commented. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 03:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There were relatively few dispassionate experienced editors participating in this AfD."
Where is the Wikipedia policy that requires participants in AfDs to be "dispassionate" and "experienced" editors? Since when do AfDs and ANIs require editors to have an approved set of credentials in order to engage in them? I'm sorry, but this reasoning for relisting the AfD again is total b.s.
I did not know who Magdalen Berns was until 28 September 2019, when I was checking out the biographical subjects that had been tagged with [[Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism]] — which can no longer be done in BLPs without including in-text attribution in the article. If the responses from editors to this AfD have not meet your POV criteria, well ... too bad, so sad. Bite the bullet and move on to another holy grail. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're inexperienced they may have poor understanding of what Wikipedia is looking for in deciding whether to delete or keep an article; also, if they just showed up, they may have been recruited. If they're passionately for or against keeping the article, that can put their desires in conflict with wikipedia's. So it does help to have some detached viewpoints. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"they may have been recruited." This is not my first rodeo, and my experience with those who are suspicious about recruitment is that the ones who point fingers have social media accounts that they, themselves, use to influence opinions and recruit respondents. Just as liars think that everyone else is also a liar, those who recruit think that others are also doing it — and they become paranoid about other editors when their point of view starts to lose ground.
"If they're passionately for or against keeping the article, that can put their desires in conflict with wikipedia's." A Wikipedia article is edited because an editor has an interest in editing it. The same applies to participating in an AfD: if an editor has an interest in the subject, he/she will contribute to this AfD.
"So it does help to have some detached viewpoints."
That's not how human nature works. The moment someone decides to participate in an AfD they do so because they have a viewpoint about it. No one who joins a discussion is ever completely impartial. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While those are potential issues, 173, I think the guidelines are already written with them in mind. We should reiterate that no one should feel discouraged from participating here. As a general rule, Wikipedia does not care whether someone is experienced. New people are supposed to participate fully, and their ideas do not count for any less. A new user can read and understand the relevant policies on their first day, while some experienced users act like they skimmed the summaries once years ago. So this guideline looks for arguments based on policy, not experience. -Pine457 (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have some parts of that backwards but this isn't the place for a philosophy discussion. By long observed practice, !votes of new users in contested afd's tend to be downweighted or uncounted during closing. Also, "having an opinion" is much different from "OMG the world is going to end if the discussion doesn't close as X". That's what I mean by passionate. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat of an oversimplification. The deletion guideline for administrators does speak to devaluing some opinions when "there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith." However, simply being new is not one of the criteria for determining this, let alone being inexperienced. (I erred in conflating new and inexperienced a couple comments ago, they are different things.) Anyway, we should reiterate that no one should feel discouraged from participating here. Asking for "experienced editors," and wrongly implying that inexperienced users' contributions are less valuable, is likely to have a chilling effect on participation. No one should be second-guessing whether their participation is desired. -Pine457 (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A great deal of the opposition to this article's existence seems to be premised on objections to Berns' perceived "transphobia". Whether or not Berns was transphobic isn't the issue here, and is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability. An individual's notability is not premised on how good or bad a person they are/were. The article, and the many references within it demonstrate beyond question Berns' notability, but the strength of debate she has inspired on the article's talk page, and indeed this page only serves to illustrate that further. The article's notability seems beyond questions, and is ironically bolstered by those wishing to have it deleted. A listing for a genuinely non-notable individual would simply not inspire this level of debate. Jackf834 (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, notability is independent of whether a person is/was good or bad. We see some people making "keep" arguments based on agreeing with her opinions too, so your point cuts both ways.

I don't agree that the notability issue is anything like as clear-cut as you say. She seems to have attracted very little coverage during her life and it is only since her death (or maybe very shortly before) that there has been a concerted effort to make her into something that she wasn't, i.e. something like the Horst Wessel of transphobia. I believe that this article can be seen as a part of that effort, just as the obituaries published in hard right and far-left publications which never covered her when she was alive can also be seen as a part of that effort. Our job will be to document this mythologising process, if it is successful, but it is not Wikipedia's job to pre-empt its success and it is certainly not to Wikipedia's job to assist in the process itself. I say this both to protect Wikipedia from being misused as a tool to attempt to "edit reality" and also out of sympathy for her surviving relatives and friends. It must be bad enough to have lost somebody that young without having to know that she is immortalised in a Wikipedia article that gives prominence to her most negative beliefs. She is nowhere near being notable enough that we would be remiss in lacking an article about her so surely it is kinder to everybody to just let this article go, for the time being at least. (Yes, I know that arguing for kindness is not based in policy but when notability is borderline then maybe it can be a consideration in deciding which way to go?) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to have attracted very little coverage during her life

Wikipedia makes no distinction between pre- and post-mortem coverage, and the coverage which does exist in "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" per WP:BASIC.

and it is only since her death (or maybe very shortly before)

The unstated implication here: sources should not count if they are written after the subject's death. Such reasoning has no basis in Wikipedia policy.

that there has been a concerted effort to make her into something that she wasn't,

A public figure dies and some news organizations make note of her passing. This is a normal event, and it is bizarre to assert that the mere decision to talk about her is itself dishonest.

i.e. something like the Horst Wessel of transphobia.

Fantastic irony. Shortly after discussing how this AFD has gone on long enough, Godwin's law is invoked. For those who don't recognize the name, Horst Wessel was a Nazi leader of the SA in Berlin. And this is supposed to be a serious comparison.

Magdalen Berns is not a martyr. She died from a glioblastoma. People who respected her work wrote about her when that work ended. It is grotesque to claim that simply writing about someone after they died is akin to Goebbels manufacturing a Nazi martyr.

I believe that this article can be seen as a part of that effort

Available evidence contradicts your belief: the article's creator appears to have been interested in her because she had ties to Scotland, not the substance of her politics.

just as the obituaries published in hard right

National Review is a mainstream conservative publication in the US. Spiked is libertarian. Neither are hard right, i.e. fascist.

publications which never covered her when she was alive

Partisan publications overwhelmingly focus on people who they disagree with, so this objection doesn't mean much.

and it is certainly not to Wikipedia's job to assist in the process itself.

What matters is Wikipedia:Notability, period. If she's WP:Notable, then it's appropriate to have an article about her, and there is no room for complaints about any allegedly unfortunate results of keeping an article that meets WP:N.

also out of sympathy for her surviving relatives and friends.

Her family is capable of expressing their desires if they wish to. Her sister was the last person to log in to Magdalen's Twitter account. Do not presume that their personal desires secretly line up with your politics.

a Wikipedia article that gives prominence to her most negative beliefs.

Hold on. These are not negative beliefs. Magdalen was for the protection of women's spaces. You and she would have disagreed about what that should entail, to the point that you've convinced yourself she's basically a Nazi, but most normal people look at this debate (for a summary, see The New Yorker: What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism) and understand there are well-meaning people on both sides.

(Yes, I know that arguing for kindness is not based in policy but when notability is borderline then maybe it can be a consideration in deciding which way to go?

You are not advocating kindness. You want the deletion of an article on a woman who you've compared to a Nazi. If you actually cared about her family you would not have compared her to Horst Wessel.

Regardless, we cannot presume to know what her family wants. If they have a preference, they are capable of voicing it. They're most likely proud of her. We can only go on what Wikipedia's policies support.

For anyone who skipped to the end, we have significant coverage of her as the primary subject in three sources, the National Review, Morning Star, and Spiked. That would already satisfy WP:BASIC, but additionally we have coverage in several other reliable sources which adds up to contribute to WP:N. My argument for considering those non-trivial is that they are each about her ideas, and each can be used to source our coverage of at least one of those ideas, and it is her lectures on controversial ideas for which she is notable. These sources are thus unlike Walker's mention of Clinton's high school band, as the coverage in each case is both longer and relevant to what makes Berns notable. -Pine457 (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The far left source I was referring to was the Morning Star although I now realise that I should have been more clear having just looked up Spiked's rather odd history.

I explicitly did not compare her to Horst Wessel. I pointed out that some people are trying to build up a mythology or cult around her in a similar way and it is not for us to assist in that process. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Star is far left, that's not in dispute. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's a mighty unusual coincidence that you called the National Review "hard right," which means fascist, at the same time that you compared her to Horst Wessel, and this isn't supposed to mean anything. You could have picked anyone from category:martyrs to make your point, and you chose a Nazi. But hey, just a coincidence.

I pointed out that some people are trying to build up a mythology or cult around her in a similar way

A claim you have absolutely failed to argue. Some publications wrote about her after her death. "Mythology!" "Cult!" Did they call her a martyr? Do you have any quotes that back up your claim? Because if not, then the logic is simply that anyone who writes anything positive about someone after their death is trying to make them into a martyr. You're the only one talking about her in these terms, no one else is. Everyone else is just saying a feminist YouTuber who we admired died from glioblastoma, it's sad, let's remember what she did. -Pine457 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only discovered this article because this was all over some parts of Twitter and it was clear that something odd was going on but I didn't know what it was so I looked her up and found very little except for this article which was already at AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not odd when people mark the passing of someone whose work moved them in some way. -Pine457 (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Mostly WP:BLP1E.~~ There is some reliable source coverage on a single event that spans around 3 months and I'm not sure this will pass the 10 years test. I guess we won't know for sure until a few months from now, at least. --MarioGom (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there's more than one event covered in reliable sources, then BLP1E does not apply. There's no in-between. For the sake of argument, even if we were to say that the only coverage is of Twitter incidents (though it is not), there are at least two such incidents: one with JK Rowling, and one with Rachel McKinnon. -Pine457 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I striked my mention of WP:BLP1E per Pine457 comments in the AfD, which I did not read in full before. Weak as I'm still looking for continued coverage beyond the initial 3 months period (WP:10YT), but on the other hand, three months is already much more than some of the articles about ephemeral events with coverage during a just a few days that sometimes make into AfD. --MarioGom (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Magdalen was a central part of the trans-exclusive feminist community to which she belonged, as this article indicates, but she simply was not Wikipedia-level notable. Someone has gone to a great deal of effort to provide sources for her article. They break down as follows:
- 11 obituaries, including her family obituary in the local press.
- 9 sources made by Magdalen, or by the organisation she founded, ForWomen.scot.
- 9 sources that are actually about somebody else, such as J.K. Rowling or Rachel MacKinnon. One of these is there only to support the statement that Graham Linehan is "a critic of the 'transgender movement'", and does not mention Magdalen at all.
- 3 barely tangential sources - lists of names on which Magdalen appears.

That leaves us with only two sources that are about Magdalen - one from Quillette, an unreliable source, and one from AfterEllen, describing her attack. We simply don't have multiple reliable sources that "[address] the topic directly and in detail". Vashti (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 obituaries, including her family obituary in the local press.

You're lumping together different types of articles here, then dismissing them all as though they were all paid classifieds. Some kinds of obituaries are paid, and don't count toward notability (though they don't count against it). Other pieces you're lumping in here are full news articles, however, and they do count. News articles addressing the subject directly in independent reliable sources is what WP:N asks for, and there's no secret unwritten rule that articles covering the subject's death don't count.

9 sources that are actually about somebody else, such as J.K. Rowling or Rachel MacKinnon.

These contribute to notability, besides the one about Linehan. WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

That leaves us with only two sources that are about Magdalen - one from Quillette, an unreliable source, and one from AfterEllen, describing her attack.

Except for the other articles which are entirely about her, in the Morning Star, National Review, Spiked, and the other article in AfterEllen. That's multiple. -Pine457 (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that you see all these preexisting minor sources as adding up to a picture of notability. I think the "multiple secondary sources" line is being misinterpreted in this case, and these sources add up to a picture of non-notability. What we have here is a young woman who got Twitter followed by J.K. Rowling, causing a storm of outrage. That does not make *her* notable; the coverage is not *addressing* Magdalen, other than to explain who she is at moderate length (because since she's not notable, the reader is unlikely to know). This wasn't an event Magdalen was directly involved in. The coverage is not addressing her "directly and in detail".

In the same way, Rachel MacKinnon, a public figure, drew attention for abusing Magdalen in relation to her cancer diagnosis. This again is not an event that makes *Magdalen* notable. The coverage does not address Magdalen "directly and in detail".

You can stretch WP:N to say she is covered in "multiple secondary sources", but she absolutely does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ACADEMIC. You could make a case at the outside for WP:CREATIVE, but none of these sources have Magdalen's work as a focus; Magdalen herself and her death are the focus. I know you're going to come back with "she only needs to meet WP:GNG", but there is a reason there are subpolicies to tell us what a notable creative artist or academic looks like.

It seems to me that the WP:BLP1E is her death; I certainly didn't mean to suggest that none of the obituary articles were RS. If the Twitter spats contributed to notability, she would have had a page long before she died. It ought to be clear before long at all whether she will be notable in ten years; IMO that would be a better time for an article. Vashti (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that I think very much needs to be considered is that, given the nature of virtually all articles being obituaries, it would be impossible *at this time* to write anything other than a hagiography. A year from now, when the dust has settled and her legacy is clearer, is when this article should be written. Vashti (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of your argument can be summed up as: this person and these events are not important, therefore news coverage which might indicate notability should be disregarded. But that's backward. We have the WP:Notability guidelines because we can't agree on what's important. Instead, we use the guidelines as a proxy for importance, and if certain indicators, like enough coverage in reliable sources, are present, then the person or thing is likely to merit a Wikipedia entry. The independent coverage is all we have. We can't start from the premise that, for example, a discussion on Twitter is or is not important (where younger and older Wikipedians would tend to disagree). We can only look to whether reliable sources covered it.

That does not make *her* notable; the coverage is not *addressing* Magdalen,

WP:GNG is clear: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. It's perfectly fine that Rowling or McKinnon are the primary subjects of some articles, these still count for Berns.

(GNG then gives an example of what trivial means for our purposes: 'Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' But the coverage in question here discusses the substance of the publicly articulated political arguments that Berns was known for. And it does, as you say, explain who she is at moderate length.)

(because since she's not notable, the reader is unlikely to know).

If a journalist telling us who someone is means the person is not notable, then there are only a few hundred notable people in the world. Do you recognize all these names? If I heard that Dave Loebsack and Blaine Luetkemeyer made a deal, I'd be dumbfounded. Did one of them buy a used car from the other?

There is no possible way to read the guidelines such that media coverage somehow confers a negative amount of notability.

This wasn't an event Magdalen was directly involved in.

The guidelines don't care. It's interesting that other people found cause to discuss her without her participation, but the guideline only cares whether independent reliable sources relay that fact to us.

The coverage is not addressing her "directly and in detail".

It doesn't need to. GNG says she doesn't need to be the main topic of the coverage, and WP:BASIC elaborates further: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.

We get coverage addressing her directly and in detail from the Morning Star, National Review, Spiked, and AfterEllen.

I know you're going to come back with "she only needs to meet WP:GNG",

You're right, the introduction to WP:N couldn't be clearer: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, emphasis mine.

but there is a reason there are subpolicies to tell us what a notable creative artist or academic looks like.

The reason is because some specialists are notable in their fields but they wouldn't meet GNG. So there are provisions to include them despite not meeting GNG. I'm not speculating. This reason is stated in the guidelines you mention.

Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.

Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline.[1] It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline.

If the Twitter spats contributed to notability, she would have had a page long before she died.

This sounds like a suggestion for changing the notability guideline: if something happened more than three months ago, and it doesn't already have a Wikipedia article, then it isn't notable. It's a bit self-referential, what the guideline seeks to avoid, but you're welcome to suggest it.

it would be impossible *at this time* to write anything other than a hagiography.

Clearly not, when DanielRigel complains that it "gives prominence to her most negative beliefs." It can't be both a hagiography and a hit piece. -Pine457 (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read DanielRigal as saying that the article is a hit piece, just that it is centred on her work, which was highly controversial - her description of trans women as "blackface actors", currently cited to blog The Mary Sue, is representative of the whole. The major sources are overwhelmingly obituaries written by her friends (such as Posie Parker) and allies. There is no published criticism of her work, whereas there *is* (because of the recently published obituaries) a great deal of loving, detailed praise and description of it. Currently the article cites a number of blog articles and tweets to get as far as "some people called her names"; nobody has seen fit to publish media takedowns of a non-notable Youtuber, much less in the wake of her death. Meanwhile, anti-trans writers have produced six to eight hagiographies in RS to cite. It is imperative that an article like this is neutral.

Notability is a guideline. It's there in service of the NPOV policy, one of the pillars of Wikipedia. It states itself that "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy ... We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view." If a controversial subject does not have published criticism in reliable sources, I think that must call that subject's notability into question, as it makes it impossible to write a balanced article, which is the thing that WP:N is there to let us do. This, again, seems sufficient reason to me to allow Magdalen's legacy to settle *before* we write an article on her.

Thanks for your suggestion to take this to Notability talk, which I have done. Vashti (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read DanielRigal as saying that the article is a hit piece

"Hit piece" is my paraphrasing, regardless, he thinks it's negative enough that it ought to be deleted for that reason.

Currently the article cites a number of blog articles and tweets to get as far as "some people called her names"

Most biographies' criticism sections amount to "some people called them names." So we report that, and we report which names. That's what WP:NPOV asks for. It does not ask that the article must have a particular baseline of negativity, rather, it asks that we report what was said and we use an impartial tone in doing so.

Notability is a guideline. It's there in service of the NPOV policy, one of the pillars of Wikipedia.

Yes, and WP:NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. That is what we have done. We are doing what the policy requires. It seems you are wishing that the policy required something else entirely.

it makes it impossible to write a balanced article

Let's be clear, your complaint isn't really that this is a hagiography, since you've acknowledged it includes criticism of her. Your complaint is that you think there ought to be even more criticism. But the policy doesn't require a specific amount, it requires that we report what exists. -Pine457 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be detailed criticism. "she's a TERF", too badly sourced for a BLP, isn't really criticism and isn't really balance. I don't think a body of work like Magdalen's should be allowed to go essentially uncriticised in Wikipedia's voice; I think it speaks incredibly poorly to her overall notability that there is no published criticism of such a virulent body of work, and I think notability is being used here to do an end run around the spirit of NPOV.

That said, my opinion is my opinion, and if others don't share it then that's that; can't win 'em all. Vashti (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be detailed criticism.

WP:NPOV disagrees, we need to include all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

"she's a TERF", too badly sourced for a BLP, isn't really criticism and isn't really balance.

You're really underselling the criticism present. I hope people go read the article instead of taking your summary.

I don't think a body of work like Magdalen's should be allowed to go essentially uncriticised in Wikipedia's voice;

Except for the actual criticism which you're pretending is just three words. Her views are not presented as though they were endorsed by Wikipedia. That would be a problem if they were not presented impartially, although it would be a content dispute to be resolved on the talk page, not a matter for AFD.

and I think notability is being used here to do an end run around the spirit of NPOV.

If the spirit of NPOV was intended to be that unverifiable criticism from unreliable sources should be included sometimes, the policy would surely say so. -Pine457 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of NPOV is that articles should present matters fairly, from all perspectives, giving each their due weight rather than excessive or insufficient weight. That's why we have notability guidelines. That's why it's such a problem that, frankly, only Magdalen's friends and allies in the media noticed when she died. Let's have a look at the criticism from the article:

Berns was described as a "one of the most hateful and aggressive anti-trans radical feminists on Twitter" by trans woman and self-described "opinionator" Phaylen Fairchild;[7] and a "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist),[25] a transphobe,[23] and a "self-professed transphobe"[24] by her critics; transgender activist and philosophy professor Rachel McKinnon drew criticism after describing celebration of Berns' impending death as "ethically justified" in light of Berns' positions on gender.[27][28]

So we have: she's hateful and aggressive (sourced to a random Twitter account via, I think, Snopes; that would not pass BLP); she's a TERF (namecalling); she's a transphobe (namecalling, without backup); a prominent trans woman thinks it's reasonable to be happy about her death. You're a smart woman. Does that really all read as criticism of her positions (such as "being trans is like wearing blackface") to you? Of the sort that would make the article neutral and cover the range of opinions?

That said, my concerns about the article have been greatly reduced now that that ridiculous der Freitag user blog has been taken out. Vashti (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sufficient. We do have an article titled feminist views on transgender topics that can be linked alongside the criticism to help readers navigate and come to their own conclusions.

And I think the spirit of WP:NPOV is that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Which is what we're doing.

That's why we have notability guidelines.

We have notability guidelines because Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Not so that we can include a certain baseline amount of negativity.

frankly, only Magdalen's friends and allies in the media noticed when she died.

Except there's that whole bit with Rachel McKinnon gloating about her death. -Pine457 (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to clarify my opinion related to the idea of it being a "hit piece". I don't think this has any great bearing on deletion. I just want to make my view clear seeing as there has been some confusion. I don't think that the article is an intentional "hit piece" and I never used that term. I think the problem is that it is something of a memorial, with elements of hagiography, but where the very things that the subject is being praised for are things that are widely regarded as not being praiseworthy outside of the small group that share her particular opinions. It would likely give many readers a very negative view despite that being directly contrary to what was intended. (If that isn't clear, let me give a hypothetical example of an analogous situation on a (perhaps only slightly) less controversial subject. Imagine if the Marmite fan club were to write a glowing article about one of its members who had passed away, praising them for their dedication to the Marmite cause and exaggerating their importance to it in order to assert notability. Any people who can't stand Marmite who saw that article would be inclined to think poorly of the subject despite the authors intentions being the exact opposite.) As such, this article runs the risk of serving as a sort of unintentional hit piece. This effect is unavoidable on some articles. For example, even written entirely neutrally, an article about a notorious criminal can not avoid giving a negative impression of its subject. The subject here was not a notorious anything, never mind a criminal. The notability is not sufficient to force us to do this and I agree with what Vashti says above. We don't need to do this. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I apologize for my poor paraphasing of your view. Thank you for clarifying.

outside of the small group that share her particular opinions

It is not a small group who believe that trans women are men. We on the left can sometimes give ourselves the impression that our views are more prominent than they are, but polling from outside the bubble tells a different story. A poll conducted by Populus Ltd last year in the UK found that "60% of people thought trans women should not be allowed to compete in women’s sport, and 59% thought a trans woman with a penis should not be free to use a women’s changing room."

The same poll asked respondents to consider "a person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman." Only 19% said this person is a woman. 7% said they would not consider the person to be a man or a woman. 20% said they don't know. 52% said this person is a man.

Berns' views on these questions are the mainstream view.

We should not be deleting an article as an act of "kindness" toward the subject who might be viewed negatively by 19% of the population. -Pine457 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't determine who believes what, or what should be written in Wikipedia, based on polls with leading questions commissioned by anti-trans campaign groups like Fair Play For Women. Please stop trying to turn discussions into arguments about whether or not you are right. If you are indeed here to edit in good faith, you need to understand that you have to edit from *all* perspectives - not just your own. Vashti (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree polls don't determine what we cover. But Daniel claims it is a minority viewpoint, so I am allowed to respond with polling data that shows otherwise. If you are aware of better polling I'd be interested to see it. Please stop trying to tell me what I am allowed to discuss. I think you are well past BITE, and while I'm pretty thick skinned, I still don't appreciate it. If you think I'm saying something irrelevant, by all means say so, but do not presume to tell me what I am allowed to discuss. -Pine457 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To your claim that it's a leading question, the question was "We would now like you to think about a person who was born male and has male genitalia but who identifies as a woman. In your own personal view would you consider this person to be a woman or a man?" I can't think of how such a question could be better worded. If it said "a man who was born male," that would be leading, but I don't see a better option than what they asked. (Quite irrelevant to AFD, but you made the claim.) -Pine457 (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether an editor loves it or hates it: Feminist Current website, Spiked magazine, Der Freitag and The Post and Courier newspapers are not weighted in WP:RS/P and to dismiss them as not being reliable is entirely an editor POV. Der Freitag excerpt (translated from German): "Her videos brought me to a position that was previously unknown to me: gender-critical radical feminism...Magdalen Berns led debates for which there is still no clearly defined vocabulary in our language...The influence of youtube videos on very young and other people in search of orientation and information should not be underestimated. Magdalen Berns has done a tremendous amount of work in her short life to educate about her position, the gender-critical radical feminism. Her videos will continue to help, guide and, hopefully, reduce the confusion of people in gender-feminism and identity politics."
The Evening Standard newspaper and National Review magazine appear in WP:RS/P and are not deemed as "unreliable".
So as far as RS is concerned, we have AfterEllen, Der Freitag, Evening Standard, Feminist Current, Morning Star, National Review, Spiked, The Post and Courier.
Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject...If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Pyxis Solitary (yak) 06:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made no statement about source reliability other than regarding Quillette. Vashti (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said "That leaves us with only two sources that are about Magdalen - one from Quillette, an unreliable source, and one from AfterEllen, ....". And what I did is list 8 sources that are reliable, instead of just the 1 that, based on your statement, you consider reliable. Furthermore, the 8 sources are independent of each other and not identical. Pyxis Solitary (yak) 04:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the articles you listed are categorised at the top of the list as obituaries. That doesn't make them not reliable; it makes them sources that deal with a single event, *some of which* (such as the family obituary which is a primary source and the Facebook post) are not reliable. Vashti (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a real stretch — an obituary is an article about one person's life, who received that obituary because they were seen as notable enough to warrant a obituary. It is not an article about the event of their death. If it was that — ie an entry in the Darwin Awards, then I'd agree it would fall under WP:BIO1E. But this definitely doesn't. Her young death boosted her profile, as such deaths tend to do, and increased the number of secondary sources giving evidence of her notability, but the death itself is not what made her notable. KJBracey (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Pyxis states, as of today, Berns seems to have met the basic criteria, even if only in obituary form following her death. That is sufficient in itself, according to the guidelines. Beyond the basic criteria, she is clearly an influential figure and is widely cited within gender debates, although I don't see her quite meeting any additional criteria; but that isn't required having met the basic criteria. It's clear that for some on either side of the debate the retention or deletion of the article is seen as part of a propaganda battle. But WP:NOTADVOCACY neither through publication nor deletion — we just need to look at notability. KJBracey (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I was going to go for delete, as I am not wholly sure that being dead is notable. But a quick search throws up half a dozen articles about her death. Not sure they all meet RS, but its enough to make me think I might be missing some.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as shown by multiple reliable secondary sources; this seems pretty straightforward for keeping. Derek Balsam^(talk) 15:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Derek Balsam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Note There is potential canvassing coming from this reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/deyejg/wikipedia_is_considering_deleting_article_on/ — Richard BB 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, sempai noticed me. This page is interesting reading also. Vashti (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_help_at_AFD? -Pine457 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC you suggested I go and ask at WP:N. It's right up there, look, along with my link to it. Vashti (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested you take your idea for changing WP:N there. I said "This sounds like a suggestion for changing the notability guideline: if something happened more than three months ago, and it doesn't already have a Wikipedia article, then it isn't notable. It's a bit self-referential, what the guideline seeks to avoid, but you're welcome to suggest it."

I did not suggest that you should canvass about this AFD there. -Pine457 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that I wasn't aware of the canvassing policy and apologised for breaking it. Vashti (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not suggesting you should be reprimanded. -Pine457 (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability criteria are clearly satisfied. Obituary in a national Newspaper and tonnes of sourced content. Don't really get why we are here tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are insignificant and UTube is not considered to be a RS. This bloated AfD is replete with special pleading and canvassing from WP:spas. The bio would be more suitable as a Facebook memorial. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Don't get it mate. Have you not seen all the sources? Spiked and Morning Star would have been enough on their own. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, on their own, Spiked and MS wouldn't pass WP:BIO1E. A lot of the sources turn out to only bear so much weight. We're left with partisan blogs (AfterEllen, Feminist Current), sources marked as no consensus/make sure material from this site meets due weight in the RS list (Morning Star, National Review), sources marked as generally unreliable (Quillette).... all sources on the same, highly partisan, side of the debate. The only detailed source we're left with which is not marked as "hey, be careful with this one" is Spiked, which is also very partisan.

We can still build a vague picture of notability based on the many minor mentions in the wider press, even without the partisan sources. It might be enough. But it's a much smaller picture than that flood of convincing-looking sources made it appear. IDK, when someone prominent dies in a small community, and web magazines and columnists sympathetic to that community all notice, and nobody else does, and the AfD is swung by arguments from brand-new accounts, my spider sense tingles. Vashti (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, on their own, Spiked and MS wouldn't pass WP:BIO1E.

I think KJBracey answered this well: "an obituary is an article about one person's life, who received that obituary because they were seen as notable enough to warrant a obituary. It is not an article about the event of their death. If it was that — ie an entry in the Darwin Awards, then I'd agree it would fall under WP:BIO1E."

The only detailed source we're left with which is not marked as "hey, be careful with this one" is Spiked, which is also very partisan.

Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, and we just need to be careful with the ones we're told to be careful with: don't source disputed claims from them.

and nobody else does,

Rachel McKinnon also noticed, which is why we have The Post and Courier and Inside Higher Ed as sources. -Pine457 (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what others have said, there is no reason to discount any of the sources for being partial, they all meet the definition of reliable sources, for the purpose for which they are used. There is no dispute about the facts of Berns' life, which is what concerns us. It is also very much worth noting that the sources are ideologically very diverse. As far as I can see this is a dispute between two ideologically motivated posters given Vashti's declaration of position when he/she was canvassing support. But if we arrive at a position where a poster is pleading for disqualification of multiple sources from organisations we would normally trust as measures of notability, I'd say that pine457's position is clearly the one compatible with wiki policies. Vashti, you were also told that the article was probably noteworthy on your canvas attempt. Pine457 if you wish to prove your assertion that you were editing under an IP previously, you can probably provide the IP to an admin, certainly you should ask one about it. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification Wait a second, Pine457 - why do you have no edits at all before this AfD started? You've posted a hell of a lot of comments here for a zero-day account. Vashti (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilverStar6583, who posted on this AfD before, also only has edits going back to the 15th September and has edited almost exclusively here and at Magdalen Berns. Vashti (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vashti: Good catch. I have added a SPA notice to the first Pine457 comment on this AfD and sent a warning to User talk:Pine457. If you want to follow this up, I would suggest doing so in the user talk page rather than here. --MarioGom (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I shall so do, but maybe tomorrow. Vashti (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silverstar's account creation and first edits to the article predate this AFD. It's clear he or she arrived here because that article was sent to AFD, and editors on that article were invited to participate here. That's exactly how it's supposed to work, and WP:DGFA would not allow disregarding Silverstar's vote, as the account was not created solely for voting on the deletion discussion. -Pine457 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here for the same reason DanielRigal is: Berns' death was all over some parts of Twitter. I'm not sure whether I count as an SPA for the purpose of this AFD. The article was semi-protected at the time, which is why I had to create an account. I did create it after the AFD began, however, I have been participating in good faith, which should be evident from my attempting to reach compromise, which was accepted on the talk page. -Pine457 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. No policies prohibit editors from editing a single article. 146.90.81.143 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there is a legitimate question as to whether my vote should count. WP:DGFA mentions "accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion," though mine wasn't (I created it to edit the semi-protected article), but I can't prove that. Anyway, we don't have to argue about it here. The closing administrator will take it into consideration. -Pine457 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sudden anon account! Actually you'll find single-issue editing is frowned on, when users are canvassed to e.g. affect an AfD as meatpuppets - and Pine457, you have certainly affected this AfD. DanielRigal has 31 thousand edits and has been a user since 2006. Vashti (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't canvassed. As DanielRigel said, Berns' death was all over some parts of Twitter. I didn't say he was a new editor. I said that's why he and I are here at this discussion. -Pine457 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say that we need to keep the article for now at least. There was a lot of notability when she was ill and died. Maybe in one or two years we can reevaluate and see if she is still considered notable enough. I guess it depends on how pioneering she was in what she said (blogged) as well as how influential her ideas were -- even if they were not pioneering. Sometimes someone restates something in such a way that it grabs the public, for example, Greta Thunberg didn't come up with new research or views on climate change, but it's how she presents them and how she makes an impact on people that make her notable. Perhaps something similar is happening here. The other thing that I'd be concerned about, is not following along with Wikipedia's tendency to generally take the politically correct and/or extreme liberal view on something. Just because there is some dissent doesn't mean that it's wrong to include something. It's tricky. Like I said, keep it for now and re-evaluate in a year or two (especially since the article is being udpated and improved regularly). Lehasa (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She should have an article if she's truly notable, whatever her opinions were. But that article should not be framed from her minority perspective. Vashti (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have effectively just argued for keep and improve. The fact (in this case assertion, but we'll assume it is true) an article is biased is absolutely not a reason for deletion, and is not a response to Lehasa's point. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was without question a notable feminist thinker, before she got sick. She helped clarify numerous gender critical positions and pushed back against FUD. Deleting this article would just be more silencing of women's voices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkircher (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 October 2019 (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.

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. Seems like the sources have not convinced people that this topic deserves its own article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding at the 2024 Summer Olympics

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for speculating into future events; besides, little content and undersourced. See WP:FUTURE. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that this article should be deleted because this the event hasn't occurred yet. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one really falls under WP:CRYSTALBALL as we don't know if Skateboarding is even going to be in the 2024 Summer Olympics. HawkAussie (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/HawkAussie. Cause this is how I roll. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No deletion due to sources^[1]^[2]^[3]. Serial deletion is killing Wikipedia. The arguments here are petty misinterpretations of the guidelines without also considering that the request to delete this page is by a serial deleter. Please check their history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AnUnnamedUser&offset=&limit=500&target=AnUnnamedUser smoothswim

^ "IOC Official news announcing the provisional inclusion of Skateboarding in the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris". olympic.org. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-09-15.
^ "Olympic Games: Breakdancing takes step closer to Paris 2024 inclusion". bbc.co.uk. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
^ "Olympic Games: Paris organisers propose breakdancing to IOC as a new sport for 2024". bbc.co.uk. 2019-02-24. Retrieved 2019-10-02.

Please stop the ad hominem attacks. Your claim is unfounded, since you use "petty misinterpretations" without evidence. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being much too early for an article; there is literally no information other than the fact that skateboarding will maybe be included in the games. That might be appropriate to include in the main article about the games, but having a standalone article does not work. The sources show this very clearly. --bonadea contributions talk 04:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Its years too early for this article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could change this to a draft until the topic receives enough coverage to follow policy. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 16:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and crystalball. —AdamF in MO (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the spirit of WP:HAMMER. shoy (reactions) 15:46, 8 October 2019 (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.

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. Sandstein 07:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Sugar Die

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

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a band and an even more blatantly advertorialized standalone WP:BLP of one of its members, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NMUSIC. Neither article makes any notability claim besides the fact that their music exists, and both articles are depending far too strongly on primary sources (setlist databases, concert listings calendars, record label PR, the band's own self-published social networking profiles) and WP:BLOGS -- the only evidence of real media coverage in either article comes entirely from community weekly newspapers in McWilliams' own hometown media market, which is not wide enough coverage to claim that he's gotten over WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NMUSIC's achievement criteria. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their existence is verifiable -- they have to achieve something that passes NMUSIC, and they have to have reliable source coverage to support it, and nothing here passes either part of that equation. As well, both articles were created at the same time by an editor who's never contributed to Wikipedia on any other topic, suggesting the possibility of conflict of interest editing by McWilliams himself or a paid PR agent. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2019 (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.

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. The author's "keep" does not address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 07:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food Fight (game)

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

Unfortunately, the links provided in the article are either primary (Dragon) or from BoardGameGeek (a database) and I can't find any other sources which would pass WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect Not individually notable, can't find any reliable coverage of it. Redirect to TSR (company) and list in TSR (company)#Other games section. Schazjmd (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the article and subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Full disclosure, I created the article. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A redirect would serve no purpose if the target article does not discuss the game, which it doesn't. The article itself fails WP:GNG with a lack of detailed discussion in secondary sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:27, 4 October 2019 (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.

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watch and Dine Cinema

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Local movie/dinner theater. While I enjoy these personally, nothing really about this one which passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. This is just a local movie theater. The article attempts to claim notability by saying, "The concept of Watch and Dine is a novelty worldwide and fuses coziness of a movie theatre with nourishment from an eatery or restaurant; a movie theatre and restaurant all rolled into one." But this theater opened in 2018, so the concept is hardly a "novelty worldwide"; there were movie theaters with full restaurant service in the U.S. in the 1980s, if not earlier. There is also a claim that this theater is the 13th highest rated cinema in the world, yet no indication is given as to who issued that ranking. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very common theater format these days (see Marcus Theaters & Movie Tavern, who have it in near all their theaters), and the claim that a four screen theater is the 13th ranked multiplex worldwide (of what? We don't know here) is completely hyperbole. Nate • (chatter) 02:22, 5 October 2019 (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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Wai Floating Market

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

I have proposed this article for deletion because:

It is not notable. It is not a floating market. It is a market on the banks of a river, like thousands of of others in Thailand. It has good food according to the cites.
This is, in essence, a travel guide article, some info for Wikivoyage (to which I will move relevant bits)
In spite of being on the English Wikipedia, this article has no English citations. There is a Thai version of this article.
The article is poorly written, has no inline cites, but could be fixed were the topic worth the effort. It is not.
This article was created by user 171.98.30.207 or Torpido, who I think are the same person and who do not respond.
This article is not worthy of Wikipedia and its lack of notability means it is not worth further efforts to save it.

Seligne (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion page didn't originally use the template and wasn't properly transcluded to the daily list. I've just fixed the formatting. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thai-language references are perfectly acceptable. There is no requirement for references to be in English. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. The market is a popular academic study subject. A brief Google search reveals many academic papers and theses.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] --Paul_012 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scholar results appear to be enough to get past GNG. Having a misleading name and being similar to thousands of other markets are not relevant criteria to deletion. SpinningSpark 22:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've gone ahead and renamed the article to Don Wai Market, which is the name used in most English-language guidebooks. Talat nam in Thai literally translates to "water market", so it could be "floating market", "riverside market", etc. depending on context. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of scholar study provided by Paul 012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2019 (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.

[1] "IOC Official news announcing the provisional inclusion of Skateboarding in the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris". olympic.org. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

[2] "Olympic Games: Breakdancing takes step closer to Paris 2024 inclusion". bbc.co.uk. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2019-10-02.

[3] "Olympic Games: Paris organisers propose breakdancing to IOC as a new sport for 2024". bbc.co.uk. 2019-02-24. Retrieved 2019-10-02.

[1]

[2]

[3]