Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 August	4 August >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goyim Defense League

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

I previously moved this article to draftspace to encourage development. However, the article's creator moved it back again saying completed draft. I don't feel comfortable moving this back to draftspace a second time.

After reading the sources and doing preliminary research, this hate group does not seem like a it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

Several citations of the first few citations are just links to the hate group's social media accounts. The remaining references are reliable, but the majority of those are from Right Wing Watch, ADL, Task and Purpose, or similar sources which we traditionally don't use to establish notability. Pretty much the rest of the citations are decent WP:RS, but it almost always is for just one or two events (that concern either Brett Favre or Soulja Boy).

I actually think a joint-biography for Patrick Little, Jon Minadeo, and Adam Green (the three neo-nazis who compose it) would be a good fit under this article title. However, I don't think the article in its current state has much (if any) useable prose for that task. Therefore, I suggest deletion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this groups trolling of the aforementioned celebrities got a lot of media attention across the world, including New York Times, Washington Post, CBS News, etc. Aside from that the activities of Little (who is associated with the group) garned a lot of media attention when he was running for election and its probably better to have him mentioned in this article rather than making a stand-alone biography. The Middle East Media Research Institute now lists and tracks it as one of the notable anti-Jewish online hate groups. Benjiphillips (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjiphillips: You are correct that Little would be better as a redirect to this page than a stand-alone biography. However, the concern I have is related to WP:BLP1E because coverage should generally be WP:LASTING. I will admit that neither of those policies are specific to WP:NGROUP, and this is a rather borderline case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Benjiphillips The Alexa rankings for all the other groups on the MEMRI page that have a WP article are: Daily Stormer 25.6k, The Right Stuff 61.7k, Stormfront 77.8k, American Renaissance 113.5k, National Vanguard 216.1k; of the groups that only have a redirect: Red Ice TV 227.3k; Vanguard News Network 976.7k, Fash The Nation 1,332.8k; Goyim Defense League is at 2,366.8k (Aryan Nations has an obscure site called Aryan Nations Reborn that polls at 7,044.7k - but the parent group has been around since the 1970s.) StonyBrook (talk) 18:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that news coverage is limited to a brief flurry in early December 2018, all along the lines of Brett Favre 'sickened' after being tricked into recording anti-Semitic video for white supremacists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:LASTING. Most refs for this group are primary links, and passing mention of them and the non-notable politician during a flash of coverage received by fooling a few celebs into plugging them. WP covers notable groups but does not confer notability on the relatively unknown. StonyBrook (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of NOTPROMO would be relevant? The article just documents exactly what the media has said about them. The LASTING thing is a borderline case I think... there are two separate incidents involving them last year for which they got mass media attention: Patrick Little's anti-Jewish congress campaign in California (where he was polling as second for some time) and then the online trolling of the celebrities. The Middle East Media Research Institute watchdog report which tracks groups like this and has included the GDL is from March 2019 so they would appear to be still active and noted on by such organisations after these specific incidents. At this stage it may be too early to tell whether they have a lasting notability, so this isn't a particularly strong rationale IMO. Benjiphillips (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The part that says Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts. WP:NOTDIRECTORY of all websites. Since only 21% of the orgs on MEMRI have a WP article, and only 6% have redirects, but the vast majority (69%) have nothing, that indicates that being listed there is not an automatic indication of notability. It might grow someday in popularity but WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Writing an article about a relatively unknown website is part of advocacy and advertising. The references about Little's senate campaign have nothing to do with this article, which is about a group of internet trolls, and do nothing to bolster it. The incident with Brett Favre was a widely reported news item at the time, but WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Outside of the trolling incidents, no 3rd-party sources have shown any lasting interest. StonyBrook (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article about an relatively unknown website is also a part of the learning experience for new users. It's not like this article says they're good people or anything. It just follows the RS to the best Benji was able to. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL I think the article is neutral and well-written, and whether or not they are good people has nothing to do with anything. The sole issue is whether this article reports on or creates the notability. I believe in this case it is the latter. StonyBrook (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: [Thank you for the ping] With the last thing you said, Agree to disagree there then. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StonyBrook: I have to agree with Benjiphillips in part here. I don't see anything promotional about this article (maybe some minor WP:PEACOCK which happens with any new user). This really is a case of LASTING/ORG1E rather than semi-promotional edits. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I added it to List of neo-Nazi organizations. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 22:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. A minor mention can be made in another article. This is unnecessary and simply assists in the trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:LASTING. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Doesn't meet notability. Barca (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As basically an ORG1E (or HATE1E?). They pulled a stunt in December 2018. Got covered. Haven't had much coverage otherwise at all. The event itself (tricking celebrities into making recordings) doesn't quite pass NEVENT (as it doesn't have CONTINUECOVERAGE). Add to all the above that we generally want strong independent sourcing for WP:FRINGE topics... And it's a delete. Icewhiz (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: someone should really make HATE1E a thing. That's pretty clever! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and WP:LASTING. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete Icewhiz's ORG1E quip says it perfectly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject lacking verifiably supported notability as an organization. Let me add a little comment here. It's a little disheartening to see so many irrelevant policies or guidelines invoked in this AfD discussion. The accusation of the contested text having a promotional nature is clearly unfounded; WP:LASTING is about events and not organizations (and, as a side note, the 2018 stunt did have consequences, with plenty of media attention focused on instigators and victims, with a lot of follow up); Alexa rankings are irrelevant as a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia; and so on. And I hope the discussion has not been affected by how participants view the subject. -The Gnome (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: In all fairness, I did say neither WP:LASTING or WP:BLP1E were specific to WP:NORG above. I'm just not as articulate as you. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:36, 9 August 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 William Nelson Page. Clear consensus to not keep. Less clear if there's any real consensus between delete, merge, or redirect. Going with redirect as a middle ground that I don't think anybody would object to. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Gilham Page

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

Per WP:BIO, this article does not establish notability of the subject, and sources used seem to point to the subjects spouse. The criteria given for the previous AfD conclusion of no consensus - the naming of places - again refers only to the husband. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ with William Nelson Page, which already has a sub-section relating to this subject. As nominator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Upon review of the comments by RebeccaGreen and Icewhiz I have changed my preference to Delete / Redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources used do point to the spouse, of course, but I would argue there is still enough coverage within those books to show GNG. A book doesn't need to be 'about' that specific topic to still be considered significant. One might not argue her life is relevant from a business standpoint, but from a social and general historical standpoint, of course it is. JamieWhat (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JamieWhat Per RebeccaGreen below, most if not all sources note her as Mrs William Nelson Page which, although social convention of the era, appears to indicate that there was no notability of her own accord. Most social reporting would expect that the wife of a local dignitary would be the hostess of functions or co supporter of various local projects. There does not appear to be any mention of any activity outside that of a dutiful spouse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A small point - it was indeed the social convention of the time to refer to married women by their husbands' names, and that would not affect their notability if they did notable things. I consider this woman non-notable because no notable activities or achievements were reported (as you say, nothing beyond what was expected of any woman of her social standing), not because of the name used for her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A small point, well made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any further information about her in Newspapers.com, EBSCO, JSTOR, etc. There are many short mentions in the social pages in digitised newspapers, which can be useful sources of information about civic activities and careers. In this case, they report only that Mrs. William Nelson Page hosted or was hosted at teas, bridge parties, whist parties (she gifted some gold enamelled pins), eggnog parties, dinners, and as house guests, etc. In 1891, if it's the same Mrs. William N. Page, she was one of 14 members of the Woman's Committee of the World's Fair Auxiliary Committee on Charities - but there were 12 of these women's committees which all had that many members or more - and she was not a chair, just a member, and may not even have been the same person.

I am not !voting Merge, as I don't see any information here which is not already in the articles about her father and/or her husband, and, while redirects are cheap, it does not seem to me that anyone outside her family would know of her as Emma Gilham Page. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in the redirect (on a 14 year old article) + Emma Hayden Page redirects here and should redirect to the husband. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - not seeing the WP:NOTE for this .. and per nom — Ched : ? — 15:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (I agree with RebeccaGreen - not much salvageable here) to William Nelson Page. A WP:NOTINHERITED situation vs. her father and husband - most of the article describes her relatives, and she does not seem to be discussed at any significant length in sources I see. Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand the desire to create more broad and inclusive history, and to move to more social history positions, such as noting how many servants rich people had. There are lots of issues with the coverage and inclusion in Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is also not a forum to right great wrongs. If someone feels that Emma Gilham Page is a truly worthwhile focus for study they are free to seek to get research on her published in reliable sources, and once that is done multiple times we can follow with an article on her, until then there is no justification for a stand alone article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material unsupported by reliable sources is deleted and not dumped elsewhere in Wikipedia, so this takes care of any Merge proposal. A Redirect to the extant article on William Nelson Page would not be out of place, of course, since there'll always be somone cherchant la femme. -The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)-The Gnome (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with sadness because the article is done with some care. But I just don't see a GNG case here. The article doesn't really even claim notability. Haukur (talk) 23:51, 10 August 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) 01:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Farebrother

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

No significant coverage. The actor fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Two minor roles does not make one a notable actor. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. People keep confusing Wikipedia for the Actors' Guild Member List. -The Gnome (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to laugh at that. ALthough I think we also need to look at some of the indiscriminate inclusion of articles on films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really need to make only being sourced to IMDb a speedy criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 9 August 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) 01:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Hair Route Magazine

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

Article about a niche-interest magazine ("the permanent hair removal industry"?!?), not properly sourced as passing our notability standards for magazines -- the only "reference" here is a WorldCat directory entry, not any form of reliable source coverage about it that would establish its notability at all. As always, however, magazines are not automatically entitled to keep virtually unsourced articles just because they're technically verifiable as existing: the notability test is the reception of independent coverage about the magazine in sources other than just indiscriminate directories. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its current state the article contains no reliable sources that demonstrate it is notable. Railfan23 (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Magazine went defunct some time between 2012 and 2014; a trade magazine without much WP:N outside the depilation industry otherwise (though now I thank that search result for adding a particularly coarse ad from a shaving company to my Google ad history 😑). Nate • (chatter) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The single reference shows that the Journal exists, but it does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No demonstration of notability. Barca (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trade magazines are not inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject is evidently not notable nor worthy or an entry in Wikipedia. People keep confusing Wikipedia for the List of Periodicals. -The Gnome (talk) 06:37, 9 August 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: Nominator has wasted enough time of various editors to finally conclude that its content issue and not notability issue. (Non-admin closure) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International rankings of India

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

This page is simply a list of statistics. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 21:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuant to WP:NOTSTATS. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 22:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before we debate this article, we need to consider Category:International rankings by country which contains many similar articles relating to different countries. If we are to delete the article based on stats, to be consistent the rest of them should also be deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They all appear to be created by the same user, heroeswithmetaphors. They follow the same structure: the lead section is "These are the international rankings of [country]," often without a period; and they list off statistics that have no context in the article other than being a statistic, which is what the article is about. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find "international rankings" a very vague topic that could include an incoherent list of statistics, which is what this article is. I believe that this article also has no interest to another, in contrast to the polling articles about polls before elections that have been separated from the articles describing the elections in general. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, context is required for lists of statistics; simply restating the title as this article does is not a legitimate context description. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the compilation of various stats but it serves the purpose of Wikipedia by increasing encyclopedic content on project. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic content is not any information. Some of these are notable about India, but the majority of these statistics are unnotable. Additionally, Wikipedia serves to present the sum of all human knowledge, not all human knowledge. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list provides ~~interesting~~ obviously important/significant and well sourced data. My very best wishes (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING refutes your point and explicit states that the argument "It's interesting" is not valid. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. The importance/significance of these numbers and rankings is self-evident; they are mostly sourced; nothing else is required for lists. My very best wishes (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSIMPORTANT refutes your point again. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your justification for deletion: "This page is simply a list of statistics.". This is not a valid argument. The statistical data may or may not be valid for encyclopedia. These particular data are valid because they are precisely the type of data usually provided in other published encyclopedic sources like Education Index, data for countries provided by World Health Organization, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not that this page is not encyclopedic but that it provides no coherent context for the statistics, as discussed in WP:NOTSTATS. Additionally, verifiable data does not make it notable. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic of the page is notable, and there are about 100 similar articles in the category "International rankings". Whether or not all the article's content is suitable for inclusion is a different matter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For notability of lists, see WP:NOTESAL, which states that a criterion that could make a list topic notable is its discussion as a whole, which is not adequate enough for this topic. Additionally, the topic seems like it was made for most of the statistics to fail WP:LISTCRITERIA. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 17:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: Very much in-line with similar 100+ articles in Category:International rankings by country. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF refutes your argument: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. ... Plenty of articles exist that probably should not." AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can start a group nomination for all 100+ articles as your rationale applies to them all being mere statistics. If you are too busy, i can help you tag all 100+ articles, send notices to all creators, transclude the discussion on all relevant delsort pages. Buzz me if thats needed! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably set up the bundle templates tomorrow. Additionally, I believe that all of these articles have the same creator. I believe that the bundle would not require a transclusion. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not bundling until someone objects to the next proposal. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 02:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be fine if this article just listed the important statistics and not random ones that fail WP:LSC like number of chess players. AnUnnamedUser (open talk page) 01:23, 8 August 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.

Steve Eddowes

The result was Delete. I see no consensus for or against a redirect to the EDL, so there should not be considered any prejudice against creating one in the future. (non-admin closure) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources do not demonstrate notability. Reliable secondary sources only provide trivial coverage in the context of the English Defence League or Tommy Robinson. Lmatt (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Chairman of EDL is not a trivial position, though his profile has not been as high as Tommy Robinson's, not surprisingly. It could be that a redirect to EFL and a separate section on Eddowes there would be OK. However, it could also be that if the nominator hadn't deleted half the article on spurious grounds there would be more to go on. (I've reinstated it pending further discussionn.) Emeraude (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the WP:GNG, and I can't find substantial coverage about him to justify an article. Just because a notable person previously occupied his role doesn't mean that the role conveys notability in the absence of substantial coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:NOTINHERITED. There's scant coverage about him as a political activist. In any case, political activists are not inherently notable because of their organizations, unless they win seats in a national or sub-national parliament. We routinely delete articles for Green party officials, professional protesters, etc. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:NOTINHERITED. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, also WP:POLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:40, 9 August 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) 01:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ablitt

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

Sources do not demonstrate notability. Reliable secondary sources only provide trivial coverage in the context of the English Defence League or Tommy Robinson. Lmatt (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was a brief, very small flurry of coverage in 2013-14 (IS THE PARTY OVER FOR THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE. Randolph, Eric. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]19 Oct 2013: 26. They chose a new chairman, Tim Ablitt, a former...) so a merge to the English Defense League might make sense, but I see real WP:SUSPECT concerns due to coverage like (New EDL boss was nicked over 'bomb plot', Ward, John. Daily Star (Online); London (UK) [London (UK)]27 Oct 2013. . " Tim Ablitt, 48, was unveiled as the new head of the far-right group after former boss Tommy Robinson - real name Stephen Lennon - resigned. The Daily Star Sunday can reveal Ablitt was one of seven EDL members nicked by detectives investigating an alleged plot to bomb a Muslim temple in Bournemouth in July 2010. Police marksmen, acting on intelligence, opened fire on suspected ringleader John Broomfield and shot out the tyres of his van. They later seized Ablitt and five other EDL members at various addresses on suspicion of conspiracy to cause an explosion. Ablitt, of Poole, Dorset, had his computers, phones, passport and car seized before he was later released without charge." He is mentioned at the EDL page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure Leader of the EDL is hardly a trivial position, but he has managed to keep a low profile, unlike his predecessor. Perhaps a redirect, with a short section within the EDL article to cover him would be a way forward. Emeraude (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think E.M.Gregory is pretty thorough. There's not a lot of coverage of Ablitt and not a lot of useful coverage. I don't think WP:GNG is met here. Ralbegen (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm not going to repeat my detailed arguments for every guy who's headed a right-wing club or their ilk, but here goes: There's scant coverage about him as a political activist. In any case, political activists are not inherently notable because of their organizations, unless they win seats in a national or sub-national parliament. We routinely delete articles for Green party officials, professional protesters, etc.. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG per WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SIGCOV. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, also WP:POLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 06:42, 9 August 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) 01:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index of computing articles

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

It is unclear what (if any) purpose indices like this have ("Wikipedia indexes are a type of general topics list of encyclopedic content available on Wikipedia (the other type being Wikipedia outlines)." at Category:Wikipedia indexes is the "best" explanation I could find), but any use they do have will only work if they are kept (reasonably) up to date. However, it appears that in most cases when a new article is created it is not added to the index; the recent edits to the index are mostly wikignoming (e.g. when an existing article has been renamed or deleted). Presumably, some automated process was used to generate the list in the first place (e.g. from articles tagged by the relevant wikiproject), but there doesn't appear to be any process to add new articles to it (unlike with categories which afaics make indexes like this redundant). Thus the costs of this page (e.g. misleading readers that we don't have an article about a newish subject, editor time updating links) outweigh any benefits that it might provide. DexDor^(talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be happy with replacing the page with a redirect to Outline of computing and updating/removing inlinks where necessary (e.g. where there's currently a link to both the index and the outline). DexDor^(talk) 11:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content/updating issues are not a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason to delete, and also this is a valid list/index article that aids in navigation. You can't destroy something because you prefer categories. Dream Focus 02:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That a page is doing more harm than good might not be a valid reason to delete an article (most AFDs hinge on the notability of the article's topic), but the page isn't an article (facts about the real world with references); it's (intended to be afaics) for navigation. A reader could reasonably assume that an index in wp is automatically updated, but the reality is that the page gets more out of date every year as new articles (e.g. Windows 10, Raspberry Pi, WannaCry and thousands of less prominent topics) are not added to the index. DexDor^(talk) 17:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure how such a list can be useful as it seems like it's not much different than what would be found on a category page. That said it seems like a more general discussion on indices might be better. There is WP:Indexes which was added to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates with this diff[1]. The discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal - Unified index, glossary, and category using article short descriptions might also be of interest. PaleAqua (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Switching back to comment. While I am leaning delete this really needs a more central discussion, as StarryGrandma notes there are a lot of similar pages. PaleAqua (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also an index of computer articles seems like it is too broad a subject. The collection of articles included seem rather arbitrary. Nothing about Single Static Assignment (SSA) but Backus-Naur form (BNF) is included, or GNU Bison but not Bison, Yacc but not Flex. QuarkXPress is mentioned but Quicken is not. Unix, 386BSD, 4.2BSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD are mentioned but BSD is not and System V is listed under U as Unix System V. Commodore 1581 but not Commodore 128 or plain Commodore. I could easily go on, the gaps are huge. Filling the missing information would make article too big to work with. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect There is already Outline of computing; it is absurd to have an article with the same sort of links, just in alphabetical order with no context or organization – that's what categories are for. Of course lists and templates can be complementary to categories, but such redundancy and uselessness is a perfectly valid reason to delete. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a precedent that outlines and indexes can't coexist? This seems to occur more often than not. Daß Wölf 03:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of these index articles covering the whole range of Wikipedia articles in the category tree under Category:Wikipedia indexes. This one is just as valid as any other in Category:Indexes of engineering topics. A single AfD is not the way to discuss whether or not index articles should exist. If you find these to be a problem, start an RFC at Category talk:Wikipedia indexes and list it at Template:Centralized discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. This discussion may well help inform a future RFC (or an XfD for a larger group of indexes), but I don't see any reason why the possibility of doing an RFC means that individual pages can't be discussed. I note that no-one in this discussion has identified any way in which the existence of the page helps readers/editors (apart from a vague "aids in navigation"). DexDor^(talk) 21:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, the section Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative states: It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my reading that talks about lists not indices. List articles provide details and comparisons instead of just a alphabetical index of article names. See for example List of compilers or List of computer magazines. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per StarryGrandma. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:20, 10 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Hat (company)

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Brochure article. scope_creep^Talk 23:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? The article does cite some press release stuff but also several sources that do seem independent. Maybe some more critical coverage exists as well? I found this, which isn't much: [2] Haukur (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The company has some sources that are likely to pass WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. The page was created by a contributor paid by the company but this fact should not affect the article's worthiness either way. An admission above by a Keep !voter that nothing much can be found in support of subject's notability is telling. -The Gnome (talk) 06:51, 9 August 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 ABS-CBN. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ABS-CBN Foundation

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

No acceptable independent secondary sources available for this topic. All but one source (found via BEFORE) are primary and produced by the organization. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N and WP:ORGCRITE. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, a small mention (and yes, Filipino TV editors, I mean small) is justified in the main ABS-CBN article; all television networks have charitable foundations, and this article seems more of a promo for the network than a neutral article about a charity. Nate • (chatter) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - it's not independent of the TV network. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge would be a sensible option here. I'm sure the foundation is supporting some useful causes but I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and it does not seem to be notable in its own right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 5 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter Campaign Setting

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

No independent reliable sources available. The BEFORE search reveals this book (supplement) in PDF format, for sale on various websites, and one blog post. Page was previously a redirect twice [3], and [4] (redirect from merge), hence it appears an AfD is the correct solution. Fails GNG and NBOOK. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Neverwinter. BEFORE is intrinsically difficult because there are some references to the campaign setting of Neverwinter separate from the specific product called Neverwinter Campaign Setting. However, insofar as I can tell, there are no WP:RS outside of what is contained in the article and, except in cases of inherent notability, articles can almost never be sourced to a single source and still crest our requirements for WP:SIGCOV. That said, the content here might be useful at Neverwinter, though, it's unclear if even that article is safe from deletion based on its current state and without investigating further. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on BOZ's note, below, regarding the addition of new sources I've struck my redirect alt; the combination of the Applecline book and MTV News is enough to solidly warrant a merge. Some of the other sources I'm not as taken with (e.g. the GAMA page simply proves the campaign setting exists by including it in a list of publications nominated for an Origins Award) so can't convert to Keep but I do think Merge is acceptable. Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draft~~ I've found a few sources (reviews on game sites such as Diehard Gamefan) but I don't have much time to fill in the article right now. I think if additional sources can be found and someone has time to flesh it out, then it should be kept. If it doesn't have enough sources to stand alone, then ~~Redirect~~ to Neverwinter. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, there are plenty of reviews for almost anything WotC publishes to meet WP:N. That said, I don't think every book should have its own article. This one probably less than almost any. Ideally we should probably have a list article just for the 4th edition campaign settings book. Redirect to Neverwinter for now I think is best. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found before the AFD closes, otherwise Draft per Sariel Xilo until such time as they can be found and the article put through AFC to restore it. BOZ (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the article has been expanded significantly earlier today. BOZ (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've updated it with the sources I could find so I don't think it needs to be moved into drafts anymore. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:08, 7 August 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. Lourdes 05:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ennedi tiger

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

At least two users at the fringe theories noticeboard have failed to find evidence of notability of this cryptid per WP:NFRINGE. All the current sources are fringe. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following current usage (which I don't agree with, but whatevs) this would seem to hinge on coverage by a non-cryptozoology source. The publication by Jeanne-Francoise Vincent, who appears to have been a well-published anthropologist [5], would seem to fill that requirement. However, I'm unable to verify this in the text itself; the terms used in the article don't seem to be discoverable, at least not in whatever fraction is searchable on Google books [6]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Vincent's publication can be viewed on Gallica, where searching for the term "hadjel" will bring up the information. It doesn't show the whole pages due to copyright, but it does show some relevant text from the pages. The entire text of the passage does appear on various websites (the opening line is "a Temki, les membres"), but of course they're all cryptozoology websites. Also, please note that this publication only discusses the hadjel, not any of the other cryptids mentioned in the article. I should say that when I added the present information to the article, I wasn't aware that the sources I used aren't considered reliable, so even if the article isn't deleted now, the information that remains when the unreliable sources are removed probably wouldn't be enough to justify an entire article anyway - and if it was, the article would have to be renamed "Hadjel," since Vincent's book doesn't mention any of the others. --Bradypus Tamias (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | gab _ 17:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hadn't heard of the Ennedi tiger before so I asked friends who study this subject, they also had not heard of the Ennedi tiger. Because all the other editors have found are fringe references, sadly I think the Ennedi tiger on Wikipedia has to go. Sgerbic (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BhagyaMani (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alhtough I have never seen an Ennedi tiger in my life, there's ample sourcing already in the contested article, which renders the subject evidently notable. -The Gnome (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to ring the WP:N bell. Cited sources appear to be fringe. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFRINGE. I had considered the possibility of a redirect to a suitable cryptozoology related article, but I can't find one that mentions this subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 11 August 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.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain

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

Article creator User:Spicherc is a the inventor of this therapy. No randomized control study of it has been done to compare it with other pain-reduction methods. Needs better support from WP:MEDRS HouseOfChange (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notability of a subject is defined by coverage in sources. If the method performs better than others is not really relevant. From what I see, this is a sufficiently well written and sourced page; the notability seems to be established by the currently cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:49, 10 August 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. Consensus favors deletion with only a tepid suggestion for a redirect. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Rich

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I could not find any coverage in reliable sources and this producer has not produced any hit songs or anything else to establish notability StaticVapor message me! 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. StaticVapor message me! 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If Lil Rich had co-produced Machine Gun Kelly's "Moonwalkers" as claimed, it might be evidence that he was notable. Unfortunately Lil Rich is not mentioned on any reliable source related to Moonwalkers. The only time he comes up are on user-generated content sites like genius.com or on mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Currently, this clearly fails WP:GNG. Railfan23 (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Ceethekreator (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lil Rich is one half of StupidGenius and this article might conceivably be redirected there, although that article is also desperately thin on in-depth coverage, but at least it comes from reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy ‘Bos’ Bullock

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

I found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy ‘BOS’ Bullock is an acclaimed music producer, with Grammy nominations and everything on his page is true. There is no reason for deletion. All of his songs listed can be verified through ASCAP’s official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livinmydestiny (talk • contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Venerability is not the issue, notability is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree as per nom. Barca (talk) 22:37, 9 August 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 The Walt Disney Company Latin America. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company Argentina

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

Regional division of Disney that is not independently notable. Trivialist (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The Walt Disney Company Latin America, its parent company, in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect, same reasons as posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Walt Disney Company Asia Pacific. – Levivich 13:46, 5 August 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Urquhart

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Has a combined total in 143 games in the AHL and DEL and at least 200 is required to pass criteria #2. No preeminent honours to pass #3 as well. Tay87 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NHOCKEY does not confer an automatic notability freebie on every hockey player who exists. In the NHL, a hockey player gets to keep an article as soon as he's made ice in at least one NHL-level game; in the leagues where this player actually played, however, the notability test requires playing in at least 200 games and/or winning preeminent honours like a league award. But Cory Urquhart can claim neither, and this article cites no evidence that he's received enough reliable source coverage to get over GNG in lieu of having to satisfy an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and the only sources are statistical summaries, which don't meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 10 August 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) Rollidan (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Schätzl

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

This page is basically a blow-by-blow of a non-notable columnist and author's life who also happens to be a bit-part actress with a charity that receives no secondary sources at all. The page appears to be authored by Schatzl herself, or an individual close to her. The prose is pure fluff documenting her pets, her various insignificant "gigs", and even her relocation to different states and her application for permanent residency. Majority of the sources are from questionable German outlets or her unverified social media accounts most of which direct to dead links. It's quite telling that even with these apparent reliable German sources, she doesn't have a page on German Wiki. Maxen Embry (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is certainly much better known here in Germany than in the US therefore most sources are from Germany but that certainly should not be a problem. Her move to the US as well as here life before and after the move was covered in detail in a German TV series by VOX (German TV channel), her books have been published in Germany and her TV and film appearances have been in Germany. Again that shouldn't be a problem as Wikipedia isn't just for people notable in the US. As all this was already some years ago some sources might not be reachable anymore but that can happen to online sources. I approached Schätzl 2013 myself for the release of an image under CC license, as I quite often do for articles, and she kindly sent me some photos with the usual release form. I forwarded her email with the attached pics to OTRS where I'm sure it is still archived. So IMHO she fulfilled in Germany the WP:BIO 'nutshell' criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Optimale ^Gu 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Optimale, it is considered good form to state that you are the page creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a Proquest newspapers search turns up only 5 sources in German and ZERO sources in any other language. gNewshas more sources, but they are of a less reliable species than the sources found via Proquest newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ since subject does not meet WP:NCREATIVE and even WP:ANYBIO. The text is full of unsourced or poorly sourced promotional verbiage. It's undue weight by itself. I suggest we gallantly invoke WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing suggestion to Keep since German sources now verify WP:ANYBIO. Manic hunger to be famous is sometimes rewarded, and this is one such time. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No views either way on the subject's notability or otherwise; but I just want to say that it is also considered "good form" for the proposer of an AfD not to attempt to game the system by deleting wikilinks thereby reducing the subject's visibility before the issue has been decided, as here, here, here and here. GrindtXX (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of publications about her in news, although mostly in German. Definitely notable as a columnist, author, and actress (see the page). My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you User:GrindtXX for catching the chicanery. The subject is notable. German media and books. Meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 03:39, 10 August 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. I am not opposed to draftifying a page if there is any evidence that the subject is likely to pass our notability guidelines at some point in the future. But I'm not really seeing that here and the consensus is clearly against keeping this page at the present time. Nonetheless this close is w/o prejudice to an undelete request should the subject garner enough coverage to ring the WP:N bell at a future date. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Zenda

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

Non-notable Zimbabwean contemporary artist. Fails WP:BIO. Google News search returns just 3 mentions, all of them trivial. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a general search turns up very little– one or two mentions in Zimbabwean news articles. A search of Zim newspapers might find more, but I do not have the sense it would be enough.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this belong on the Women-related deletions? The pronouns in the article are "him". Not sure if this comment belongs here, but...? Netherzone (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability - "OVER 150 visual upcoming and seasoned artists across the country are set to showcase their artworks at this year’s edition of the Wild Geese Art Fest....." Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shift to draft If you feel this page doesn't belong to the English Wikipedia as yet please put it under my drafts until i gather more references for it to be more notable. Bobbyshabangu _talk 11:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Bobbyshabangu That sounds like an idea (to draftify) - if there are more reliable sources in books and the press that show significant coverage of his work, such as reviews, chapters in books, art historical essays in journals, etc. Also significant exhibitions like one-person shows in museums, and list any works that have been acquired in museum collections and permanent public art works. See WP:CREATIVE. It seems like it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON at this time. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when moving a non-notable page to a draft is the outcome of the AfD? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rather than draft, seems to be the right outcome here, in the absence or RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:10, 10 August 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. Although the numerical tally is about even between those who want to keep and those who want to delete this article, the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

If you came here because of a tweet [7], a reddit thread [8] or blog [9], 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}}.

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

Article fails to meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:EVENT. The overwhelming majority of coverage comes from opinion pieces, many of which acknowledge that the mainstream press hasn't really picked up this story. The story involves a WP:BLP1E individual, and the general consensus in discussions elsewhere has been that, at best, this story might warrant some minimal coverage at the page for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has not yet handed down a decision, it seems implausible to think that we're going to be able to say anything about the "lasting import" of this case at the moment.Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've heard of this story from national news coverage from the other side of the Atlantic. [10] [11] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ unless some impressive reliable sources appear. This may or may not become a case which established some legal precedent, but not yet as far as I can tell. Yes some newspapers have reprinted the chaff of hearsay and some rather ill advised quotes from the subject, but based on my observations of social media in the last week, any notoriety for the case is the Twitter enthusiasm for salacious reposts, click-bait, abusive imagery and the excuse to say something offensive or nasty about "balls" and trans women at the same time. This could as quickly evaporate next week and does not cross the threshold of GNG. The suggestion of inclusion in a larger article makes more sense to me, once the legal issues are better understood, if any. Based on the reported comment from the tribunal, that means waiting until November 2019 at the earliest, at which point this may come to naught. --Fæ (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Simonm223's observation of this being a BLP violation. --Fæ (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage clearly includes Europe, North America, and Australia. Clearly meets GNG. It is false to argue that "the mainstream press hasn't really picked up this", when solid WP:RS such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation clearly cover the case.^[1] The nom ought to be withdrawn with prejudice on that false assertion alone. XavierItzm (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC covers a lot of events that do not have Wikipedia articles, or do you honestly believe Wikipedia must have an article for the event "At an airport in Rome recently, 336 Air Transat passengers sat in a plane on the tarmac for six hours"? This is not actually a legal case as far as I can tell. The tribunal has given no opinions and will not for a couple more months. Even when the tribunal gives a statement it may be to give no statement at all. That's not a good basis for Wikipedia notability for an event. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XavierItzm: not trying to be a jerk here, but do you see that blue link in my post? It leads you to an op-ed where the writer states "While the Yaniv case has been going on for a while now, you may not have heard much about it, as it has largely been covered by the rightwing press." Please read more carefully before throwing out accusations like that. Nblund^talk 16:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it has been covered by the right-wing press, and mostly as a vehicle for a whole pile of fabrication and transphobia, does not mean that it hasn't been covered by a less biased press too.

If you have a case that "WP should not be covering this" then make it, because GNG is unlikely to be a reason to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should take that up with the Guardian. What it means is that there is a dearth of high quality sourcing and a wealth of crap. Where is that mainstream reliable coverage that adds up to more than a subsection within another article? We have a CBC article and a Globe and Mail article - but we have no decision, virtually none of the WP:INDEPTH coverage that could demonstrate a a lasting impact, and a bunch of op-eds that come pretty much exclusively from the same perspective. We're at stub-length and we're pretty much out of stuff to say. Nblund^talk 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take up what with the Guardian?

And are you now advocating that stub articles be deleted, simply for being stubs? Especially not on a story that is still ongoing. The gay cake case took an awfully long time to come to a conclusion and even if this (as seeems likely) ends up merged as a section somewhere, that's still some distance from deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that stub articles that can't be improved should be deleted or merged. We don't judge noteability based on expectations about the future, we judge them based on their current status. If you were to create a "lasting impact" subsection in this entry, what would you write? Nblund^talk 17:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if this article was to be merged somewhere, because this one issue was likely to be too insignificant, in which direction would you seek to merge it? Transgender issues in Canada? Transgender issues generally, vis a vis the trans / TERF conflict? Or to Jessica Yaniv? However that article would be heavily negative and the term "sexual predator" would certainly be on the table, as that's how they are seen and described by many commentators [12] (and yes, it's a chilly day in Hell today, as I'm agreeing with Miranda Yardley over anything).

That said, I think that long-term this is going to produce case law which is known to every Canadian law student within a few years, whichever way it goes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The case was previously mentioned on the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal entry. It was removed after a WP:BLPN discussion for lack of sourcing - but that would at least be a plausible place to put the information. If this becomes the subject of serious legal analysis then I'll be totally on board with adding that or having an article on it. We're not there yet. Nblund^talk 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed from there 3RR, against reversions by multiple editors, claiming PRIVACY concerns, despite international newspaper coverage and considerable self publication by the complainant. So hardly a convincing removal and certainly no influence on this article, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of news coverage and opinion pieces from highly reliable sources around the globe. Not sure why this was nominated for deletion other than that Nblund and Fae seem to have very strong personal feelings on transgender-related topics. I've stumbled upon much less notable topics on Wikipedia. Rhino (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC) user blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

Shame that this AfD could not have remained free of unhelpful personal allegations about contributors. --Fæ (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please note user Fæ has three times in less than 24 hours deleted the same material, in violation of the 3RV rule. Clearly the article is being tampered with. A warning has been left on user Fæ's TP. XavierItzm (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- XavierItzm, Fae invoked the BLP, and rightly so, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And when Fae's response to other editors is "looks a lot like vandalism", they're a whisker away from ANI. I too am concerned about the large section blankings go on, during an AfD. That's not about BLP when this is information widely out on public media channels (and much of it was self-tweeted), but it is distruptive to the AfD process. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is clearly enough coverage, but the article is a bit undercooked and the case is apparently still being resolved in tribunal. Still, on the notability merits, it probably stands for now. Raymie (t • c) 17:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the threshold for notability: still just a single news event. That this got picked up a couple of papers and a couple of right-wing outlets doesn't raise it above NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that it isn't (and basic research will show this) is a single new event. There are a number of issues to Jessica Yaniv as a "campaigner for trans rights" [sic], some profoundly negative. Constructing an article to WP:BLP standards around them would be another matter, but this is far from a single "15 minutes of fame" incident. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm too basic, but the sources are all from the same time, so one can hardly argue that the person already had a reputation as an activist or whatever, in any kind of provable way. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing goes back a couple of years, especially re Cimorelli. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the article under discussion is a BCHRT case. The sources you are referring to would be of potential relevance to a biographical article about the complainant.--Trystan (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'd like to see it re-framed as Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a BLP already existed using this person's birthname, but it was deleted and salted and that deletion was just endorsed under DRV - even in light of recent developments. I assume that would also apply to a BLP under this name - so you would need to start an WP:AFC discussion before doing that. I don't really think there's enough high quality sourcing to justify this article, much less a full BLP about this person. Nblund^talk 23:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. So firstly you're going to conflate renaming the article as Jessica Yaniv, with the act of misgendering and deadnaming them. Then you're going to use the deletion of that name as a reason to pretend that Jessica Yaniv was already deleted and salted? That's some seriously misleading sleight of hand you're using. And just to be clear, Jessica Yaniv has neither been deleted nor salted and has only been created once, earlier today, as a redir to this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Que? I'm "conflating" an article using the person's birthname with an article using the person's current name because both names reference the same person, and both names were discussed in the deletion review. I also explicitly distinguished Yaniv's "birth name" from her current name, but noted that the deletion review... wait, why am I recounting my comment to you? Just read it for Christ sakes. It's the one directly above this. No one is trying to mislead you. Please read more carefully and apply some common sense and a little WP:AGF. Nblund^talk 15:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT. Coverage lacks depth and duration. An article on tribunal case without a released decision is going to inherently tend toward sensationalism. Revisit once the decision is released and we actually have something to write an encyclopedia article about.--Trystan (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I agree with Trystan that this doesn't meet WP:EVENT, and it also raises WP:BLP1E concerns. It reads like a tabloid story that has received some sensationalist coverage. If the story does demonstrate lasting coverage, then I would start with a section in British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal first.--Mojo Hand (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those writing this story off as "too small" or "not covered by sources" would do well to look at the whole history of it, without the continuing series of large section blankings going on. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
History Merge and Delete back to the Tribunal entry, after cutting down the excessive details on this. From the prior BLP:N discussion, this seems like something that can be safely covered as a notable case in the Tribunal's page without going into any significant detail. I would assume that if this gets more notable, it will be due to a court case at the highest levels in Canada - eg comparable to how Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission or R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission where the incident is significant to the court ruling, but itself not highlighted. As I believe there are contributions from the Tribunal page to here, and new contributions here, this can't be deleted without a proper history merge. --Masem (t) 19:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

support I wouldn't be overjoyed at that, as I'd see it as failing WP's vital role in ongoing investigative jourmalism. However as WP doesn't have such a role, and BLP significantly (and rightly) limits how far WP can go in that direction, it's probably the best option available to WP at this time. However better RS available in the future and I'd like to see this (and the rest) split out to Jessica Yaniv. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there was at least a Toronto Sun story about it, and checking gnews now, at least a CBC and a UK Guardian article on it, all well above the other "tabloid-ish" sources that appear too. It is a fair story to be covered on both the Tribunal's page and Yaniv's page in minimal detail, at least until the Tribunal makes a ruling and determining if legal action is needed. But absolutely not a standalone article. --Masem (t) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC) (ETA at the time I wrote this comment, there was a Yaniv article, but that has been salted and redirected --Masem (t) 14:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

There is no Yaniv page. There is general agreement that they do not meet PERSON when separated from the tribunal case and the increasing internet footprint of anti-trans rights related lobbying and mostly abusive click-bait that Google returns about Yaniv. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is general agreement " {{citation needed}} Andy Dingley (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this article was created rather than the creator's original idea of a BLP. However if you want to try creating a BLP, do have a go. --Fæ (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a decision I made, but evidently there is not a general agreement on it. Andy above made the case for creating a Jessica Yaniv page, citing another case about Yaniv which I wasn't aware of. The child exploitation allegation and Meghan Murphy being banned from Twitter for calling Yaniv by male pronouns are also not directly related to the genital waxing case. Rhino (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC) user blocked as sockpuppet[reply]

I would support the history merge and delete as well.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the WP:EVENT and WP:BLP1E concerns raised by various !voters above. XOR'easter (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - various comments gyrate around a perceived lack of WP:RS. Observe this is only because of a mass campaign of deletions of the following major news sources, all documented on the TP:

Le Journal de Montréal^[2]

Toronto Sun^[3]

Vancouver Sun^[4]

The Herald (Glasgow)^[5]

The Now (newspaper)^[6]

All of these are major media blue-linked on wikipedia. The youngest on that list is an award-winning 35 year-old publication; another is the oldest newspaper in the world, established in 1783. None of the articles are opinion; these are all straight news reporting. Yet all these are deleted under the aspersions that the article does not cite its author (!!!) or that the article is biased (!!), or that the political reaction in Europe to the waxing case is irrelevant to the case itself (!). And here I thought Wikipedia goes by the sources. XavierItzm (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Transgender woman testifies at human rights tribunal after being refused Brazilian wax". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
^ "A trans-person claims to have been discriminated by a beautician who did not want to depilate". Le Journal de Montréal (in French). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
^ "BALLS TO THAT: Human rights hearing in B.C. trans waxing war". Toronto Sun. 22 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
^ Graeme Gordon (30 July 2019). "Transgender human rights complainant from B.C. calls 911 on journalist". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 3 August 2019.
^ Stephen Naysmith (29 July 2019). "Report says trans lobbying groups 'captured' public policy, putting women and girls at risk". The Herald (Glasgow). Retrieved 3 August 2019.
^ TOM ZYTARUK (19 July 2019). "Publication ban lifted on transgender complainant's name in Surrey waxing dispute". The Now. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

These sources are under discussion on the article talk page. This is rather pointless forum shopping. Summary:

1. Is in French, it's just reposting agency material from other sources in English. It does not even have a named author.

2. Has a transphobic title and seems designed to be click-bait for transphobic comments and hostile allegations posted at the bottom, it is redundant to better and less transphobic sources.

3. Appears abusive, deliberately misgendering the subject and is about a genuinely fringe conspiracy theorist, despite you reposting this source multiple times in the article, you have in no way addressed the open discussion of it being a highly unreliable source for Wikipedia.

4. Is totally irrelevant to the tribunal case, as it is a tangential mention of a twitter spat about calling Yaniv "female", while the actual newspaper article is mostly about something else entirely.

5. "The Now" was sold in 2015 and no longer exists, so what are you talking about?

Do stop disrupting the article and discussions, and actually engage properly. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vacuousness and lack of policy-based objections should be a red lining for the closing editor. The article is being arbitrarily manhandled. XavierItzm (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be ignoring the requirements of BLP for which credible reliable sources are fundamental. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. You appear to be locked on a crusade and unable to absorb the many responses you have had today. --Fæ (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
XavierItzm, I don't understand what you don't understand here. I'm not going to look through all those sources, but I've looked at no. 2, and Fae is spot on in their comments. And even if the other sources were acceptable, which I doubt, how can you talk about "vacuousness and lack of policy-based objections"? Fae's comments aren't vacuous, and their arguments go to the heart of WP:RS and the need to use impeccable sources in WP:BLPs. You will have to do much better than this. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The vacuousness and lack of policy-based objections should be a red lining for the closing editor. The article is being arbitrarily manhandled."

Absolutely. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Andy, how many of these five sources meet the quality reliable sources requirements of BLP and how many do not? As you have not been discussing them on the article talk page, and yet you seem happy to object to their removal in an AfD, you may instead find it more productive to post specific rationales as to why they benefit the article about the tribunal case there, which should be the first place to go. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether they meet RS or not, you'll remove them anyway. If you remove the Glasgow Herald (the only one of these I'm familiar with) as not meeting RS, then clearly you're just out to remove things, whether they meet RS or not. And this is, incidentally, a source for Fiona Robertson's description of Yaniv as a "female predator".[13] You'll even remove a source, then complain that the content left is now unsourced! [14] "Citations seem lost here during formating?" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you are complaining, maybe you just want to keep on poking me to get a response, it's not clear, but you are not actually interested in explaining why any of the 5 sources listed are actually reliable sources that meet the BLP. Hm, nothing to do here then. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the major news sources that are blue-linked on wikipedia: I clicked on each of those blue links, and in four out of five, the word tabloid appears in the lead. WanderingWanda (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should go back and read the Vancouver Sun article more carefully. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Sun article being cited is syndicated content from Post Media, which owns several tabloids. The author is a writer/editor for the Toronto Sun (a tabloid), and it looks like that's the original source for the article. The same guy has written several stories on Yaniv, and they all look pretty crappy. I don't think these are really distinct sources. Nblund^talk 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? The Vancouver Sun becomes a tabloid because its writers also write for other papers? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Vancouver Sun article is by Graeme Gordon is identical to the same article in The Whig, no doubt it's been sold on to other Post Media organs, despite not being marked as syndicated. The article deliberately misgenders the trans woman it is about, so it's just hostile transphobic crap in my view, highly unsuitable for any BLP related article. --Fæ (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Gordon wrote the article for the Vancouver Sun, or do you think the Vancouver Sun simply reprinted it from the Toronto Sun? The reliability of a syndicated news story should be judged by the reputation of it's original publisher, because that's ultimately who has editorial control over the content. In this case, the original publisher appears to be The Toronto Sun (a tabloid), and the story is syndicated through Post Media (the company that owns both papers) and the original author is Graeme Gordon (who seems to be... on his way to a Pulitzer). Nblund^talk 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well "your view" certainly fails WP:RS, so no-one cares. Nor does the article misgender Jessica Yaniv. They make a point of quoting Dan Dicks doing so (who we certainly aren't going to give any column inches to), but Graeme Gordon nor the article do not do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone care? It misgenders a trans woman without any attempt at correction despite this being nonsense from a reported conspiracy theorist that nobody has heard of or cares about. We cannot use it in any BLP related article. It is written to be deliberately hateful and no matter how much Andy Dingley loves it, presumably because it includes some bizarre and unsupported unverified hearsay about child abuse, it is still transphobic crap, adds no value for the article about the tribunal case, and a really daft unreliable source to invest time debating. --Fæ (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, you are the only person here who has mentioned child abuse. Now stop assigning motives to other editors, and throwing loaded terms into the debate which no-one else has used, or else you're going to be doing it at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, "Well "your view" certainly fails WP:RS, so no-one cares" makes no sense, and the second part if of course very uncollegial. Fae's "view" doesn't need to pass WP:RS, since Fae is not a secondary source. What matters is if their argument is cogent. Fae, and I have to give them props for it, is making the kind of argument that is well suited to an RSN discussion; from you I hear mostly vague generalities. (This is not to say, BTW, that I accept every argument they made--see article talk page.) You also proudly repeated your colleagues comment about "vacuousness" and all that--just as incorrectly. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is rather telling how, in the same paragraph, you can use a term like "uncollegial" and then refer to a "colleague" as an insinuation of sock- or meatpuppeting. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please save the drama for the drama boards and restrict discussion here to whether or not this glaring BLP violation should remain on Wikipedia? Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable news sources and the case has prompted a broader debate about transgender rights in major publications, enough where a separate article is justified. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an episode of Beavis and Butthead. Or a place for developing news stories. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Not significant enough for its own article. This story has mostly attracted the attention of tabloid rags and anti-trans commentators. No coverage on CNN, Reuters, BBC News, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Al Jazeera English, or The Associated Press. With that said, it seems like it has gotten a tiny amount of mainstream press coverage in Canada (See: this CBC link), so perhaps it's worthy of a small entry on the Tribunal page. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK broadsheets have covered it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the only UK broadsheet quoted as a possible source so far has an irrelevant and brief mention of the case when the article was about something else. That's not "coverage". I may have missed something, a link would help. --Fæ (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal per WP:NOTNEWS. Until the case is closed at polytburo and its effect, and coverage, can be assessed by RS, it falls into news category. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:BLP and WP:EVENTCRIT as this is not a notable event - and is one involving a BLP. Furthermore, it's a WP:POVFORK to circumvent the consensus at British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and WP:BLP/N that the subject should not be named which makes this whole article a violation of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing my !vote to speedy delete on the WP:CSD A10 and G10 criteria. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeltaQuad, given your actions on British_Columbia_Human_Rights_Tribunal, I wonder if you might could have a look at this--the article, the talk page, but also edits like this one. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Thank you, but the publication ban was lifted by the courts given her activism, so I don't plan on taking further action. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This court case has already received plenty of coverage in reliable sources and is, without a doubt, the most widely-publicized case heard in the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and it hasn't even come to a verdict yet. It passes notability criteria right now, and that will only strengthen when the decision is handed down. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Side note: a decision is not a prerequisite to notability as it relates to court cases. The article shouldn't be deleted simply because a decision hasn't been handed down yet. (If that was the case, we'd have many many many more articles to delete than just this one.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A decision matters for demonstrating that this will have any WP:LASTING significance beyond giving a platform for strangers to speculate about what may be in a woman's pants. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that this is such a widely and internationally discussed case for the BCHRT gives it lasting effect all on its own. Even if it didn't, as the policy states, this is not an automatic fail on inclusion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as we went over at WP:BLP/N, before this WP:POVFORK was created by a subsequently indeffed sock, this is something that has to be viewed through the WP:PRIVACY and WP:BLP lens in general for both the subject and those people against whom she complained. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS - we certainly shouldn't aspire to be a tawdry gossip sheet. Absent that tawdry element, there's nothing here except a woman making a discrimination complaint for which no decision has been reached. And that's not anywhere near significant enough to warrant an article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no BLP problem with this page. Can you articulate the BLP issue, supported by quotes from Wikipedia policy? Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We were over this at length, notwithstanding all of the WP:GREENCHEESE from the few editors who wanted to violate the precepts of WP:BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's my problem. The BLP objections are based on some unwritten "precept" that seems to exist only in the eye of the beholder. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the lasting significance of this case is that lots of people talked about it online? The human rights lawyer quoted by GlobalNews actually specifically disputed the idea that the ruling would having lasting significance: Quail added that she does not believe the case will set a precedent whichever way the tribunal rules because it is outside of the general thrust of trans activism. I'm aware of 4 articles are clear-cut WP:RS here, and one of them includes a notable figure directly challenging the significance of the story. Nblund^talk 19:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're operating on the mistaken assumption that lasting impact must absolutely be proven before an article can be made. That viewpoint is contradicted quite clearly by policy. Just like with the WP:BLP complaints, there is no "read between the lines and find what you want" aspect to WP:LASTING. Even so, I would argue that the high level of publicity this has received for a BCHRT makes it lasting in itself. Although there is no need, necessarily, for that to be true in order for this article to be kept. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're conflating "proof is not required" with "evidence is not required". Obviously if the president is assassinated we can make a case for presumed lasting effects even without waiting for lots of analysis, but this isn't the sort of story that warrants that sort of prima facie presumption of notability. What evidence can you provide beyond assertion? For comparison: Ken Bone does not have a separate article, but there are far more diverse and reputable sources for his debate question than there are for this. Nblund^talk 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the Geneva Convention protects WP:LASTING from this much torture. If the policy really did apply, it shouldn't need this much shoehorning. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you questioning whether WP:LASTING applies to this deletion discussion? Or are you questioning whether or not evidence is required for claiming lasting significance? Neither seems plausible. If you think other policies apply then please cite them, but I don't think a completely evidence-free assertion of notability is productive. Nblund^talk 20:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund - Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I missed your comment until now. My point is that WP:LASTING is nothing more than a guideline that helps determine whether something is "likely to be notable." It does not set forth a hard-and-fast rule, and in fact, states that "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." It is not the be-all-end-all of an article's notability determination. But even then, I would contend that a year of media coverage puts the WP:LASTING argument to bed. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTING is about lasting effects on the world, not "lasting media coverage". And I think that the older coverage actually militate against your argument here: The Economist published a single story with no subsequent followup - that's not in-WP:DEPTH coverage. Nblund^talk 19:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's also worth calling out specifically that this particular POV fork was created by Rhinocera who is a confirmed sockpuppet of TaylanUB - who was indeffed specifically for Transphobia. So there's an element of WP:DENY in making sure they don't get to create an article that exists specifically to circumvent a clear consensus at WP:BLP/N in favour of restoring WP:BLP content. Simonm223 (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spelling this out clearly. Everyone should avoid engaging in unnecessary and avoidable naming and shaming of the person raising this tribunal case. The article name is itself unnecessarily explicit and is not the published tribunal case name. At this time, the subject is not a public figure and is not notable in their own right, as has been clearly explained. That the court has not suppressed any names, and tabloids are going out of their way in naming her, misgendering her, and republish unverifiable hearsay, does not mean that the respectful treatment of living people on Wikipedia can be ignored. --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "clear consensus" at BLP/N. I haven't counted the numbers, but it seems as if there are slightly more people advocating for the position that there was no BLP issue (although they might have raised other objections like NOTNEWS.) In any event, I don't think this would look like a clear consensus to anyone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BC_Trans_waxing_case Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject of the article has had their birth name salted due to repeated re-creation dating back to 2008. I'm convinced this fails WP:EVENT and is an end-around to a WP:BLP1E. If kept, the article needs to be renamed to the name of the case and turned into an actual legal article, as opposed to one that borders on salacious or transphobic. SportingFlyer T·C 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; (the way the article is set up and titled seems like an effort to get around BLP1E, but) the subject simply doesn't seem to have recent enough significant coverage to have its own article even in this presentation. Failing deletion, at least merge it back into the article where it was formerly covered until the recent BLPN thread led to its being trimmed (namely, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal article), with significant cleanup of the content (the edit history of the BCHRT article provides a starting point for a better summary of what RS have given weight to). -sche (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jessica Yaniv - As there is bucketloads of coverage from a Google search. But move to the person's name as they're notable for a bunch of controversial things they're saying/doing and not just limited to this case.--N Ø 11:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google does indeed give bucketloads of coverage. But how much of it stands up to RS for BLP? Most of it (by far) isn't usable for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well-supported by RS as it stands right now. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO, they are not notable for a whole bunch of things: it's one thing, BLP1E, and the rest is all just pulled in to fill in the picture. Cosmic Sans, I don't often agree with Andy Dingley, but here I do, and you skip over the thing that matters here. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the posting of this AfD, more (and better) RS's have come out:
- https://nationalpost.com/news/jessica-yaniv
- https://www.theguardian.pe.ca/news/canada/trans-activist-jessica-yanivs-human-rights-complaints-brought-her-prominence-now-shes-accused-of-harassment-and-predatory-behaviour-339555/

— James Cantor (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be noted that the article was nominated for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation, and even despite that hasty nom, the article and sourcing have only gotten better. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of which make this exceed 1E. Drmies (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The mistake is that the article still exists. WP:ATTACK spells out pretty clearly what should happen to this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, stop misrepresenting what has been going on here. The worst possible trash tabloid junk (mostly reprinted by Postmedia news as click-bait) has been repeatedly posted to the article and has had to be speedily removed per WP:BLP. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that the Canadian Broadcasting Company was "trash tabloid junk." Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody was calling the CBC trash - and frankly calling the Toronto Sun and other Postmedia outlets, "tabloid trash" is apropos. Postmedia has... like... one half-respected newspaper (the National Post). Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postmedia news has been extensively discussed. They repeat serious hearsay ("subject of many allegations of harassment") that come originally from what is a conspiracy website with no editorial policies and one of the "editors" is fictional by their own declaration. Both of the links you provide are the same article, by the same journalist, with the same publisher. These are one source, not two. This continues to be a WP:BLP failure. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that while the PEI Guardian is generally reliable for reporting DUIs and fishing accidents in PEI, their network of reporters is nonexistent if you're farther from Charlottetown than North Cape. As such, the ability of the Guardian to meaningfully report on an incident in British Columbia is deeply dubious. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantor: The National Post is a better source, but that's the same story appearing in two papers owned by the same parent company. Per WP:DIVERSE, these should be treated as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nblund^talk 14:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've mentioned a few times, the presence of sources don't confer automatic notability per WP:EVENTCRIT section 4. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nblund: Thanks, you are correct.— James Cantor (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or else merge to British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal. Who created the article and the poor quality for some of the previous sources is irrelevant now. We do not WP:CENSOR notable/noteworthy events because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have no idea where this talk of 'She Who Must Not Be Named' is coming from; RS and the legal case use her name and so can we. Seems like a selective misapplication of BLP. It is also inappropriate to claim that an RS's own source is a bad source; that is not our job here and we do not know all the sources for reputable journalists. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by It is also inappropriate to claim that an RS's own source is a bad source; that is not our job here and we do not know all the sources for reputable journalists? Did someone do this? Nblund^talk 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "RS own source" means the actual original publication for the text in an article if the journalist has not written those words and has just cut & paste them. This is also known as "the source", and if quoted "the source" must meet the requirements of WP:BLP, reliability has not been conferred just because someone repasted them. It's like saying Wikipedia can republish as fact some Tweets that a lazy Guardian journalist has reported as social media impact, er, no. --Fæ (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initially I was on the fence and leaning to delete. However, having searched for references on my own it's clear that this person has received a lot of coverage in context of the their human rights complaint and it's possible implications. To that end it's possible it should be redirected but I'm not certain. It's has been claimed that only tabloid news has discussed this case. I'm sure that is true but I was also able to find references in National Review, Reason, Forbes [[15]], The Federalist[[16]], and The Times [[17]]. I think that level of coverage addresses the question of ~~DUE~~ NOTE. Springee (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A note that pieces by "Forbes.com contributors" have no editorial oversight and are not reliable per WP:RSP. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The material appeared at Forbes.com under the Forbes name. If that were the only site then I think you would have a stronger case. Given the other, independent sites, such as New York Mag [[18]] that have also covered the story the fact remains that NOTE has been shown. Springee (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forbes' blog posts are notorious. See the WP:RSP entry and the linked discussions there. Anyway I stand by my opinion that this isn't worthy of its own article, but I am leaning more towards a small entry in the Tribunal article being justified. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, per WP:RSP, "Forbe's Contributors" are essentially self-published. The common denominator in every site you've noted is that they're all conservative opinion pieces with essentially the same stance on trans rights. We need WP:DIVERSE coverage. Nblund^talk 12:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:DIVERSE cautions that we shouldn't use a single source that is repeated by multiple outlets such as a AP wire story published in several papers. It doesn't say anything about needing to be from different political view points. However, if that is a concern, PinkNews.co.uk is also covering the story. I'm assuming they are not considered conservative. Springee (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a fair point - although PinkNews is also something of a niche source and their coverage is very limited. The dearth of straight news coverage (in comparison to the loads of editorial) is a huge problem for writing this entry neutrally. Nblund^talk 14:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal per WP:NOTNEWS, and if it gets enough coverage in the future it should go in a BLP. --Spacepine (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist has been covering this since October 2018.^[1] So, when is the major international media coverage going to satisfy your "if it gets enough coverage" personal requirement? Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "When one person's right is another's obligation". The Economist. October 27, 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2019.

(edit conflict)Your ref is broken. But even when you fix it, if it turns out to be yet another Conservative opinion piece I don't see it swaying people that the requirements of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT have been met. Simonm223 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Economist ref is perfectly OK. XavierItzm (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To speculate? When the coverage moves out of opinion pieces, once the tribuneral makes a reportable decision and/or once WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT concerns are otherwise addressed. All this will become clearer over time. In it's current state, I lean towards keep rather than delete --Spacepine (talk) 14:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was broken. The (edit conflict) with my comment appears to be you fixing the link. And your wikilink to The Economist was never in contention so I'm uncertain why you keep wikilinking to it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There continue to be more RS's coming from high quality sources. This one covers more events/behaviours of Yaniv's, not the waxing case (although it is mentioned).

https://nationalpost.com/news/jessica-yaniv-a-transgender-b-c-activist-says-she-was-arrested-for-brandishing-a-taser

It might be useful if those who said previously that there wasn't enough coverage, whether they still think so.— James Cantor (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly same recycled material previously published to tabloid journalism poor quality standards, with unsourced hearsay, by Postmedia Network. The Wikipedia article of this AfD is not about the antics of the plaintiff, or how social media reports it. This source has been discussed on the article talk page, and it remains irrelevant as it adds nothing to the article about the BC Tribunal case, because this is an article about the case, not reportage from day to day about social media allegations about the plaintiff. Even the claimed arrest is stated ambiguously in that article and it is unclear if there will be any consequences at this point that would have any bearing on the case the article is about. If you want to use it, create an article about the personal life of the plaintiff, rather than the case. --Fæ (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a fair characterization. The article is supported by citations from the Canadian Broadcasting Company, The Economist, The Australian, PinkNews, Yahoo! News, Global News, Surrey Now Leader, and also The Times (when I add that in later today.) The majority of the citations come from publications that have no connection at all to the Postmedia Network. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point being made. --Fæ (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"same recycled material previously published", no, of course it isn't. It's about the arrest, which has only recently happened. Please at least try to maintain some accuracy in your complaints. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But Post Media does seem to be disproportionately represented here. I count 6 different articles from their various affiliates, compared to just 1 from the CBC. I think the conspicuous lack of coverage of the arrest from any other reliable source is a good indication that they are kind of an outlier here. Nblund^talk 23:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv". The case has been widely covered enough that I've known a lot about it for the past couple of weeks, despite having little general insight into either Canadian legal events or the debates around transgender issues more broadly. There's something notable to be discussed here. If there's any serious WP:GNG objection, I'll look up sources, but that I don't think notability should be contentious. The BLP1E issue is really about how to structure Wikipedia's coverage and I think an article about Yaniv herself is the best way. It's the cleanest way to incorporate relevant biographical detail and the only alternative title I can see would be whatever the official title of the case before the BCHRT is. I don't see any advantage to choosing that and it isn't the "common name" in the sense that anyone will be searching for it. Any worries about the current state of the article, rather than the question of its existence, should be answered through improving edits rather than AfD. › Mortee _talk 23:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Yaniv (under her birthname) was deleted. Jonathunder (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2015. Clearly things have moved on since then. › Mortee _talk 00:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to "waxing case"--because it's not about genitalia being waxed, because the sources don't call it a "genital waxing", and because "waxing" or "bikini waxing" is what we call it on Wikipedia. Not quite sure why this sensationalist name was chosen for the article. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally fine with that. I would prefer "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons" personally. Cosmic Sans (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was the case renamed after the naming restriction was lifted? I think the title is (or was originally) "JY v. Various Waxing Salons". I can see the argument for that title, though it's a little opaque; some redirects could cover the opacity issue well enough. Personally, I'd think it's simplest to structure coverage around Jessica Yaniv. The article should be kept, anyway, whether that involves a rename and some refactoring or not. › Mortee _talk 00:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's now "Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons". I'd be happy with that as a name. I'd also prefer Jessica Yaniv and broadening the scope, but can't see adequate sourcing to achieve that as yet.

I'm not impressed with this rename. It's undiscussed on a clearly hugely contentious topic, which is bad enough. Also it is absolutely about genital waxing, that's the whole basis of it. Nor is it bikini waxing.

The weird thing is, in my far-from cosmopolitan village of Llanfairpodunk I could easily have 'the full English' waxed for me, any day of the week, by some cheerful local ladies with rubber gloves, no shame, a post-Viz sense of humour and presumably some sort of powerful (below-the-)belt sander. Is Canada really so difficult to find something similar? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good example of how Wikipedia is not good for covering some kinds of ongoing stories in the news. Problems for WP:BLP as well as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N, which requires lasting significance. Lots and lots of opinion pieces, tabloids, and other kinds of sources that would be problematic for any article, let alone a BLP. No prejudice against recreation of an article on the case down the road if there's lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. I'm seeing the same story repeated in every publication that covers this, although the words may vary. Coverage is therefore not significant. And, there is no indication of lasting significance. Also, tabloid journalism is not sufficient for BLPs. Steve Quinn (talk)--- 06:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider moving to Jessica Yaniv. --Sharouser (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep. This is not an area I am familiar with, and (I am Canadian) it has not received press coverage in the news sources I read regularly. However, it was brought to my attention by a relative in the Czech Republic, where it is being covered by the Czech press as a highlighted Canadian news story, e.g. [19]. I looked it up on WP and found this article and AFD. Now, I haven't tracked through who has copied/translated whose article and how many editorially independent strands can be traced, but for better or worse this does seem to be achieving, in the colloquial rather than WP-policy sense, global notabilty. Martinp (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does that line up with the requirements of WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENTCRIT? Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person you were responding to, but BLP1E applies when three criteria are met and I think it's clear that the last two do not apply. As for WP:EVENTCRIT, this has been widely reported for the last year or so and continues to generate new media every day. It has worldwide reach in such reliable publications as The Economist and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It clearly satisfies that policy as well. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I am reading these correctly:

WP:BLP1E does not indicate whether to delete, but whether to use Jassica Yaniv versus Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case (or similar).

WP:EVENTCRIT appears to be satisfied wrt national (Canadian) and international coverage. Whether the event will be durable remains to be seen, of course.

WP:SIGCOV again appears to be satisfied by the number of independent and high quality RS's, and although there also exist very many dependent and low quality comments, these do not make the good ones disappear.

Is there an aspect of any of these policies I am not seeing?— James Cantor (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— James Cantor: WP:BLP1E is relevant here to the extent that editors are proposing a move to Jessica Yaniv. I don't see anyway around that one. I disagree that WP:EVENTCRIT has been satisfied. We don't having evidence of lasting impact (in fact, we have ~~legal analysts~~ a legal analyst saying this probably won't matter), and we don't have evidence of significant, diverse, or in-depth coverage. If we focus only on the truly high quality sources (The CBC, The Economist) we see very little evidence of anything beyond routine coverage of the basic facts of the case with no followup. Nblund^talk 19:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If by "legal analysts" you mean "one attorney who has only practiced law for four years and has absolutely no notablity on their own", then yes. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shouldn't have used the plural there. Nblund^talk 20:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now TWO legal analysts quoted in the article. In addition to the one mentioned by Nblund and Cosmic Sans (the attorney who said this case might not matter), there is a transgender attorney, who makes a cogent observation about the significance of this case.--FeralOink (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for, and retract my prior comment. Morgane Oger is often described as an advocate, and I mistook that for legal advocate. She is not an attorney. There *is* another legal analyst who is quoted extensively on the case, Howard Levitt, an employment and labour lawyer with decades of experience. The source publication seems to be disfavored in earlier comments, but the actual content of Attorney Levitt's article (see JY case shows that human rights tribunals can undermine those they should serve) is worth inclusion (although maybe more suitable for the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal Wiki entry), e.g. "It would seem that transgender rights are now trumping those of women, religion, ethnic rights and family values... cases such as this are ultimately weakening the protections minority groups require."--FeralOink (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty dubious on including yet another Post Media outlet here. Levitt is a lawyer, but this is clearly not a dispassionate legal analysis. It's an opinion piece that argues that Canada should abolish human rights tribunals, written by the guy who represents Jordan Peterson. Nblund^talk 15:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This discussion seems a bit like "circling the wagons". Just because Wikipedians decide that something is not important does not change reality. This J.Yaniv case is one of the top three transgender cases in society. It will quite likely set precedents in Canada and elsewhere for what is allowed and what is not. Pretending that it's not important is like "the emperor's new clothes". The general public and the media still know that it's important. Lehasa (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, do not merge nor change title: While some editors have alleged violations of BLP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons) policy, that an article is a BLP is not a reason for deletion in itself. BLPs are allowed, if they adhere to the following standards:

   Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   Verifiability (V)
   No original research (NOR)

Others have gone as far as to request speedy deletion.

For both BLP and speedy deletion , only when information is unsourced or poorly sourced is it ripe for deletion. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion - with none of those criteria being fulfilled in this case. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page states that to be considered an attack page, a biographical article would need to be entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Neither of those criteria apply.

Among others, the following sources have been cited above: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Le Journal de Montréal, Vancouver Sun, The Herald (Glasgow), The Now (newspaper). The article itself is now sourced by (among other sources) The Economist, Yahoo! News, The Globe and Mail. It also contains links to multiple decisions by the Tribunal in that case. For example, to lift the publication ban: http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/shareddocs/decisions/2019/jul/147_Yaniv_v_Various_Waxing_Salons_2019_BCHRT_147.pdf which means it is not a crystall ball article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball), but an actually pending tribunal case, with a scheduled ruling in 3 months per https://globalnews.ca/news/5698337/bc-human-rights-trans-waxing-case/, which means "the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (for the record, GlobalNews.CA which I cite here, and is also cited in the article, is a reliable Canadian source (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-news/ ) that also has its own WP article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_News )

This also means that the requirement of Verifiability (information published in reliable sources, and articles should cite those sources whenever possible) has undoubtedly been fulfilled.

Some editors disagree with the way the information has been presented in the reliable sources or with the information itself, but that is a reason which isn't valid for the deletion process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process?

Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.

Finally, because of the amount of reliable sources covering the tribunal case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary : "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

For those complaints about the quality of the article right now, the deletion policy also states: When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.

Xavdeman (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article is a horrible violation of NPOV principals. It is an obviously one sided article that treats women with legitimate reasons to object to touching male genitalia as if they are inherently discriminatory in intent, and further advances narratives in the west that marginalize immigrants and people for whom neither English nor French is a primary language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an NPOV issue with the article, I'd encourage you to edit the article (or suggest edits) rather than voting for wholesale deletion. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a version of this, under the actual case name, and sanitized of any remaining policy issues. The case, as a subject, is clearly notable (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Yaniv personally is not, since all coverage relates to the case. But just because Yaniv's birth name can be found doesn't mean WP needs to use it. Material that raises BLP concerns can be excised. Similarly, any NPoV issues can simply be edited out. The version of the article as I just now saw it didn't seem to have any kind of anti-TG bias. (A pro-TG bias is actually more common at such articles, due to WP's overwhelmingly left-leaning editorial base.) The merge proposal (into a newspaper article) is absurd; the subject (a legal case) is not tied to a particular newspaper, even if that paper broke the story or won an award for it, or whatever. 107.204.239.99 (talk) (SMcCandlish via public WiFi) 16:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge proposal is to merge with British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, the quasi-judicial human rights body that is handling the case, not a newspaper. WanderingWanda (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I saw another merge proposal at another page. Merging to the BCHRT article is also absurd; there's no logical "merge this" connection between such a body and the cases it hears, or we'd do things like merge Roe v. Wade into United States Supreme Court. 107.204.239.99 (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article was forked off of the BCHRT article after I removed content related to this case from it under WP:TOOSOON grounds. Thus the calls to merge it are basically calling for the status quo from prior to this exploding WP:BLP/N and triggering the involvement of some of the regulars at that noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Tribunal article currently covers several cases, and I don't see why it shouldn't. Roe v. Wade obviously isn't comparable to this case as RvW has gotten much, much more coverage in reliable sources and there's much more to say about it. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly meets notability criteria. On another note, the people on this page making veiled accusations of transphobia would do well to reread WP:Civil. Jtrainor (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else remember the rude French Waiter? I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I think it is useful to compare this to another BCHRT case for some perspective. The story of the "rude French waiter" discrimination complaint was also filed at the same tribunal. It was covered in: The CBC, The National Post, The Guardian, The BBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post (among others). Obviously this is a silly story and none of this points to a lasting impact that would warrant an article (you might even struggle to justify a subsection), but nevertheless: it had more international coverage in top quality sources than this story has so far. I'm struggling to see how this story is more significant - beyond the fact that it generated a lot of hot air among conservative editorial writers. Nblund^talk 20:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this comparison, I think it provides an interesting light on this situation. I did a Google News search for the name of the complainant in that case and got roughly the same number of results as for the case under discussion, so it seems like a fair comparison in terms of volume of coverage (though of course this waxing case still has an opportunity to attract more coverage once the decision is handed down). But here's the $10k question: do we not have an article on the rude waiter case because it's not notable, or merely because no-one has cared enough to write an article? If someone did write an article about the rude waiter case, using the sources you linked above as references, do you really think it would die at AfD? I'm dubious. If anyone has any examples of AfD discussions that resulted in deletion per WP:EVENTCRIT/WP:NOTNEWS despite comparable coverage in multiple top-tier news publications, I'd be genuinely interested to see. Colin M (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you would have an incredibly hard time writing that entry in a way that could survive AFD. What's the lasting significance of the case? It's basically a human interest story. As for other cases: Ken Bone was the example that came to my mind. His entry was selectively merged in to an article on the 2016 presidential debates, a fairly substantial amount of national and international coverage. Nblund^talk 15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. At best seems this should be covered in BC Human Rights Tribunal. Nblund's point about lasting coverage just above is convincing to me even if other stuff. PaleAqua (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jessica Yaniv. This issue continues to get daily international news coverage and raises timely issues about gender identity. It's only tangentially related to the BCHRT. Weggeworfene-leiter (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)— User:Weggeworfene-leiter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This a well covered subject on multiple mainstream WP:RS about a topic that will have precedent in Canadian law for sure. Loganmac (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NOTGOSSIP. This case might in the future have a lasting impact, and Yaniv herself may merit an article. However at present the lasting impact is unclear and we have gossipy coverage full of BLP/BLPCRIME concerns towards Yaniv (e.g. Taser arrest, genitals, harrassment), saloon workers (accused of human rights violation), and other parties. While the case might have a lasting legal impact - at the moment we are covering twitter exchanges and the shock news of ball waxing. Developing an article that is not gossip and does not imply criminal or human right violations is impossible at the moment. In a few months, once the dust settles on the ruling, and we have an actual verdict - we might be able to develop something that is not a rehash of shock gossip.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding a bit: Yaniv may be, umm, transitioning to be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE but she isn't quite there yet. Other BLPs involved are clearly low profile individuals. The case itself may have some lasting significance - but what we have at the moment isn't the legal arguments of the case - but rather trolling by various sides involved (or shouting from the sidelines) in this case. The signal-to-noise ratio - i.e. content that has WP:LASTING significance vs. twitter/youtube/oped expressing outrage and other feelings - is low, very low, below the belt low. Add to this the drama around this article on Wikipedia (BLP/n, ANI, I think ARCA, and anywhere else I forgot?) - we also high a very low on-wiki SNR. Once the tribunal makes a decision (or perhaps when there is reporting of more significant gravitas) - we will transition out of the TOOSOON zone here for Yaniv (or the case) - and we'll be able to write an encyclopedic article. At present - we have a BLP nightmare (as there is no finding either way), and very little content that will stay in the article six months from now. Icewhiz (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Icewhiz's justification for Delete per WP:NOTGOSSIP. Firstly, the 29 women defendants accused of human rights violations are SALON business owners and home service providers, not SALOON workers. Next, this isn't at all about "the shock news of ball waxing". Genital waxing services for people with male genitals are abundantly available, and have been so for at least a decade in much of North and South America, Europe, Australia, and southeast Asia. There are even women who are willing providers of genital waxing services for people with male genitals. The key difference here is that the 29 cases under review all involve women who have no training or experience in waxing male genitals, and do not want to wax male genitals for a variety of reasons, many of which are associated with their identity as protected minority groups (e.g. immigrants, Muslims, impoverished mothers of young children). WP:TOOSOON seems to be a more reasonable justification for deletion.--FeralOink (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we have at the moment is shock news and tabloid style reporting (even if published in non-tabloids). Lots of opinions and coverage of trolling and twitterspats (which Yaniv has been a part of). What we are lacking is significant legal analysis. We have little "heavy" content vs. lots of tabloid style stuff.Icewhiz (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the UK, this event has received significant mainstream coverage, e.g. in The Times, The Guardian and The Herald. We should also be cognisant that the subject was until recently subject to a media ban; it's not Wikipedia's role to publicise unheralded events, but we should take this into account before dismissing events as having inadequate coverage in mainstream media. McPhail (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these seem to be opinion pieces. I don't think this constitutes "coverage" in the conventional sense of the term. Nblund^talk 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article is in no sense an opinion piece. McPhail (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the full article, but the author describes herself as a columnist, and it seems to be simply uncritically passing along the views of Meghan Murphy, a fairly fringe anti-trans blogger. Is there any new reporting? At best, that's one piece. Along with one brief mention in the Economist a year ago. Nblund^talk 15:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces wouldn't be the right way to cite factual claims, but why wouldn't they contribute to establishing notablity? If serious publications have, through their editors, chosen to dedicate space to a topic, opinionated or not, isn't that relevant? This might be a side issue in which case perhaps I should be asking it on a different page, but it's puzzling me. › Mortee _talk 00:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV calls for sources that are reliable, secondary, and neutral (see note 2) for establishing notability. Opinion pieces are not generally considered reliable for statements of fact, and they are WP:primary and non-neutral by definition. Maybe they carry some small amount of weight, but they clearly shouldn't be conflated with reliably sourced in-depth news coverage because they can't form the basis of an acceptable entry. Nblund^talk 00:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article passes WP:SIGCOV & WP:GEOSCOPE or consider moving to "Jessica Yaniv" Lightburst (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.This article absolutely passes notability; it has been covered by mainstream media in not just Canada, but in the United States, Australia, the UK and across Europe. It is false that it has only been picked up by "right wing sites" - major publications from both sides of the political spectrum are covering it (The Guardian, for example). Topics that receive far less media coverage and legal significance have Wikipedia articles. Sorry, but this seems like a case of 'WP:CENSOR because WP:IDONTLIKEIT' Lilipo25 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lilipo25, has The Guardian covered it in their regular news coverage, or are you referencing this opinion piece? That piece itself says that "While the Yaniv case has been going on for a while now, you may not have heard much about it, as it has largely been covered by the rightwing press." Nblund^talk 23:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund As someone else (above) has pointed out, I don't know why you think that Op-Eds by reputable writers in major newspapers wouldn't count toward notability. Many 'controversial' stories are largely covered through Op-Eds. It's coverage by major newspapers, and that's what counts regarding WP:NOTE. And a noted newspaper columnist pointing out that only the right-wing press has been covering something and it's been ignored by the left as an indictment of media partisanship doesn't negate anything, either - she's covering it.

Frankly, even if this story were covered nowhere except Canada, it has gotten extensive coverage here and that's enough to warrant the article. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because Op-eds are not particularly useful for writing neutral and verifiable articles. WP:SIGCOV calls for reliable secondary sources. And op-eds are neither. Maybe you have a different interpretation, but it's clearly not the same thing (in terms of usefulness for encyclopedia writing) as a Guardian news article - and so I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing actual news coverage. It's a couple of paragraphs from a columnist that provides no new information, and it also notes the fact that the mainstream press has largely ignored this story. Nblund^talk 00:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is proposing to use the Op-eds that way; you are arguing that they don't count toward notability, not whether or not they can be used as neutral sources on the article. There are other sources, particularly in Canada, that would qualify better as WP:RSS.

Frankly, half an hour after the creation of an article is just not an appropriate time to nominate it for deletion on these grounds. I spent most of the last three weeks working on an article that had existed for years, just improving it to make it encyclopedic. It's rare for an article to go up in its completed form immediately (and if I'm not mistaken, when an article DOES go up like that, Wikipedia suggests that it should be viewed with suspicion as having possibly been created by a paid professional). Standard practice is to suggest improvements/help improve it yourself, not immediately move for deletion. Lilipo25 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the whole point of WP:SIGCOV: we need to have enough reliable secondary coverage to write a factual article, and since op-eds are not really reliable or secondary, they don't get us to that point. Why would we consider a bunch of sources that are basically useless for actually writing an entry? This article was created as an attack page by a now blocked sockpuppet, after several editors explained why it shouldn't exist, and after a BLPN discussion where several editors objected to the existence of this story even as a subsection of the BCHRT entry. If the sockpuppetry had been caught earlier, it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion. So, no. I don't think this was premature. Nblund^talk 01:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that there were no RSSs - there were and are Canadian newspaper and news site articles that meet the requirement. Not to mention that a number of the Op-eds also contained factual information about the case that could have been used, and were written by reputable columnists for major newspapers. Wikipedia guidelines encourage editors not to delete incomplete or poorly sourced articles as soon as they go up because editors need to be given a chance to work on them and improve them. Sorry, but I definitely think you jumped the gun here. You should have made recommendations for improvement of the article and given it a chance before nominating for deletion.30 minutes is not sufficient time to allow for an article to be improved before asking for it to be deleted. Lilipo25 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If want to more explanation as to why I afd'd this, you can bring it up on my user page, but this seems off-topic here: the speed of the nomination really has no bearing on WP:GNG. Nblund^talk 16:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since subject easily, and for some unfortunately, passes the relevant notability criteria. The subject case, despite its origins in a trivial incident, evidently generates strong emotions in both the general public and Wikipedia editors. Render unto Caesar, though. -The Gnome (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An excellent example of tabloid nonsense that should not appear in Encyclopedia. "Jessica Yaniv filed 13 complaints against various waxing salons alleging that she was refused Brazilian waxes because of her gender identity". Come on. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This got enough coverage to be notable. Oranjelo100 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now that we're nearing the end of the AfD, I wanted to remind everyone that this article was nominated for deletion within 30 minutes of its creation. The article is now much better than when it was nominated. We have sourcing from The Economist, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, PinkNews, The Austrlian, The Glasgow Herald, Yahoo! News, and more. This case has received international attention, and as noted in the article, was involved in legislative debates in Scotland and in Australia. This article has truly established itself as covering a notable topic, and new RSes are added every day. Cosmic Sans (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: an SNP official (not an MP, AFAIK) tweeted about it and got in trouble, and Coalition members in a state legislature in Victoria said it factored in to a decision to oppose a gender ID bill that they obviously would have always opposed to begin with. I don't see any indication that this was actually a part of legislative debates, and the past several days haven't produced new straight news coverage from anyone other than Post Media - which admittedly is humping this story for every last ounce of scandal. It's almost as if they have all have the same editorial stance with minimal autonomy or independence, and a penchant for pushing culture war stories no one else cares about. Nblund^talk 02:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you think about Postmedia, the article is nevertheless supported by a host of reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fae did a pretty good job deconstructing the authority of a number of these supposedly reliable sources on the article talk page. But go on and repeat it a few more times. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable single event (WP:NOTNEWS). I've not been shy about my deletionist attitude to event articles (especially terrorist/shooting incidents). This is in the same vein; I doubt this will be notable 10 years from now let alone 10 weeks. If I'm wrong, then it deserves an article at that time (WP:TOOSOON). Otherwise this is just another news story that's made waves but lacks WP:LASTING notability. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, the story was covered by The Economist (UK),^[1] the National Post (Canada),^[2] (August 2018 - one full year ago) for example. The story continues to get daily coverage today. One wonders what the support for "too soon" is? XavierItzm (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"daily coverage today"--oh please. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single event whose article are violating BLP! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Of course this is going to have significant coverage by the media. This single event is being reiterated by the authors of these so-called "reliable" tabloids who just want to enforce their personal views, and this community is letting them per WP:ADVOCACY. Can we not warp Wikipedia into a medium for the news. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "When one person's right is another's obligation". The Economist. October 27, 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2019.
^ Douglas Quan (22 August 2018). "'Not for men sorry': Transgender woman denied a Brazilian wax by spa files human rights complaint". National Post. Retrieved 10 August 2019. according to an order of the tribunal can only be identified by the initials "JY"

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 G5: created by a sock puppet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art In Games

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

References as given here lack independence from the subject; the last one, Metacritic, includes no actual coverage of this company. The generic format of the company name makes identifying actual news sources very difficult, but my Google News search didn't turn up anything obviously related to them. A loose necktie (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but this is evident that I wrote is rely to company's website, and I will delete the Metacritic sources. In addition, Moby Games described it as well. Nevertheless, if it is possible, I can add external links to strengthen the article. How Life Changed (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It needs secondary sourcing that shows notability, not more external links. Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can improve the article as much as possible and I'm seeking for the secondary sources. The company website description is similar to my writing depending on sources such as when was established, what type of company is it, it's locations and so. But these statements may clarify the article. How Life Changed (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification is not what is needed. Evidence of notability is what is needed. Evidence of having been the subject of multiple reliable sources that are INDEPENDENT of the subject are what this article needs to be retained. Please add them, if you can. A loose necktie (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few sources that are likely independent to the subject. I think the article generally consists of one primary source in reference area (the company's website) which is duplicated into multiple times, that makes it 'sufficient'. If it is necessary, I can remove them. It takes time and more analysis in Google Search. Please do not urge to delete the page, I encouraged to improve it. How Life Changed (talk) 15:09, 5 August 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian R. Murphy

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

Not WP:Notable Passing mentions in sources A lot of information based on C.V. and other primary sources. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The GS citation counts for the publications listed in the article are 302, 312, 494, 840 and 429. This is a good sign for passing WP:PROF#C1. "Passing mentions in sources" and "A lot of information based on C.V." are typical for brief academic biographies. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOR'easter. Meets WP:PROF#C1. The publications listed in the article are the most cited articles with Murphy as senior author according to SCOPUS. Citation counts like that are typically considered evidence a scientist's work has had significant impact on their discipline. (Note: I created the article so I may be too close to this to see it clearly). Ajpolino (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you look at all his publications in Google Scholar (factoring out the other highly cited Brians Murphy) the numbers look even more impressive, but of course the credit to Murphy from those as non-first author is less. Either way I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. The Robert M. Chanock award (lifetime achievement in the study of the virus that causes the majority of infant bronchitis and pneumonia cases) might be enough of a national-level award for #C2. And co-chief of an NIH lab is also significant even though I'm not convinced that it fits any of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citability is pretty good (especially considering that most of his publications are from the pre-internet era), and together with the Chanock award and a journal editorship, I think there is sufficient evidence here for satisfying WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:53, 7 August 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 soft delete. Deleted as BLPPROD, given the complete absence of sources. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naim Daniel

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

Unsourced BLP poorly translated from the Malaysian Wikipedia. Although there are references on the Malaysian Wikipedia, I believe it should be deleted before being started again with a good translation. Willbb234 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Poorly translated or written is not the reason for AfD. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as a BLPPROD, after seven days if no sources are added (I've been unable to add the BLPPROD tag). That's a provisional view. The subject clearly passes the general notability guideline, so a sourced article can be kept. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:22, 3 August 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) 10:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dunbavin

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

Pseudohistorian of no real note. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The whole thing about his work as described screams FRINGE at me. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the note that "this book resembles books by scholars" is one of the best examples of faint praise I've seen all week. Fringe Atlantis fan, a pseudohistorian who throws in some pseudophysics for flavor, with no indication that he has ascended to the level of notoriety necessary for such an individual to be wiki-notable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go back to the version of the article before the GreenUniverse (talk · contribs) sockpuppeeteer slanted it, you'll find the full citation for that book review, as well as the content that it originally supported. If you think that it is praise at all, then you have not read the review. Enjoy the review's final paragraph. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like an artifact from a time when Wikipedia was a bit more lax with its standards for article creation. Would never pass WP:AfC today. jps (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But since not all articles need to go through AfC, that is not stopping us getting more junk articles every day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a couple of good faith news archive searches. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete - it's spam and soapboxing. We are not a free web host for every fringe theory. I'm not editing this mess. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the very good reasons made above. Additionally the opening section of the article (possibly unintentionally) comes across as promotion for a website and kindle books. Dunarc (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The works put forward by this writer are rarely noted at all, and the current article clearly misrepresents the few interactions with his works that have happened. He is no philologist, but that is the background he would need to make his absurd claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I am reading the history of the article write, it was created in 2006, and maybe was created by Dunbavin, with the line "created by the author himself" that may be what that edit is telling us. There is a reason we ban creation of articles on oneself, and we need to find ways to enforce the ban better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. And I agree with John Pack Lambert's suggestion above, so as to, if anything, lighten a bit the AfD overload. -The Gnome (talk) 20:10, 9 August 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) 10:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura More

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

Unsourced BLP, dubious notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE found subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO - no indication of notability to merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she's best known for appearing in someone else's music video, then that definitely doesn't meet notability standards. Willbb234 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer and dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 9 August 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) 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Pedersen (model)

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

Unfortunately, she doesn’t meet GNG standards or (ambiguous as it may be) NMODEL. All there is are antiquated directories and apparently Louise Pedersen is a common name in Denmark because other people show up. Trillfendi (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL now there are thousands of models in Denmark not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:57, 9 August 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) 10:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summers Residence

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because I do not believe it meets the Wikipedia:Notability requirements. From my understanding, the subject does not have enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Straightforward failure of WP:GNG. Name is non-indicative of which of many Summers' families it belongs to, if not the general concept of a Summer Residence mistyped. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I would also like to add that the phrase "Summers Residence" is never used on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, at least to the best of my knowledge. I do not think the house has a specific name or nickname. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely lacking for independent reliable sources to support WP:GNG. --RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oriol Rey

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 03:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No evidence of top-level matches so also fails the sport-specific guideline. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 9 August 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. as a WP:TNT deletion. Given that basis, no prejudice against creation of a new article at this title, provided that it avoids original research and and demonstrates notability for a unified topic. RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masculine psychology

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

WP:TNT: While the topic of men's psychology is obviously notable, this article is a hodge-podge of unrelated theories on the relation of masculinity to everything from the gender of God to men's "fear of the feminine" to the works of William Shakespeare. I looked back through the page history and saw nothing particularly worth saving. I suggest that this article be redirected to Masculinity (without prejudice to the creation of a MEDMOS-compliant Men's psychology or Male psychology.) Cheers, gnu 57 03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ I originally thought this was a recent article by an inexperienced editor and was astonished to find that it is fourteen years old and has been edited by dozens of people. As gnu says the topic is notable but the article is a total mess. Much of the content has nothing to do with the topic and in places it approaches pure word salad. I’ve looked at several earlier versions to see if there’s something we could revert to, but I can’t find one that’s minimally coherent and properly sourced. It looks like every time someone took their first gender studies class they added or removed a section. For these reasons I’m inclined to agree with the nomination. I think trying to produce an encyclopaedic article out of the material we have here is not possible. Mccapra (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as beyond repair and possibly not even notable. The article is full of random junk, weird speculations, and undue weight on random psychoanalytic theories. Someone should take a close look at feminine psychology as well, it looks pretty bad too. I have never heard of "masculine psychology" as such, even though I have heard plenty about masculinity, gender roles, and sex differences in psychology. The topic appears to be too vague and indistinct from other topics to be truly notable, and may inherently be OR and synthesis. This seems to be a recurring problem in our behavioral and social science articles - articles that are sort of redundant and languish in relative obscurity, just accreting junk. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a problem everywhere, not just in this topic area. Consider Intelligent computer network (AfD discussion) for one example. And it has been a problem for most of the history of Wikipedia, not just recently. Consider Elephant joke (AfD discussion) for example and User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, first written in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting! That computer one is a perfect example of this sort of thing. I stand corrected. I guess we just always have to look out for it. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a completely horrid mess of pop psychiatry, pointless detours, a bunch of odd recitations of history lessons, off-putting opinions about homosexuality, and some MRA boilerplate (I'm somewhat thankful Defending the Caveman didn't wander in here somehow). It doesn't just need WP:TNT, it needs our equivalent of a hydrogen bomb. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. I removed a passing reference to Manifest destiny, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete mess that needs blowing up and a fresh start ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it actually notable? It might be worth questioning that basic premise. An eyecatching book title is not necessarily a subject name. Do we actually have anything from a good source documenting this as a valid coherent concept? Is there another enecyclopaedia with this as a subject? A psychology handbook from a reputable scholarly publisher? Is there a fundamental, well sourced, definition of this subject to work from? Cochran 2010 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCochran2010 (help) may be a start, but masculine psychology is not actually the name that it uses. Like Levant & Wong 2017 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLevantWong2017 (help) and indeed journals like Psychology of Men and Masculinity it uses the name psychology of men and masculinities, which might well be less susceptible to people finding the phrase match "masculine psychology" with search engines and cargo-cult writing an indiscriminate and incoherent collection of things on different topics. They also let us know that Wikipedia does not have an article on the gender role strain paradigm, and does not even know that. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cochran, Sam V. (2010). "Emergence and development of the Psychology of Men and Masculinity". In Chrisler, Joan C.; McCreary, Donald R. (eds.). Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. Vol. 1. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781441914651. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
- Levant, Ronald F.; Wong, Y. Joel, eds. (2017). The Psychology of Men and Masculinities. American Psychological Association. ISBN 9781433826900.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trainwreck. No survivors in the remains. XOR'easter (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT as noted above. It's just a wall of nonsense. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 6 August 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. Consensus appears to strongly endorse the conclusions of the previous AfD. Per suggestions in several comments I am going add a light dose of salt (restricting recreation to extended confirmed editors). Ad Orientem (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mercieca

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

This lengthy deletion discussion, closed less than two months ago, determined that the subject was not notable. The new article has been written in good faith by a new contributor, and the content is different, but the available sources and the subject's notability do not appear to have changed in the time since the last discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My position hasn't changed. The subject still meets WP:ACADEMIC#C7. I do realize this arguement was thrown out last time, and I fully expect similar results. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There is no more notability than there was two months ago. Try again in five years when she may have established more of a reputation WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Pings @Jo-Jo Eumerus, Otr500, QEDK, Reywas92, DGG, Phil Bridger, Cameron Scott, CAPTAIN RAJU, Northamerica1000, XOR'easter, David Eppstein, E.M.Gregory, JRMercieca, Slatersteven, and Tataral: All of you participated in the last debate discussion in some way. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the pings MJL. I didn't want to do that myself - given the previous discussion closed with delete, I was concerned that it would look like canvassing. Since you're voting counter to the previous consensus, I don't think there can be any concerns about you doing it. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@Girth Summit: [Thank you for the ping] It's the least I could do for you writing this.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. The last AfD was a mess but my opinion hasn't really changed. Four reviews for Founding Fictions on JSTOR [20] [21] [22] [23] (with probably more elsewhere) and at least two elsewhere for The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations (a co-edited volume rather than an authored book, but still) [24] [25] seem like a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR to me. And the new article doesn't look especially promotional to me (which was a problem with the deleted version). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG (as written in the previous AfD). The goal of criterion 7 seemed to be a recognition that academics could be public figures in their own right (and not meet the other criterion). In WP:Draft_rewrite_of_Notability_(academics)/Side-by-side#Criterion_9_notes_(old_criterion_7), the point was made that this "falls in line with other Wikipedia standards of significant coverage." Because of this (and that there was some initial skepticism of this criterion added to begin with), we should hesitate to treat criterion 7 any differently then how interviews are treated for other subjects under WP:GNG. Our expectations is that the usual standard of meeting GNG is not the sheer number of interviews or quotes in a newspaper, radio program, or television newscast but an expectation of substantial reporting about the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clear explanation of WP:Prof#C7. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per David Eppstein's !vote and mine from last time. XOR'easter (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I analyze on the same basis as David Epstein, but weigh the factors differently. A co-edited volume counts much less than an authored book, and so there is only one substantial publication. This isn't enough for either WP:AUTHOR (I point out that every academic book has at lest one and usually 2 reviews, regardless of significance--the point of academic reviews of academicbooks is to tell scholars what other people are publishing--its the humanities equivalent of being listed in an abstracting service) , and her work is not cited sufficiently for WP:PROF as an influential academic./ With respect to the possibility of WP:PROF as a public influence (which, as pointed out, is essentially thesame as WP:GNG, though generally interpreted fairly narrowly), there is not substantial coverage. If references 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were substantially about her, or her work, they would be, but they are not. It is necessary to read the references, not just look at thetitles: in each of them, she is just one of several people quoted, to add material or perspective to the reporter's or commentator's content. None ofthe 5 give her special attention. Nor should we give any credance to the reporter describing someone they quote as an authority--that's the routine description, in order to justify using them in the first place: everyone whose opinion an essayist or reporter uses automatically is called by them an "authority". There is possibly some place to build an index of everyone ever mentioned in a magazine or newspaper, but it isn't Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Suggest pivoting to Founding Fictions as more clearly meeting notability guideline WP:NBOOK, and redirect / briefly cover her there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Most of the sources seem to be either trivial or written by her. It also seems to try to much to say "look at how notable she is, she has even written for the BBC". It all strikes me as a tad too needy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Please cut the article some slack this time. This is the user's literal first article, and they are only trying their best. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am explaining why I am voting delete, and as I recall this is exactly what was wrong with the article the last time as well. An overe reliance on trivial mentions and "puffing".Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there were also concerns someone with a COI wrote the article. This is not the same level of puffery that would suggest this is the case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say anything about a COI here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean for the last AFD that was the case. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I !voted delete in the previous discussion, but it looks like a borderline case to me too; the new article seems less promotional than the first one. --Tataral (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still fails NAUTHOR as I missed the in-depth reviews ON THE BOOKS. Consensus on failing NPROF hasn't shown to change and I agree with the comments of User:DGG. I don't want to take anything away from the article author but a secondary twist on a "professor" now written as a "historian of American political rhetoric" that "authored" two books does not add to notability. One book, one co-authored book, and some mainly Trump rhetoric is what is presented. The subject at least did throw in some "history" in one rhetoric commentary when comparing Trump to Andrew Jackson. Otr500 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF. A simple case of WP:TOOSOON for this relatively early career academic. Another book, an impactful paper, and she may well become notable. But she is not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC) blocked sock. My very best wishes (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - essentially per MJL and Eppstein. I think she passes our notability criteria, in particular per WP:PROF#C7. What convinces me here is substantial direct citation of her views by high profile international newspapers, such as New York Times - [26] or here. Also writes as a columnist in several major newspapers, such as USATODAY. My very best wishes (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~- I am the author of the article. I chose to write about Mercieca because I saw that she is a much sought after commentator on an issue that is of keen interest in the political debate raging today in the United States. Her name turns up everywhere when political analysts are trying to understand how the media reports on what our leaders are telling us, and the way our political leaders are conducting this debate. I think it behooves us, as Wiki editors (I am new so maybe I am being immodest now) to be a resource for readers who want to know more about someone who is so much in the news. I was advised to examine the arguments that have already been discussed here, such as WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF and others, but I can never argue these as well as someone who has more experience with these rules. But this argument has not yet been used here: the argument that, although Mercieca is relatively unknown, in a certain important niche of political discourse, she is definitely a crucial voice. Since I want to know more about her, I believe there are others who also want to know more. And isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? I know that was a bit long, so I appreciate that you took the time to read, and consider this view. Thanks.FetalFlaw (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Part of the point of WP:PROF#C7 is that we provide a public service by helping readers find out who people that the news cites as "experts" or "authorities" really are. XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is true, but we should be cautious of giving the reader the impression that someone is more of an 'expert' or 'authority' than they really are. The article makes assertions such as 'She writes extensively in the media', which sounds quite impressive, but the sourcing only demonstrates that she's written a single opinion piece in USA Today, and one article as a 'contributor' on HuffPost - which, per WP:Perennial sources, has minimal editorial oversight and should be considered as a self-published source.GirthSummit _(blether) 15:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many of the refs are primary, trivial mentions, or web stuff. Academics are experts per se in topical matters and it is not unusual to see occasional quotes and such pertaining to their respective areas of expertise or their writings appearing in the media. Such does not satisfy PROF c7 (as the text there makes clear). I think the technicalities are well summed-up above by DGG. The original article, Afd'd only about 2 months ago, seems to have been created by a SPA and this version was resurrected by an account that was only 2 weeks old. There seems to be quite a push for this individual to have an article, but GS suggests this person is a "typical professor": a book and a mildly-cited body of scholarship contributed over the last 15 years. This, unfortunately, is a record that we do not ordinarily consider sufficiently notable. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricola44: I assure you there is no concerted effort to guarantee this subject coverage on Wikipedia. The article's creator was merely following a request located at WikiProject Requested articles. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you furnished this assurance in the 1st AfD as well. Is it possible that new users are just a lot more sophisticated nowadays, knowing esoterica like RFAs after having edited only a half-dozen articles? Perhaps. Or, perhaps COI is a more parsimonious explanation. In the 1st AfD @Xxanthippe: geolocated the anon IP back to the subject's home institution and raised basically this same concern. Given the history and the fairly quick recreation of the article from RFA by a new editor, I think it is reasonable that commentators here should be aware of this possibility. Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the user page implies this person does not even understand the functionality of his/her talk page (I can almost hear a cutesy tee hee hee when reading it), but this same user navigates RFA? Beg pardon if I find this incongruous. Agricola44 (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... are we now expecting users to know everything about how Wikipedia works from the get-go? There are huge edit notices for RFA. None exist for FF's userpage.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you not even a little surprised when this editor beat you to the punch on an RFA maintenance task? That's some pretty impressive procedural knowledge for a new user, who claims to not know what her talk page is for. Agricola44 (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this may sound petty, but it kind of bothers me you keep calling WPRA RFA. I really don't get why this is an issue to be discussed at this AFD unless we're following Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies. Some people have an easier time picking up certain tasks over others. The entire userpage is tongue and cheek anyways. This isn't that big of a deal. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I AGF like it's going out of style, but this is a more compelling case. FetalFlaw's talk page shows no signs of having a COI. Talk:Jennifer Mercieca also includes the banner for {{WikiProject Requested articles}}. Further, the prose was sufficently different from the previous article that G4 was declined by Kingboyk. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I do try to AGF, given the history of the previous page and the previous AfD, I find it extremely unlikely that a random new editor just happened to start this page on an subject tath recently underwent deletion. That said, I do not know whether FetalFlaws is the page subject, a friend or fan of the page subject, or someone who shares Mercecia's political opinions and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, such as the fact that Wikipedia has fewer articles about female than about male scholars.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that this AfD contained less WP:COI than the first, but now I see I was mistaken. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

*That said, brief quotes in the popular press ≠ notability. We are still left with an academic who has written only book, a book that has had demonstrably little impact on a field of studies - the rhetoric of nationhood - that has been hot in the years since she published. If a book matters, other scholars engage with it, they don't just namecheck it. No has shown that ANY of the the many, many books and articles on the rhetoric of nation building in the early American Republic that have done more than namecheck Merciaca. Or that the handful of journal articles on which she is first author have been impactful. This is NOT what a WP:NPROF looks like. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I need to defend myself, but this seems like the wrong place, but I am doing it anyway. I am certainly getting an education, if nothing else. I assure everyone here that I have no vested interested in whether Mercieca's page stays up or goes down. As a matter of fact, GirthSummit's and Agricola44's arguments are compelling, and I might be convinced now that the subject of the article will get more respect than she really deserves by having a Wiki article about her, and therefore should not. By now I am quite sorry I wrote this article, and I will admit my only vested interest is how much time I spent on this. In answer to the question "how could I possibly know how to navigate the requested articles page?", here is my answer: I don't really remember how I first found the page, but once I was there, it seemed a perfect place to get a subject to write an article about. Notice Mercieca was under "Academics", which is one of the first categories on this list--I basically grabbed the first person that seemed half-way interesting. Then I just followed the directions written there. It says to put a tag on the article that it is part of the "requested articles" project. It also says to delete the subject from the list, which I also did. I don't really see what is so "esoteric" about this. Doesn't everyone who doesn't really know what they are doing just "follow the directions?" Until I found Mercieca on the requested articles page, I never even heard of her. I actually thought that if someone is on the requested articles page, it means Wikipedia wants the article written. I had no idea there was a previous article written, ever, and that it was only deleted a few months ago. Believe me, if I had known this, I would not have written this article. Just to prove this and everything else I am saying, I am switching my vote to Delete FetalFlaw (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not evidence of notability. Run of mill academic (me too). Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is just a run of the mill academic. I am reminded of the recent paraphrase of Churchill on the current state of academic publishing "Never have so many written so much for so few". My cousin Melissa Lambert Milewski has a PhD, has had two books published, and such, but she is no where near notable. I strongly suspect Brian Q. Cannon and Jay Buckley are notable. At least Bickley I think his book William Clark: Indian Diplomat has become seminal, Cannon I am less sure his work has ever become super significant, but I hold off on creating articles because I figure it is bad enough that I have created articles on Ignacio M. Garcia (holds named chair, so clearly notable), Fred E. Woods (held named chair, notable there, also a very proliffic writer), Camille Fronk Olson and Arnold H. Green, I don't want to create articles on every professor I had at BYU.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could have included Eric R. Dursteler in my list, but I sent that through the AfC process because I was not fully convinced he was notable. I actually can think of another history professor and another three religion professors I had who I have created articles on, although two of those four articles were deleted. I don't think I created the article on Donald Q. Cannon, but I may have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that page creator has struck her "keep".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the creator of the page. The comment and opinion were not changed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She has also voted "Delete". See two inches above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I see. That's because others wrongly accused FetalFlaw of bias/COI/whatever and she wanted to show she does not care. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added "Salt" because the dubious features surrounding the creation of both versions of the BLP show that more scrutiny is needed before another recreation is allowed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination and the reasons provided above by Enos733 and DGG. And I second whatever salt is being tabled. -The Gnome (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:20, 9 August 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) 03:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malika Fadel ben Salvador

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

None of Google scholars, JSTOR, or google books turn up anything, even if I shorten the search term to "Malika Fadel" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The cited source [27] appears to be a blog. I can't verify that such a person actually exists, let alone notable. HaEr48 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing in any search, including for ملكة فاضل. The es.wiki article is by an experienced editor who focuses on the history of Almeria, but this seems to be an oddity. The es.wiki article was also edited recently to say that she is a fictional character rather than a historical person, which may partly explain the lack of refs. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My Spanish is pretty ropy, but the one source used is linked from the es.wiki article, and seems to cite Borges' A Universal History of Infamy which is, needless to say, not a reliable source. The fact that the quote cited on Borges' authority to Malika ben Salvador is in fact attributed by Borges to Anne Bonny makes me doubly skeptical of the cited source, and digging around on google scholar is not turning up any actually reliable sources. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing reliable sources here in my BEFORE. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is built on verrifiability and we have none of that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entry in the Spanish Wikipedia is equaly pathetic. We often go astray when we're, in our heads, on a mission, no matter how noble it might be, such as trying to create as many articles about women in history as possible. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 9 August 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] "Transgender woman testifies at human rights tribunal after being refused Brazilian wax". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 26 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[2] "A trans-person claims to have been discriminated by a beautician who did not want to depilate". Le Journal de Montréal (in French). 22 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[3] "BALLS TO THAT: Human rights hearing in B.C. trans waxing war". Toronto Sun. 22 July 2019. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[4] Graeme Gordon (30 July 2019). "Transgender human rights complainant from B.C. calls 911 on journalist". Vancouver Sun. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[5] Stephen Naysmith (29 July 2019). "Report says trans lobbying groups 'captured' public policy, putting women and girls at risk". The Herald (Glasgow). Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[6] TOM ZYTARUK (19 July 2019). "Publication ban lifted on transgender complainant's name in Surrey waxing dispute". The Now. Retrieved 3 August 2019.

[economist-7] "When one person's right is another's obligation". The Economist. October 27, 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2019.

[economist-8] "When one person's right is another's obligation". The Economist. October 27, 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2019.

[9] Douglas Quan (22 August 2018). "'Not for men sorry': Transgender woman denied a Brazilian wax by spa files human rights complaint". National Post. Retrieved 10 August 2019. according to an order of the tribunal can only be identified by the initials "JY"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[1]

[2]