Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 01	June 03 >

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Farris

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

Subject has not received the coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG, the only sources available in the article and from a search were either primary sources, unreliable or data listings that do not provide SIGCOV. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of WP:RS, although I note that we have been very inconsistent in keeping or deleting YouTubers. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2021 (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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PediaPress

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

Fails WP:NORG. The only sources I could easily find that might satisfy SIRS were sources covering PediaPress' gimmick to print the entirety of Wikipedia which on closer inspection are just rewritting a blog post. In response to the previous nominations, the notability criteria for companies has changed since 2009 as it's no longer adequate to just satisfy GNG and the previous AfD a little over a year ago's rationale was the article wasn't NPOV enough. Additionally, the sources linked in the last AfD are mostly trivial and do not satisfy WP:SIRS. The ones that aren't trivial are the rewritten blog posts I mentioned above. Finally the IAR rationale that we should have this article because of the Wikipedia Books feature is no longer applicable as Wikipedia Books are deprecated and are no longer considered "user facing". Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I had a conflict of interest (I worked with PediaPress for about a year), I'll recuse myself. But I will point out that PC Welt, h-online, sys-con, The Bookseller, ... (and those below) are all independent sources (including academic studies) that have covered the company beyond press releases and meet WP:SIRS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REVE Systems

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

non-notable and promotional , with unproven and unlikely claims. Almost all the refs are PR., or disguised pR. The Red Harring awards do not show notability -- they're a promotional device . DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Absulutely no sign of notability. Fails basic notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads more like a promotional blurb than anything encyclopedic.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP which requires references containing in-depth information on the company and content independent content which includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the requirements, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 8 June 2021 (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) Ambrosiawater (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sialkot Cricket Association

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

Looks like this was the page for the local team until the team page was merged elsewhere. Now it's just a single un-sourced sentence. I would have just laid down a PROD, but a now blocked user removed a speedy last year. I don't mind if this gets improved or re-created, but as it stands, this serves no purpose. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or merge with Sialkot cricket team. The association is the wider topic, and could easily cover the teams which the association ran/runs, so should probably be the resultant main article. Centralised discussion is probably needed about merging the all the Pakistani regional cricket association articles with their corresponding team(s). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd agree with what Wjemather is saying with it being the wider topic in governing cricket in the region. Also governs the Sialkot Stallions as well. Not sure how many association pages we have but I'd probably be better discussed on the project before deleting/merging. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rugbyfan. I found this which at least gives hope of more coverage, esp. in non-English sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rugbyfan. I found some coverage about the cricket association to pass WP:GNG and SNG, although the article needs improvement by adding more content and references so that it appears encyclopedic. — A.A Prinon ^{Leave a dialogue} 12:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Four keep !votes for an article that's still completely unsourced after almost two weeks at AfD, and I'm not convinced the single source passes GNG (NORG?), either. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would love to see some sourcing people are claiming exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: - I've had a go at a small expansion and sourcing. Ta. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure whether this should be merged somewhere, but my concerns regarding deletion are met. Can't withdraw, but no longer oppose. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following expansion. Sources likely exist in Urdu sources, so if anyone knows where to look and can read the language, feel free to expand! StickyWicket (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: The runs have dried up in ENG V NZ, so after having a look there does appear to be these: [5] [6] it seems something dodgy was going on in the elections. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeNorth: Thanks for finding those sources, that's really helpful :) Does that news source have an English language version? StickyWicket (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it appears not, I haven't read the policy about foreign language sources but I think that they are allowed if there is nothing in English about what the source is mentioning. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources I found above. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2021 (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. JGHowes ^talk 23:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tour Sequana

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

Office building does not meet WP:GNG- coverage in third-party sources is WP:ROUTINE and consists of an entry in a database of buildings and the announcement of a corporate tenant signing a lease. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

keep Presented as a landmark in the landscape of South-West Paris by various national papers (for example [7]). Apparently notable.--Joe McNeill (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. Searching Google under Mozart I found plenty of sources. See [8], from which see [9], [10]. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gregson Maluma

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

Zambian kickboxer who fails WP:NKICK. Only seems to have had one high level fight, which was in 2019. John B123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG and the current sourcing is awful. References 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are to the exact same blurb on 5 different websites. It mentions Maluma in passing only and contradicts the content of the article since it says that his opponent withdrew from the fight (our article currently states that Maluma won a decision). References 2 and 4 are identical and reference 3 is from the same website (Tapology) which publishes profiles and stats for MMA fighters. It lists 0 professional fights for Maluma. He's not even close to the notability requirements. Pichpich (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly non-notable; so much so that I'm not even sure there is a claim to fame (the fight record sure ain't one). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably could have been a speedy delete under A7. There is no significant independent coverage and almost no coverage at all. He has yet to have a professional MMA fight, or maybe any MMA fight, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. His lone kickboxing "fight" was one in which his opponent withdrew before the fight so he's nowhere near meeting the criteria of WP:NKICK. There's also no evidence of notability as a karateka. In fact, he doesn't come close to meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable kick boxer. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep Zambian athlete. --mcgraham giyan
Delete Not even close to meet any SNG in addition to a GNG fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. No claim of significance either. Non-notable per our standards. Java Hurricane 06:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There's no evidence that he is notable, or even a professional athlete. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ActiveJDBC

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

I cannot find the type of substantial, in-depth coverage of this subject necessary to demonstrate notability. Searches turn up either brief mentions/name drops ([11], [12]), nothing at all ([13]), or unreliable sources ([14]). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks references. Searches turned up plenty of trivial mentions or how-to style stuff, but no in-depth coverage we could base an article on. - MrOllie (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Substandard sources, lacks factual depthDiamondchandelier (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2021 (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. Per evaluation of sources by User:Sonofstar. Missvain (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon English High School

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

Article about non-notable high school, does not pass WP:NSCHOOL and seems to be original research. Rusf10 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have revised the text and added some sources. It is still weak, but I think there is enough keep the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has many sources that can be refered to keep this article. --Rockstar250802 (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Surely fails NSCHOOL and WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Nothing notable to satisfy the criteria. Besides of that the article full of unsupported claims and trivia. Kolma8 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are only extremely trivial name drops and I can't find anything that isn't. So, this clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines of direct, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep if someone can find WP:THREE references that do though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [15], [16][17], all are bogus. Noindepth coverage.Sonofstar (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails NSCHOOLS. The passing references in two sources and one about sports do not reach BASIC put together. VV 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it has some indicia of notability, but is not quite there. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in the City

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage, does not meet WP:NF nor WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 20:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews at Common Sense Media [[18]] and the Movie Scene [[19]]. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- MovieScene is a blog, does not count towards notability per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 21:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another review at LetterboxDVD [[20]] Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Letterboxd is also all user generated reviews. BOVINEBOY2008 21:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable aside from standard reviews, user-generated content, and a Pasadena Star News article that just looks like routine coverage of local filming with no lasting notability.
Delete we lack the multiple reviews in reliable sources that are needed to show a film is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Aghaei

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

~~He does not seem to have a reputation, he is a League One player and he does not achieve a reputation Parizad (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Parizad (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Parizad (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily passes WP:FOOTY with multiple Iranian 1st division appearances (fully-pro) with Naft Tehran in 17/18. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he pass WP:NFOOTY Dr Salvus 22:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NFOOTY and GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - AfD started by a sock in evasion of a block Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:DENY, as AfD created by sock. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inkxpert

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

WP:ADMASQ article on a Non notable organization that specialize in making “non notable” entities appear notable and they have attempted to do that whilst creating this article. They lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus do not satisfy WP:NCORP, there is 0 WP:ORGDEPTH. A before search turns up a plethora of announcements, press releases, pr sponsored posts and other blatant unreliable sources. For an organization that makes non notable entities appear notable they aren’t particularly good at it. I ensivage sock and spa !votes here. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources I can find are PR puff pieces or retreads of press releases. Angryapathy (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on the contents of the sources I conclude that their main purpose is to mention the subject, not to provide useful information. Source #10 has the company name misspelled multiple times. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They must not be very good at content marketing if this article is an example. Wowie zowie. No sources worth writing home about. This stinks! jp×g 22:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fake tags on the talk page must be the latest know how in marketing. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say it's a pretty courageous move to just put "Article approved by administrator, don't put deletion tag." on the talk page of your own article. Not "smart", or "good", but definitely courageous. jp×g 18:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Management consulting companies seem to assume god status for reason. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant spam. Clearly fails WP:CORP. Java Hurricane 17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All are press release. Sonofstar (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 9 June 2021 (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. For the most part, those in favor of keeping the article based their case for notability on the few secondary sources that, in their view, are sufficiently reliable. Although RSP is clearly an issue debated at length in this AfD, there was an almost 3 to 1 definitive consensus to keep, even after discounting those keep !votes found to be wanting because they weren't based on a clear understanding of our policies, or other extraneous arguments that carry little or no weight at AfD. For these reasons, I conclude that another "No consensus" close or Delete close is untenable, and that a Relist would likely accomplish the same outcome. JGHowes ^talk 23:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalen Berns

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

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

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

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

Requested AfD by IP editor, whose opinion is represented in this nomination. I am expressing their opinion, not my own. If I express an opinion I will express it in the body of the discussion.

IP editor's rationale: "Requesting to create AFD for Magdalen Berns. This is a youtuber who got less than 30k subscribers and less than 200k views on most viewed video. There isn't a single independent, reliable source which makes more than a passing mention to her, so following the "golden rule" of wikipedia she isn't notable." Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree that Berns isn't one of the most famous YouTubers and wasn't thoroughly covered in the best sources, she was influential in the modern trans-exclusionary radical feminist movement. ^{(not that I support that movement, I definitely don't).} She is also important for better understanding JK Rowling's views on feminism, for example, as their views apparently align and JK praised her in her essays. This is a topic that attracts a lot of curiosity these days. For those reasons, I think it is useful to have a biography about her. - Daveout(talk) 18:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- the proper term is "gender critical"; "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is a slur. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the coverage in PinkNews, The Independent, Gay Times, and National Review adds up to significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd suggest number of YouTube subscribers is far from the sole measure of notability. Berns' views clearly attracted considerable attention from both supporters and detractors, including some high profile public figures. She was also a fairly significant figure in Scottish amateur boxing (a niche area, but not an un-notable one, I would suggest), having won several championships and participated in some tournaments of note. It is simply untrue that "There isn't a single independent, reliable source which makes more than a passing mention to her". As with many articles, there is room for further improvement, but this article has been substantially improved since the last AFD nomination and I don't think there is a solid case for deletion. Finally, I would note that an individual having an article on Wikipedia is not an endorsement of that individual's views and it is certainly not a "tribute" or "fanpage", as some users appear to have interpreted. McPhail (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The level of notability here is not high but the nomination vastly overplays its hand by suggesting that it is entirely absent. The strongest case for deletion I can think of would be WP:BIO1E and this is fairly close. Interest in her has simmered down a lot but not quite disappeared entirely. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I say it's entirely absent because it is. There is not a single reliable, independent course giving her significant coverage. The best it gets is National Review, Morning Star and Spiked, none of which are reliable. If you look through the sources on the article, they're dreadful! All of the actually good sources (The Telegraph, The Guardian, Snopes, The Times) only make passing mention, not significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The individual is notable and meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability (WP:NN).
The following noteworthy individuals have made public statements about Magdalen Berns:

– Author, journalist, feminist activist Julie Bindel

– Writer Graham Linehan

– Politician Ruth Maguire

– Writer Lily Maynard

– Politician, journalist Joan McAlpine

– Author, sex-trafficking survivor Rachel Moran

– Author Julia Diana Robertson

– Author J. K. Rowling
The following is a list of some of the sources used in the bio:

– Alternative Press (magazine)subst:

– Camden New Journal

– Cape Breton Post'

– Daily Record (Scotland)

– Edinburgh Evening News

– Gay Times

– GNOME Foundation

– The Guardian

– Holyrood (magazine)

– Morning Star (British newspaper)

– National Review

– Ophelia Benson (Butterflies and Wheels)

– The Post and Courier

– The Scotsman

– The Spectator

– Spiked (magazine)

– The Times

– The Wesleyan Argus

– Women's Engineering Society.
I'd also like to state that I suspect there is more to this request for deletion of the biography of a controversial individual than that the subject was just a "youtuber" without enough subscribers to merit Wikipedia notability. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very deceptive comment! It's been designed so that people go "ooh big list" without actually looking into the entries. When you look into them, you see that not a single source passes wikipedia's golden rule. They're all unreliable (Morning Star, Spiked) or have not ever given significant coverage to Berns (The Times, The Guardian). Trying to suggest I've got some other motive is also very nasty! I've made my reason clear - this is an article about a non-famous person, a youtuber who got hardly any views and hasn't received any coverage outside of her devoted following. There shouldn't be an article because the subject is not famous, at all. There are millions of more famous youtubers who also don't get articles, but this one only exists because of a very loyal fanbase - something which the posters above have proven! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has a point. Specifically only listing the NAMES of sources used in the articles, and not HOW they're used makes this article seem way more healthy than it is. Frankly, most of the references to Berns in the better quality sources in that list are passing mentions. Outside of the BLP1E incident, there really isn't any direct or sustained coverage here. Not sure I feel strongly enough to vote yet, without really digging deep, but its not exactly comforting to see this sort of thing used in defense of keeping the article. Especially considering the shitshow below. Parabolist (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What's up with this sudden flood of !voters? I see newly registered SPA accounts with absolutely no other edits and a ton of IPs. Most of them have clearly never seen an AfD before. Is somebody actively canvassing this? If so, can we take some action against that? It obviously isn't going to affect the outcome, as there was a clear consensus to keep even before they started, but we don't want people getting the idea that brigading Wikipedia is an acceptable or effective tactic. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I said above, her fans have been bombarding to keep the article. https://twitter.com/OvertonWindow1/status/1400354380726128641 https://twitter.com/KeelahSalai/status/1400246256518172672 I would have much rather had a discussion which focused on the rules but it seems with this person that is impossible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The editor that advocated for this AfD is an IP-only editor: Talk:Magdalen Berns#Why does this wikipedia page exist?. If you don't trust "a ton of IPs" supporting retention of the article, you should also not trust any IP that argues for the deletion. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One IP making a sincere, but obviously misguided, request to delete is one thing. An organised brigade to disrupt the AfD process is quite another. Do you really want to be seen to defend that? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be canvassing. Sure. But I've been involved with Wikipedia for many years and if there's one thing I've learned is that there are may behind-the-scenes ways to rally troops without leaving telltale crumbs behind. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A frankly bizarre and hostile accusation given there have been no delete votes, aside from the nominator. What troops could you even say are being "rallied"? Parabolist (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pour water on the trigger combustion and chill out. Life is too short to be making mountains out of molehills. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not incredibly obvious? When a brigade of people, most of whom have no editing history at all, turn up on an AfD en masse that obviously speaks of outside coordination. It is not even slightly subtle. There are two types of Wikipedians who predominantly turn up on AfDs: Experienced Wikipedians who keep an eye on the AfD lists and general Wikipedians who have a history of editing the articles in question and hence have them on their watchlists. Of course, an AfD may attract a few other contributors but a deluge of them is very obviously suspicious. If an account is newly registered and its only edit is to bludgeon an AfD then that is almost certainly not legit. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer and an answer to your question. Users have posted about this on Twitter and encouraged brigading [21][22]. There's dozens of such Tweets. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just for the record. She meets notability requirements. I do not understand the hoohaa that brought me here. It appears to be a Snow keep! -Roxy . wooF 11:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is just a misguided AfD which people off-Wikipedia have misinterpreted as a political attack and reacted in a completely disproportionate and irresponsible way to. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does she meet notability requirements? There isn't a single source meeting wikipedia's golden rule! Everything on the page is either not independent, not a reliable source, or only a passing mention. It is also not true that it is just people off wikipedia who are being nasty. Pyxis above who is definitely a wikipedia user has posted a very misleading comment, implied I can't be trusted, and tried to claim I have some ulterior motive when all I did was argue my case! This is quite horrible really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.18.117 (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. It is clear to me that you are stating your case in good faith as you see it. You can safely ignore the people saying otherwise. You are mistaken in calling the coverage merely passing mentions and not RS. It is more than that. Admittedly it is not a lot more than that, but it is enough that the article should be kept. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on the retention of this article. I do have an opinion on the quality of some of the arguments put forward. It is important to make comments based upon Wikipedia policy, not on WP:ILIKEIT or on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When this is closed it will be closed based upon the policy based arguments put forward by all who express an opinion. Personal strongly held opinions either way are not relevant, however valid, important, they are in the real world. Here we are only concerned with notability and verification/verifiability. Either Berns passes or she fails. Those new to Wikipedia who have, perhaps, come here from the twitter announcement, should try, please, to understand how discussions are held here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 12:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: due to the off-wiki canvassing which was disrupting this debate with a large quantity of policy-devoid contributions, I have semi-protected the discussion, and moved most of these contributions to the AfD talk page. I encourage established Wikipedia contributors to continue to evaluate this article against our policies and guidelines, so that a consensus to keep or delete can be reached. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This option to delete the page of Magdalen Burns has indeed made her Twitter followers very worried. I totally subscribe with what McPhail (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC) stated, and I will add, that Magdalen is a figure which can be looked upon by gender studies, and visual cultures too. Influencers or Vbloggers can be subjects included in Wikipedia, as those are considered new media phenomena and are not excluded as in a snobbish, exclusivist category of unimportance. Thus, yes, the page should be kept. Thanks.Esther Planas (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. There are a lot of sources, and the statements made that the Morning Star and National Review (and probably even Spiked) are not reliable sources are not based in fact. Opinionated sources are acceptable for establishing notability. AfD probably shouldn't have been opened again tbh. Boynamedsue (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The IP editor seems to be right, as far as Wikipedia's notability criteria are concerned. This seems to be a clear failure of the WP:GNG. The sources linked above have one mention of the name, in relation to an event about JK Rowling, and present no significant information about the subject. The only real source that covers them in detail is Morning Star, which per RSP seems to be unacceptable for notability purposes. The article is written extensively, but part of this is self sourcing, non-RS sources (like The New York Post), and many of the citations don't even talk about the subject (eg this, from The Spectator, has no mention of them apparently, so I have no clue what fact it's verifying). It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine, thus, that some of the prose contains OR. That having been said, there can be the argument that a lot of scattered mentions in disparate events surpass the requirements of WP:1E. Whereas clearly some people are interested in the information this article provides (see talk page and pageviews), and considering that purpose of Wikipedia is to create a "high-quality, free-content encyclopedia", WP:IAR may well apply in this case to keep the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BASIC which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Once the emotions stirred up by this AfD fade, the unreliable sources can be trimmed from the article, and a neutral summary of her life and death will be the result. I am convinced that she is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WP:BASIC actually says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Most everyone leaves the last part off about trivial mentions when suggesting a course of action. Trivial as in, limited information that offers no biographical significance or adds to the definition of who the subject is. This may be a simple name drop or information that is already provided elsewhere. The majority of the sources on cited for the article fall under this category if they even mention the subject at all. Can you provide historical evidence for your claim that "Once the emotions stirred up by this AfD fade, the unreliable sources can be trimmed from the article, and a neutral summary of her life and death will be the result." seeing as no changes were made after the previous AfD discussion to trim unreliable sources? What confidence do we have that it will occur this time? --ARose Wolf 17:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets all Wikipedia policies and is clearly notable but needs to remove a few non trustworthy sources Lunacats (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can some of the "keeps" please illuminate what sources they're seeing that brings this to meet GNG or N standards? I don't see anything but passing mentions in anything that can be taken as an RS and any other source isn't reliable per Wiki standards. Am I missing something here? Valeince (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the Morning Star is an opinionated but reliable source. It has a much better record for factual accuracy than the likes of the Times or the Jewish Chronicle, which are both accepted as reliable sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Now, reading the article in the Morning Star, how does that show this person meets N or GNG guidelines? Because the article is an open letter that this youtuber signed. No other real info about this person can be gleaned from it. So that doesn't really help this here. Valeince (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has a much better record for factual accuracy than the likes of the Times Well hold on up here. You're saying the Morning Star is more reliable than The Times? The same Morning Star for which the community has said there is no consensus on whether [it] engages in factual reporting ... All uses of the Morning Star should be attributed. Take care to ensure that content from the Morning Star ... conforms to the biographies of living persons policy. That Morning Star? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, even under those criteria, the Morning Star would be valid to establish notability. Secondly, the discussions on the Morning Star in RS noticeboard are deeply flawed. The fact the paper is historically connected to the CPB means that half the comments are "IT"S COMMUNIST!" and the other half involve people saying, "but it produces factual reporting", based on the fact no evidence of any false reporting exists. The Times actually demonstrably produces quite a lot of inaccurate and false reporting, so I would suggest it is far more reliable. Do you have any evidence that this is not the case?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:RSP states There is no consensus on whether the Morning Star engages in factual reporting, and broad consensus that it is a biased and partisan source. You may not agree with that assessment but you can't arbitrarily change it to fit a narrative either. Secondly, the reality is that obituaries are primary sources, paid or not. They are opinion pieces of the individuals who wrote them. They can be used for biographical information but can not be used to verify notability unless written in a reliable (See RSP) source in which all of their content is typically written in a blog style format. The degree to which a person is famous are well known does not mean they get an article on Wikipedia and it doesn't take away from their accomplishments in life either. Wikipedia cares about one thing, are there multiple sources (intellectually different) and are those sources reliable (per consensus), independent (of the subject), secondary (not by the subject or an opinion piece about the subject), verifiable (meaning the common person can access the information and rely upon the sources as being accurate) and finally does the subject receive significant coverage (meaning that the subject may not be the primary subject of the source but not a trivial mention either)? ALL of the statement above is required to confirm notability to keep an article, not presume it for article creation. --ARose Wolf 15:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biased sources are acceptable for establishing notability, and reliability is situational. In this situation, nobody disputes the veracity of the obituaries, so they are valid sources. Could you possibly link to the policy which states obituaries are not valid for establishing notability? They may well be opinion pieces, in the sense that they will contain judgments by an individual writer which must be attributed, though a news article will also frequently contain opinion that must be attributed, but they are published by an organisation and reflect that organisation's judgment on the significance of the individual concerned. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is situational in the sense of the genre of the article. Is it about a musician? Is it about a company? Is it about a soldier, professor, artist, athlete? In this case, it is about none of those, specifically. It is about a person in the general public that does not fall under any of our SNG topics. Therefore, our general notability guideline is the overarching principle. An obituary can be used when it is a published article that is included in the editorial process of a reliable source. Outside of that it must be considered the same as a blog or opinion that can not be used to confer notability based on the guideline but can be used to gain other biographical information not related to notability or in quoting something the subject said or related to the subject. In this case, it has been suggested the obituaries, not in reliable sources (WP:RSP), can be used to confer notability or used as examples of notability but that is against the notability guideline. The fact that you personally view sources that consensus has deemed reliable as containing opinion does not then mean that all opinion pieces can be used to confer notability. --ARose Wolf 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Valeince: Berns was co-founder of Scottish campaign organization For Women Scotland (https://forwomen.scot/about/)^[1]^[2] (If you want further info on For Women Scotland: conduct a UK-based search.) Berns may have died young but she became influential in Scottish and British feminist and lesbian politics. Alive or posthumously, her speaks and political activism have received media coverage and she gained recognition by organizations and public figures. Whether someone on Wikipedia agrees or disagrees with Berns is irrelevant. And whether any sources used in the bio are opinions is also irrelevant per WP:BIASEDSOURCES and WP:RSOPINION.

"How to know what is “whorephobic”" (October 12, 2015), Ophelia Benson, Butterflies & Wheels

"‘Medical threat’ to transgender children on puberty-blocking drugs" (15 July 2016), Mark Blunden, Evening Standard

"16 July 2016 9:15 ~ Thinking Differently: Feminists questioning gender politics – London Women’s Networking Event – London" (24 May 2016), Womensgrid.org

"‘We need to be braver’ — women challenge ‘gender identity’ and the silencing of feminist discourse" (September 27, 2016), Meghan Murphy, Feminist Current

"Magdalen Berns, a ‘Shero’ Among Women" (September 4, 2019), Madeleine Kearns, National Review

"In memory of Magdalen Berns" (25 September 2019), Posie Parker, Spiked

"Magdalen Berns, vlogger who took a stand for women’s rights" (7 October 2019), Susan Chynoweth, Camden New Journal [published in print newspaper as: "Magdalen took a courageous stand for women's rights" (Thursday 3 October 2019)]

"Celebrating Magdalen Berns, a Lesbian Feminist Warrior" (September 13, 2019), AfterEllen

"The tweet heard ’round the world: Charleston professor sparks global Twitter debate" (August 29, 2019), Jenna Schiferl, The Post and Courier

"Maryam Namazie and Afsana Lachaux, Joint Winners of 2019 Emma Humphreys Memorial Prize" (12 November 2019), Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

"Women's rights campaigners 'living in fear of trans attack' after vile abuse directed at group" (6 September 2020), Jennifer Hyland, Daily Record

"J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues" (10 June 2020), J.K. Rowling, jkrowling.com

References

^ Pride Glasgow, For Women Scotland, 18 August 2019.
^ forwomen.scot @ForwomenScot, June 29, 2020, "In Sept 2019, Magdalen Berns, co-founder of FWS died at the age of 36.....

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BASIC. You cannot use primary sources, which includes opinion pieces, to establish notability. None of those sources are relevent to showing she passes GNG and 1E guidelines. Rab V (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 12 sources I used in the above "@ User:Valeince" reply, 6 are newspapers or magazines. Of the 6, only 2 appear in WP:RSPSOURCES — and there is no consensus for both. The other sources do not appear in the list. And since Berns is deceased, use of "self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source" — which per WP:RSOPINION are not acceptable for "material about a living person" — are not excludable. As a Wikipedia editor, I believe the requirements of WP:WEIGHT and WP:VERIFY have been met. The sources in the article are varied and predominantly secondary: (1) "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." and (2) "Secondary source material is based on primary and other secondary source material, and may include synthesis and novel conclusions." In any event, MOS does not prohibit the use of opinions, and obituaries from sources with editorial oversight, as secondary sources. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 12:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources go to any lengths talking about this person. Doesn't meet GNG or N. Valeince (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. When looking for reliable sources in the media I would suggest one look at WP:RSP to evaluate. Using opinion pieces to establish notability is unequivocally against Wikipedia's Notability Policy. What is reliable can not be defined by any one editor here. It must be agreed upon by a consensus of editors. I respect someone presuming that the subject is notable and creating an article for the subject. This AfD is not to presume something already presumed, therefore any criteria which says you may use it to presume notability is null. No result here can undo the significance of the subjects life. The only thing that matters to Wikipedia is whether the subject received significant coverage in multiple reliable and verifiable independent secondary sources that confirm notability rather than presume it. I don't see it in what has been included. Sometimes there can be too many references so if anyone can point out specific sources that are on WP:RSP and included in the article then I will reassess my bolded course of action. The tragedy here is that a life was lost almost two years ago to something as terrible as cancer. Lets keep everything else civil, please. --ARose Wolf 20:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this individual has only received coverage for the one event of dying, meaning that they fail WP:ONEEVENT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly untrue, she also received coverage when JK Rowling followed her on Twitter. P-K3 (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She did not receive significant coverage for that incident, only one-sentence long mentions in articles that talked about JK Rowling. That is not enough to contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, she received obituaries. Which, as per guidelines, is sufficient to demonstrate notability. This was discussed in the previous nomination. KJBracey (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the last AfD was closed as "No Consensus", that precedent has clearly not been set in this case. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as described above. Owen (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per the sources listed by SailingInABathTub and Pyxis Solitary. Also, if the topic is getting attention on social media then we can expect POV attention to follow, both pro and anti. I do wonder what prompted the nomination in the first place. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the preceding discussion with the IP editor raising the nomination at Talk:Magdalen Berns. It started with "she's got fewer YouTube views than a video game YouTuber who doesn't have a page". The discussion led to a suggestion that it be taken to AFD. I don't believe anything material has changed since the previous nomination though. KJBracey (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tidy up. At the moment it's largely a hagiography. The only context in which I'm aware of her is of her promotion of the anti-Semitic notion that the existence of trans women is some sort of Jewish conspiracy. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that she is only just over the line for notability and there isn't really any mainstream consensus view of her to base an article on. Anybody who cares enough to be writing about her is nearly always either strongly in favour of, or strongly against, what she espoused. Those are the sources we have to work with and that makes it hard to write a neutral article. As such, the article has sometimes oscillated between hagiography and demonology. I agree that it is currently leaning somewhat towards the former although not as egregiously as it has at some other times. The specific matter you mention could only be included if there is RS coverage of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daveosaurus The alleged antisemitism thing which appears a lot on tumblr for some reason appears to originate in a single retweet of an article in the Washington Times which accurately detailed George Soros's financial support of some pro-LGBT groups. While much anti-Soros discourse clearly has an antisemitic component, neither Berns' tweet nor the article make use of antisemitic language, tropes or even mention his ethnicity. The best source I've found relating to it is an opinion piece in a defunct British online magazine called the Social Review, which makes passing reference to the tweet but is anonymously written. I don't know how good the source is, but I suspect it might not be very good. There is also a Medium article by someone called Mallory Moore. Medium can be used as a valid source for attributed opinion if Moore is acknowledged as being a person of sufficient importance in this field that her viewpoint satisfies WP:DUE. I don't know if that is the case or not, but if it is the accusation of antisemitism can be added. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll restate part of what I said in the last nomination - Berns seems to have met the basic criteria, even if only in obituary form following her death. That is sufficient in itself, according to the guidelines. Beyond the basic criteria, she is clearly an influential figure and is widely cited within gender debates, although I don't see her quite meeting any additional criteria; but that isn't required having met the basic criteria. Along with Maya Forstater, her name comes up enough from both sides when discussing stuff around JK Rowling that providing enough information about her to explain why Rowling would be influenced by her seems like what an encyclopedia should be doing. KJBracey (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The gender critical feminist movement is currently growing around the world and may become as significant as the suffragettes. MB was an early activist in this movement and may become increasingly interesting to researchers of this movement with time. Researcherista (talk) 08:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it odd that obituaries can somehow be discounted as reliable independent sources, or that ONEEVENT applies here. She was notable as a vlogger before her death, as demonstrated in the sources described above by User:Pyxis Solitary.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's a notable figure in a notable movement, and the (Personal attack removed). *Dan T.* (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly suggest that the renomination was a procedural error, given nothing has changed since the last nomination, except possibly that Berns has become more notable. This for me would necessitate a speedy close. This can be discussed at the talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that she has become more notable but notability is not temporary so she can't be less so than before. Anyway, I agree about the speedy close. Lets put this out of everybody's misery. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the last discussion resulted in a "No Consensus" decision means that notability has not been confirmed. The subject is still presumed notable so the article remains. The result of this AfD may prove otherwise depending on the decision of the closer. Even a speedy close does not mean that, without definitive consensus, the article can not come up for AfD again at the appropriate time. --ARose Wolf 17:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Boynamedsue It was not a procedural error. The IP editor made a good faith request, and I acted upon it in good faith. We are now discussing it in good faith, albeit sometimes with fervour. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no validity to well meaning thinking on WP:SNOW. The outcome, while likely is not indisputable. This renders a speedy/snow close to be unwise. The article on Berns deserves a full discussion. If not then Wikijustice will not be seen to be done. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no matter the result. --ARose Wolf 17:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf I would like to add that I have no horse in this race. Either outcome is acceptable to me. The discussion and its conduct is important to us all, whatever our opinions on Berns, and whatever our opinions on the article. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: Likewise, I know I offered a course of action but that is based solely and coldly on policy with no personal feelings involved whatsoever. I will not say that either course is acceptable to me but I will accept whatever the consensus determines. I still and will continue to believe, solely based on literally written policy and sources provided, the subject is not confirmed notable. --ARose Wolf 19:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ARoseWolf by 'either outcome' I mean consensus. Another 'no consensus close' renders the exercise pointless. I have chosen not to analyse the references nor the text, certainly for the present Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a notable figure in an increasingly significant debate. Her style was robust but that is irrelevant to the question of deletion. She had an impact, and continues to have an impact on society: JK Rowling cites her as an influence on her own views. Dskjt (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previous comments. She is notable and well covered in a number of RS. CatCafe (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was discussed at length less than 2 years ago and there doesn't appear to be any new angle with this nom. The last AfD did not reach consensus and no consensus means keep. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From what I've seen in the article and from reading some of the sources, there certainly seems to be enough there to indicate notability. However, there is a lot of content relating to J.K. Rowling that needs to be condensed; notability is not inherited and there's a bit here that could be confused for inherited notability. Sean Stephens (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this.Page even in Germany this case is discussed. It is not about the number of followers on you tube, but about the relevance on an important topic. And even the delete wishes are showing how important to keep this article. From the outside it seems more like it about using wikipedia and deleting an article for opinion control. Why would so many want to delete this, if it so irrelevant. I have a wikipedia article in the german Wikipedia. I am an activ director for Opera and Film, but I would would gladly give mine up to keep this article up. Not because I am a fan. I am a straight mid 50s white male. (Yea, i said it) Because I think it's relevant. Carlskwellll (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlskwellll I greatly respect the work of the feminist movement and the fight for equality among all people, especially being a woman myself. You are correct in saying this has nothing to do with YouTube followers. It also has nothing to do with the importance of anything the subject did or failed to do in their lifetime. Likewise it has nothing to do with my personal views, one way or the other. It comes down to what are considered reliable sources. In my opinion, there is too much room for individual interpretation here. This is why these sources may be used to keep this article and yet another article reliant upon the same type of sources might be deleted. The only difference is the traffic generated to and from the article/AfD. Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion should not be dictated by the popularity of the subject or how well known the subject is. It should also not be guaranteed based on the number of followers an individual may have. Article creation is about the presumption of notability, whether reliable sources MAY exist, in which case the editor is encouraged to add them when creating. Article retention is ALL about the presentation of verifiable reliable independent sources that give the subject significant coverage and whether they DO exist. This is why I suggest people review WP:RSP when looking for reliable sources to make their case at AfD. --ARose Wolf 14:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the sources I've seen are either only about one event (the JKR connection) or are opinion or otherwise non-reliable sources. Does not pass GNG. A lot of the keep votes are not based on wiki guidelines; for example sailinginabathtub's sources only show she fails WP:1E, pyxis solitary's list of sources is dominated by sources that are not RS, fail 1E, and/or are only brief mentions, and that a subject is discussed in Germany is irrelevent to GNG. Rab V (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced article that asserts notability, passes WP:RS and WP:N, no WP:BLP violation. And as noted by others, this AfD has seen brigading, and the article subject is a controversial person. As such, I suggest this AfD fits criterion 2 of WP:CSK for a Speedy Keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, it appears you missed the and ... no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion (even if we assume the first criterion is met -- it isn't). The validity of your quote of this policy is probably the same as the validity of quoting RS/N/BLP (I note, without any specifics of exactly which sources meet the requirements prescribed by those guidelines). As such, this is a textbook vote (similar to other votes). ProcSock (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I checked on Nexis Uni, and there is a significant mention of Magdalen Berns in the Daily Record. The Times article of June 11 2020 is more than a "passing mention". There also seem to be German-language mentions in der Spiegel and Zeit Online. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an article about JK Rowling then I would agree on The Times source. The Times is a reliable source. But can you define "significant" mention please? Is it 10, 50, 100? Can you point to the guideline that specifies what "significant" mention means? Mentions are mentions and do not add up to notability. Mentions are trivial. No where in Wikipedia does it say that you can add all the trivial mentions up to the sum total of notability. The subject is not controversial to me because I do not look at the what they did in life, only the sources of the article, and the only brigading here seems to be for keeping the article so why are you concerned with the process and why should we Speedy Keep an article where the the goal of the "brigades" of editors brought here is to Keep the article? Editors have acknowledged that there are non-reliable sources heavily relied upon to confer notability that need to be removed yet they are never removed, thus the second nomination of the AfD when no consensus was met last time. The sources being stated above as reliable (Morning Star and National review) are considered by consensus to be biased and politically motivated as per WP:RSP. It is cautioned to be used only where it can be attributed (placed within the article as a quote). The other reliable sources heavily mentioned here are obituaries which are largely the opinion of the author and can not be considered reliable. This, too, may be used where attributed. Attributions should never be used to confirm notability when it has not gained a consensus recognition. --ARose Wolf 16:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A "passing mention" would be a mention in a secondary source that does not assert any notability of the subject. The Times mention asserts the article subject's notability, specifically cite #60 in the WP article. This is in fact the rule: notability is asserted in a secondary source that meets WP:RS, therefore WP:N has been met. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for the definition of "significant" mentions and what guideline points me to that definition and number and says they can add up to notability. I know what "passing mention" means but thank you for that definition. We will have to disagree that Cite #60 confers any notability on the subject of this article whatsoever but if I were to say that it did then what other consensus agreed upon reliable sources would you say did this as well? As I stated above, the subject does not fall under one of our SNG categories so multiple reliable sources are needed to establish notability. --ARose Wolf 17:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not confer, assert. If a secondary RS asserts notability, that's pretty much proof of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems a classic case of WP:OVERCITE, is much longer than reliable sources allow, and generally comes close to the edge of GNG. Cites #6 and #7 might have persuaded me but both are written by single contributors to their respective publications (one was by Posie Parker who actually seems more notable than Berns from my source scan, but who doesn't have a page as far as I can see). If kept and properly improved, it seems to me like the article itself would be very lean given the limited set of WP:RS - with nearly all the RS dealing with an event better mentioned on JK Rowling's page. That makes me think it fails WP:ONEEVENT too. It feels very well described by WP:PSEUDO IMO. Hypnotist uk (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Passes WP:GNG many times over. Some of the sources entirely dedicated to Berns don't even mention Rowling, so I see no merit to the WP:ONEEVENT argument. I've also given due consideration to the WP:BASIC / "Opinion" argument, and find it entirely without merit. (Though I'd concede that something like a fight report largely relating the authors personal experience & opinion of the event, could fairly be dismissed as a primary source.) Pyxis Solitary's analyses is compelling. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 00:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCurves

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

According to a post (made in 2009!) on the talk page none of 28 of the sources actually discuss the company or its impact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in the article's citations or online. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG lacks coverage. Impeeriumalo (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Due to lack of participation (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SLOOP Project

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

I am unable to find independent coverage to indicate this former initiative was notable. The only independent journal article isn't well cited, and the others are folks involved with the project. I would not be against a merge, but I cannot identify the ideal target. (That the article has been a mess is not my concern, I'd be happy to clean it up if I could find sourcing with which to do so). Survived PROD shortly after creation StarM 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. StarM 14:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some good sources like this one: ISBN 978-1-59904-987-8, "Online Science Learning: Best Practices and Technologies", page 124. The references currently present in the article are completely wrong. Some of them don't even mention the subject. Others mention a specific person instead. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:21, 2 June 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Narayana Public School

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

~~Article fails WP:NSCHOOL. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)~~ strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Beccaynr (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Powerful Karma (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails NSCHOOL. Kolma8 (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Impeeriumalo (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as nom is a sock. Feel free to renominate to the AFD. VV 15:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Since other non-sock editors have !voted delete, a procedural keep shouldn't be necessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (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. No one was able to provide sourcing to show that this subject meets our notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath International Management School, Vasant Kunj

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

Self published references. lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. GermanKity (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A degree-awarding college affiliated with GGSIPU should be presumed notable. Over the course of time, users (that may not be aware of Wikipedia policies) added content and provided primary sources. If you check the historical versions (oldest version when I created it) it had secondary sources. This article shouldn't be deleted but instead clean up should be done as per WP:ATD Dial911 (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored it to the most neutral form. But when I did that, the notice of deletion vanished from the page itself. Dial911 (talk) 01:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a private, tertiary, non-degree awarding educational institution having no WP:RS and thus fails to adhere to WP:NSCHOOLS. VV 19:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails NSCHOOL. AgentCody 05:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC) strike per WP:SOCKSTRIKE and this. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a private institution and therefore has to pass WP:NORG. Which it clearly doesn't due to the lack of good sources. So from my perspective there isn't a guideline based reason to keep the article. Unless someone can provide WP:THREE in-depth, secondary references to help it pass WP:NORG. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague sources. [23], [24] & [25] like this can't showcase notability. Sonofstar (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2021 (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 merge to Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I'm suggesting a merge as an WP:ATD per User:Chalst's suggestion. If another article makes sense for merging, please discuss that on the appropriate talk page(s). Thanks! Missvain (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentation ethics

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

The topic seems to be only source-able to blogs and sources connected with the Ludwig von Mises Institute where the creator, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is a senior fellow. I can not find that this concept has gained traction in the wider conversation outside of the Mises Institute. JSTOR brings in no useful sources and most the sources found through google scholar (Libertarian Papers, Journal of Libertarian Studies, etc.) seem to be Mises Institute-affiliated. In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 19:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Mises Institute is the center of scholarly libertarian thought -- anything recently published in Libertarian philosophy is likely to be affiliated with them. I wouldn't expect JSTOR to adequately document recently published Libertarian philosophy journal articles, it's somewhat out of their scope. Mac Davis (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR is a catalogue of academic journals so stating "I wouldn't expect JSTOR to adequately document . . . [recently published] Libertarian philosophy journal articles" isn't really a good argument. It doesn't actually help your case at all. The fact that it has no traction outside of the MISES institute means that it effectively isn't properly peer reviewed either. It should've been shopped around to people outside of the institute, and it should have been cited beyond the Mises to qualify as noteworthy here. In academic terms, this . . . Thought is in trouble from the get go. This is not to mention that the whole premise is a logical fallacy. The reason why it hasn't been taken up by any other institution or journal is because the premise is faulty, lacks falsifiability, and isn't worth consideration, not because it's libertarian. Any properly peer reviewed journal would send this paper back saying as much in a heart beat. I don't even know if it would hit the peer review process, because it's honestly that bad.

I think this combined with the fact that it's effectively just limited to the MISES institute echo chamber is grounds for deletion off Wikipedia.

2600:8803:5B00:3CE:ADCA:BDF4:8DFB:B5C0 (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while this "theory" is, frankly, a lot of nonsense, and is deeply flawed on several different levels (from logical and ontological to semantical... it's simply a hot mess), it has been referenced or discussed by secondary sources (example), so I think the article just needs to be improved somewhat. BeŻet (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Article states: "Argumentation Ethics has received marginal attention from philosophers and logicians". If that is the case, we shouldn't have an article for a not notable idea. But is it true? A google-scholar-search yields 236 results, some of them though are not about the topic of the article (an example: [26]). So, I am mostly undecided, but slightly leaning towards Keep. Cinadon36 07:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Less than half of these hits cite Hoppe: cf. 108nGSchol hits for hoppe "Argumentation ethics". — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The coverage seems adequate for the purposes of verifiability, but the idea seems only to have been taken up by one other person, Stephan Kinsella. I don't really get the idea from the article: justifying the existence of rights from the needs of rational agents was the big idea of Alan Gewirth in Reason and Morality, and Gewirth's student Roger Pilon attempted to apply Gewirth's theory to justify libertarianism in work published in 1979. What did Hoppe do that was new? If the coverage of the idea is overly Hoppe-centric, I'm inclined to merge what we have to our Hoppe article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That s a valid point, merging might be more suitable. Cinadon36 09:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Minshull Stockdale

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

No evidence of notability. One source (Burke's) listing all British nobiity (and which is very closely paraphrased here), and one source from long before the birth of the subject. Looking for more sources[27][28] doesn't give the impression of any notability for this baronet, at best he gets mentioned a bit in articles about his daughter[29] who would be a more likely subject for an article. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entry in UK Who's Who https://doi.org/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U36343 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears in several reference works including Whitaker's Almanack. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above keep votes. Sources exist to prove notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, there are indeed some sources mentioning him but well, only mentioning him, no deep sigcov found CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. The few sources only satisfy WP:EXIST. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of the listing in Who's Who. A listing in a reputable national biographical dictionary counts as in-depth coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who's Who (UK) is not a reliable source because it's self-edited: "Each entry in Who's Who is authored by the subject who is invited by the editors to fill in a questionnaire." Sandstein 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it is a reliable source for notability since those included are invited to be included on the strength of their notability and do not apply or pay to be included (unlike some other publications with similar names). -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The facts in an entry in Who's Who are supplied by the biographee. The selection of facts and the decision on whether to list are the responsibility of an editor, not the biographee. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 17:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stockdale baronets. I'm not finding any sourcing that qualifies this subject for WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Dib

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

Has bypassed AFC twice where it was declined so bringing here, minor roles only so fails WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 17:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NACTOR per nom, they have only had minor roles and the sources are either passing mentions or not independent of the subject (interview based). SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SailingInABathTub. 2001:569:74D2:A800:F42E:6F55:E2A0:169 (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2021 (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 merge to American School of Correspondence. Merge anything of value as WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LL Cooke School Chicago

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

I prodded it with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was endorsed by User:Bearian, but removed by User:DGG (who sadly did not notify me despite my request). DGG added a reference to worldcat which proves that the subject existed as is not a hoax ([30]) but nothing has been done to address the issue of notability. As noted, I couldn't - and still can't - find any source suggesting this school had any significance. I also tried looking for sources for Leslie Lyman Cooke, on the chance that this could be rescued by being rewritten into a biography, but no such luck. Unless some coverage is found, I am afraid this is a non-notable piece of history (and WP:OR, given the still unreferenced text for pretty much everything here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source cited is a link to the WorldCat catalog which does not provide enough information to establish notability under WP:ORG or WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no citations. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to American School of Correspondence seems an obvious way to handle this. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, We are still missing any reliable references for the content cited, the ref you added is borderline WP:OR for the facts in the article. I guess we could mention Cooke in the new section as 'contributors to American School of Correspondence' or such, but WorldCat is pretty much a PRIMARY source. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider WC in some sense a secondary source. The books it catalogs are the primary sources; WC is a reasonably authoritative NPOV statement about the books it includes. To avoid any confusion we could do as I always do when I'm citing Worldcat, and say, "according to Worldcat..." DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete World Cat is a relible source that works exist. It is not by any stretch a reliable source that institutions exists. About all worldcat really tells us is that there was an L. L. Cooke, and that he wrote on electrical engineering. This is not enough verify any information relative to a course he may have started.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, and as a reasonable compromise. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2021 (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 merge to Even in the Quietest Moments.... Missvain (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fool's Overture

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

This song fails the notability test of WP:NSONG. There are no sources that describe the song in depth. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and merge whatever is verifiable with Even in the Quietest Moments... JBchrch talk 16:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should merge the useful material, and also redirect the song page to the album article Even in the Quietest Moments.... I would have nominated the song for a redirect, but that is not one of the options in the dropdown menu. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reasons stated by JBchrch. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2021 (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. (despite no further participation) I don't think relisting will do any good, and the keep side is much more firmly rooted in policy than the contrary. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loganair Flight 6780

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

(1) WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence that this event has any lasting historical significance, (2) Fails WP:GNG. — Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article was WP:PRODded on 16 May 2021 by User:CommanderWaterford, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG, and subsequently deleted on 23 May 2021. Article was re-created by User:Davon_Wijaya in substantially the same form on 25 May 2021. Johnnie Bob (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article itself may need work, but this incident despite being non-fatal has already shown to have lasting significance, such as its use as a case study in a research project by the EASA in 2018[31], an article by Flight Safety Australia also in 2018[32], not to mention a Mayday/Air Crash Investigation episode this year. ThatFlyingSquid (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I did a basic cleanup to correct some essential facts. Loganair#Accidents and incidents already covers the incident better. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A quick search shows multiple articles were written about it, and it even got a Mayday/Air Crash Investigation episode dedicated to it. That meets "historical significance" for me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely this ought to be mentioned under Incidents and Accidents at Sumburgh Airport? Maybe I'll do it myself. Athel cb (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now have. Athel cb (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a Mayday episode was made. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because it shows signs of persistent coverage. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mayday is an entertainment programe and really is not an indication of importance or persistance. MilborneOne (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is significant, independent, and reliable coverage which can be used under WP:GNG and other notability guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a particularly noteworthy incident for a stand alone article, already covered in the Loganair article which is sufficient. MilborneOne (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major incident and near crash. The extensive AAIB report uncovered the significance of a Saab 2000 lacking an autopilot override. Incident was featured in the Mayday/Air Crash Investigation documentary series which counts as significant independent coverage. If the end result is, against my preference, to only cover the incident in the Loganair article, redirecting is far preferable to outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not seeing any sustaining coverage to show otherwise. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... that's not what WP:NOTNEWS is; this isn't trying to provide up-to date information, or first-hand reports. The accident happened all the way back in 2014 yet it's still notable enough to have been made the first episode in a new season of a major TV series, to have been the topic of a research project, on top of a fairly large amount of coverage at the time. Sustaining coverage isn't needed, either - see Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY. Uses x (talk • contribs) 02:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by FlyingSquid show that there is WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE coverage with the WP:PERSISTENCE that's needed to pass WP:NEVENT. Run of the mill incidents do not get full TV documentaries created about them. Jumpytoo Talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already an article relating to this aviation incident in draftspace which i am currently working on, there is no need for duplicate articles. OGWFP (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OGWFP - Creating a draft article is not a rationale for requesting the deletion of an existing article. Honestly, there is no point in creating a draft version of the article when one already exists. If this article gets deleted, it's likely your draft version - if it is moved to the mainspace - will also be PROD or nominated for deletion, too. Just improve the existing article, please. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being featured on Mayday is not enough to merit an article's creation yes. However, the AAIB report of this major in flight upset resulting in a near crash put concern over a potential design defect of the Saab 2000. If this event actually resulted in a crash, the arguments for keeping the article up would have been essentially the same. The article would need more work on it. Tntad (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards keep, but open minded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2021 (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 New South Wales Rugby League. I'm going with redirect here based on the point made by User:RandomCanadian. Feel free to change the redirect location if needed. Missvain (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

W Watson

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

Fails WP:GNG, possibly redirect to any Eastern Suburbs player lists, if one exists. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets notability per WP:RLN since he played in NSWRL, which is the precursor to the National Rugby League. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article totally and completely fails GNG. That needs to be how we jusge these things. This notion that later league notability means anyone who ever played in any iteration of the league is notable is just leading to us creating articles on people who were not in the public spotlight. We really should reconsider a lot of our sports notability guidelines, because they lead to a huge mess of articles on people who were in no way notable. The first big recondiseration we need to do is scrap the notion everyone who was even in the olympics is default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Run n Fly (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT clearly says all biographies must ultimately meet GNG - merely passing a SNG isn't enough. Are there any sources on this guy? SportingFlyer T·C 09:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being bold with a third relist out of curiosity regarding what User:SportingFlyer just said. In some AfDs, I see sports editors saying the WP:NSPORTS guidelines are virtually obsolete and useless, and others saying they still matter.

Remember, WP:GNG supercedes every niche notability guideline.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of course RLN doesn't supersede GNG, per the explicit wording in NSPORT:
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline.
and
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions.
and
Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met.
That he meets Rugby wikiproject notability criteria but hasn't garnered any SIGCOV just indicates RLN is not a good predictor of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate list article as an appropriate WP:ATD for a plausible search term. AfDs shouldn't be the forum for resolving the tensions between poor SNGs and the GNG. SNG needs to be updated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:30, 10 June 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rees-Williams

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

As far as I can tell, Rees-Williams has no notability other than her familial relationships with truly notable people. She certainly has no notability as an actress as her record there is almost non-existent. Notability is not inherited. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Welsh socialite. Grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 17:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is entirely about her connections to other people. As it stands there is nothing in it to suggest that she has the sort of notability in her own right that would justify her having her own article. Dunarc (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saghar Ghanaat

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

Lack of NOTABILITY; wp:before returns the usual primary/iffy suspects (Facebook, IMDb, etc.); very few credits acknowledged. May be TOOSOON GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with this nomination. I got the same hits when doing my own before search. I believe this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. If there are sources that would be considered reliable and independent and if those sources can be brought to my attention then I am completely willing to change my assessment. More articles on women is important but we have to hold them to the same standards all other articles are held to. --ARose Wolf 15:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator, User:Khadempour322, has been identified as a sockpuppet of prolific sockpuppeteer User:ArmanAfifeh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 5 June 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Elite World Award

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

Non-notable beauty pageant. References given are basically reports that a local girl is in the pageant, but not about the pageant itself. I am unable to find significant discussion of the event. ... discospinster _talk 14:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but note systemic bias - if this was a sport event with some dudes kicking a ball, it would be unlikely to be nominated even if it had zero references... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have in the past deleted/nominated articles about dudes kicking a ball (or throwing a ball, or bouncing a ball) and for the same reasons as I am nominating this article. ... discospinster _talk 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - did not meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2021 (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. Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Thomas (tennis)

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

Fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG Kemalcan (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kemalcan (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found an article in the Lancashire Telegraph and also one in the Clitheroe Advertiser. Not sure if there's enough to show WP:GNG there. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - This player has played more than 250 matches and won 104 matches. So she is quite successful and notable player. Abbasulu (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately the sourcing mentioned above is extremely local—the Lancashire Telegraph is a tabloid and, despite its name, covers only the east of the county, while the Clitheroe Advertiser and Times is a weekly paper covering a town with a population of ~16K. Regarding WP:NTENNIS, she would be deemed notable had she won at least one title in a number of ITF Women tournaments; the article is clear that she has won, in fact, none. ——Serial 15:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Serial's assessment of the sources available. The comment about winning 104 matches has no relevance to any Wikipedia inclusion guideline since those wins were all at a level far below that required for any presumption of notability. Wikipedia's requirements for notability ultimately will be down to whether the person has received enough significant coverage addressing them directly and in depth, which Thomas has not managed to achieve despite being prolific at a low level of the sport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Has its own website. [This] I found some articles I found multiple resources on tennis coaching career This and also one in the This. and This Vecihi91 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started expanding the article. I do not have any more time to work on it now, but I hope I have shown that there is enough there.

Someone having their own website does not in any way mean that they are notable. Almost anyone can create a website about themselves. The Desire Branding reference is extremely promotional and sentences like The wonderful Liz Thomas is a sheer force of nature. shows that it is connected to the subject of the article and not an independent or reliable source. The Concordia profile page is about a different person. The Stonyhurst announcement doesn't show any significant coverage of Thomas at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more views now that Vecihi91 has expanded the article and added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - the sources in the article (which are the best available) fail to show significant coverage; fails NTENNIS, GNG and WP:BASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.lizthomastennis.co.uk/meet-liz/	This is her own website	This is her own website		✘ No
https://www.tennisexplorer.com/player/thomas-54259/			Just a stats page	✘ No
https://www.itftennis.com/en/players/elizabeth-thomas/800250134/gbr/wt/d/overview/			Stats-only page	✘ No
https://desirebranding.uk/portfolio/liz-thomas-tennis/	A thinly veiled advertisement for the Desire Branding business	A thinly veiled advertisement for the Desire Branding business with Liz Thomas basically being a 'success story' for the business		✘ No
https://languageschool.stonyhurst.ac.uk/2018/05/09/former-british-tennis-star-appointed-as-head-tennis-coach/	She works at this school		No in-depth coverage	✘ No
https://athletics.concordia.edu/sports/womens-tennis/roster/coaches/elizabeth-thoms/564	?	?	This is about 'Elizabeth Thoms' - a different person altogether	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete Does not meet WP:NTENNIS with play at low level ITF tournaments, no WTA. Sources don't meet WP:GNG for general notability either. LizardJr8 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tims Mountain

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

Short hill that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Side note, according to this source Tims Mountain is "part of Grassy Mountain", which according to Peakbagger only has 68m of prominence, short of the 100m cutoff for List of mountain peaks of Missouri, so the article can't even be redirected there. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sajin

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

Declined AFC submission which user moved to mainspace without fixing the problems. Current sourcing is poor. BLP of an actor who has had minor roles in a Malayalam movie and TV series. I've attempted to find more sources but this actor lives in the shadow of his much more famous wife Shafna - many sources are about them as a couple (notability is WP:NOTINHERITED). Polyamorph (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If the number of notable roles in multiple number of movies or television serials is considered here to determine notability, this article is a must delete. Plus Two is the only major film for this actor. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 15:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor is currently playing a lead role in a TV series called "Santhwanam ", this made him more popular than any of his previous works or movies.A lot of fan pages are seen in social medias like Instagram, Youtube etc.,for the character he played and for the actor too. As most of his co-actors in this series have article page in wikipedia but not him, I find it necessary to have an article Page in Wikipedia.So please consider not to delete this.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - see Sajin T. P. and T. P. Sajin, both of which were identical to this article. Still fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG no matter how many times it gets reposted. Will also log a case at WP:SPI as this will likely qualify for WP:G5 speedy deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 5 June 2021 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Watch

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

Fails WP:GNG, tagged for notability since last year; virtually zero coverage in RS, created by blocked user. Even when you allow for the fact that most search results are for watches with cartoons on them, there's nothing out there to establish notability. The article's sources don't do that, of course. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG/WP:NORG/WP:NMEDIA/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. 1друг (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese nobility

AfDs for this article:

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

Seeking a delete (or, preferably, a redirect to History of Malta) for an NN article and topic that's been plagued with problems from its inception, principally a lack of reliable sourcing and rampant sockpuppetry. The redirect's been reverted twice by an anon IP, but none of the information here has been sourced (save to a dead link), the notability of any of these "titles" has been unproven through the course of several dozen AfDs and prods, and at some point, enough is just enough. Ravenswing 23:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 23:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 23:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Lists and linked articles need/s attention, not deletion. Has been neglected for so many years, but I have attempted to begin working on this article (I feel obligated as a history fanatic), but will likely need a far better database. However, as eloquently mentioned in the previous deletion attempt:

"Looking at the[se] articles makes it clear that many of these families once played a significant economic and political role in the history of the island. That this may no longer be the case is no reason to delete them from historical memory. Uppland (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Am of the opinion that this topic is an asset to WP, especially *because* it is so unknown. I hope the original main contributor to the article sees this and can help in adding additional references to mine. Knightoften (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That might be difficult, because the original editor was community banned and his websites spam-blacklisted for (among other things) badly misrepresenting his own credentials, which were the underpinning for many now-deleted articles on various alleged Maltese titles. Recapitulating the history of all of that would be far more effort than it's worth -- several dozen deletion discussions, attempts to overturn some of them, an RfC, a couple swings at ANI. But that being said, the reason those articles were deleted was that no reliable, independent sourcing could be found. We don't keep unsourced articles on Wikipedia becausewe believe they might be important. We keep articles where reliable sources provide "substantial coverage" to the subjects, as the GNG requires.
I'm happy for this to redirect to History of Malta, as it had been before an anon IP started spamming, but this article already went a couple years without adequate sourcing, was hotly debated for several months beyond that, and finally redirected when it was proven that the articles the likes of Uppland praised were just this side of hoaxes. There is now no scope for anything but that proper sourcing to be a prerequisite for an independent article. Ravenswing 04:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC

Keep. The version of the article that was deleted years ago was written by a biased editor and based on self-published sources. I considered that the topic itself was still notable, so recreated the article based on the relevant section of Burke’s Peerage. The edition I used has since been removed from archive.org, but there is no requirement for sources to be available online. That a subject attracts vandals is a case for blocking those vandals, not for deleting the article. Opera hat (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It takes no time to establish the topic's notability – see Malta's aristocracy, for example. Our policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE therefore apply. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above—on top of Andrew's source it's not hard to find scholarly sources discussing the topic on Google Books either, including an entry on "Maltese nobility" in the Historical Dictionary of Malta. Might well be plagued with problems, the list might need to be junked if it's unsourceable, but this seems like a "so fix it" thing and a content dispute rather than a matter for AfD. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 14:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a load of stuff out there, going literally back to the Crusades. This is a thing, it's got a ton of sources, if the article falls short, then it's more - as noted above - a case of fixing it!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2021 (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. Going with keeps. If someone wants to propose DAB please do so at the appropriate channels. Missvain (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad law

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

An odd one; not quite sure what to make of it. It's a borderline dicdef: "Bad egg — an egg that's gone bad, or possibly an egg that wasn't very good to begin with; possibly an egg that wasn't cooked well; could also refer to a dishonest person."

That said, I'm sure in legislative and judicial circles the concept of 'bad law' comes up regularly, although whether this has been discussed in sources in any depth is difficult to ascertain, since by the article's own admission there are many different possible meanings. (BTW, I did check Mozley & Whiteley's Law Dictionary, but the only entry starting with 'bad' referred to an unsound plea, which this doesn't pertain to.)

At any rate, I'm moving this on WP:GNG notability grounds, with WP:V and WP:OR issues to boot. Curious to see what others think. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It started out as a disambiguation page, notice. Uncle G (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I spotted that. But per WP:DABNOT it was never a proper dab, AFAICS, hence false premise from the outset. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a broad topic: "an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts." Here's a selection of sources:

Is Bad Law Still Law? Is Bad Law Really Law?
How to make bad law: lessons from cyberspace
Do cases make bad law
The perils of complexity: why more law is bad law.
Great Cases, Like Hard Cases, Make Bad Law
"Good Law" vs "Bad Law" explained
Bad Laws – An Explosive Analysis of Britain's Petty Rules, Health and Safety Lunacies, Madcap Laws and Nit-Picking Regulations.
Do Great Cases Make Bad Law?

The phrase most often appears in some variation of hard cases make bad law, which we have as a separate page, but there is clearly more to it than that. Wikipedia itself is a good example of the chaos, inefficiency and injustice which arises when you have a flood of half-baked, poorly-written laws – see WP:CREEP; WP:IAR; WP:NOTLAW; WP:LAWYER; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DAB - this phrase could mean numerous different things. Having an article which doesn't pick sides is not especially helpful. At the end of the day, it's a common adjective attached to a common noun and there is no centrally agreed upon meaning to it. And the topics are covered elsewhere. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was leaning towards DAB/Wiktionarify originally since the article in its present form is a dictionary definition. After thinking about it, however, it makes some sense to have an article on what sorts of law are considered "bad", given the wide range of sources discussing the topic as noted by Andrew Davidson above. In particular, the GNG/V/OR issues stated in the nom are probably not intrinsic to the article given the scholarly literature discussing it—this research paper (also published as a Routledge book chapter) discusses the topic of "bad law", as such, in some depth. In that case the fact it's written as a definition at the moment is a reason for improving the article rather than deleting it, and it would probably not be appropriate for Wiktionary since the phrase would precisely be being used in the common sense of bad + law. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 12:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:59, 2 June 2021 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dad's Home

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

Non-notable television film, does not have significant coverage to meet WP:NF or WP:GNG BOVINEBOY2008 09:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced, only outside links are IMDb, a cable network, and a link to watch the film on Alluc, which is discontinued and no longer exists. AdoTang (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only coverage I could find were tv listings and a single non-notable review, which is ultimately not enough on its own. Anonymous 7481 (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2021 (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. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure

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

There are no reliable sources to suggest that this structure exists, and the proposal appears to have been ignored in the wider literature. The peer reviewed journal articles are not directly related. The primary sourcing is done by conference abstracts by the originators of the hypothesis, which are not peer reviewed or subject to serious scrutiny, effectively making them self-published. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, this article has received over 115,000 views over the last 6 years, over 50 a day, crikey. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AIG paper on the topic appears to be peer-reviewed. However, the topic appears to fail WP:GNG since I cannot find multiple independent sources. — hike395 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After more investigation, I believe that this article fails WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I could find were a blog entry^[1] and a book of dubious reliability^[2]. The article thus is not supported by multiple reliable sources. — hike395 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dubious reliability indeed: Sword Bearers Ministries seems to be a vanity publisher owned by none other than Donald H. Alexander. Athel cb (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a WP:PROFRINGE article created by the main proponent and socks. jps (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable and WP:PROFRINGE. This can be also seen by it being totally ignored by later reviews of impact craters including:

1. Asteroids Impacts, Crustal Evolution and Related Mineral Systems with Special Reference to Australia by Andrew Y. Glikson and Franco Pirajno, Springer

2. Encyclopedic Atlas of Terrestrial Impact Craters, Springer International

3. Australia's Meteorite Craters by Alex Bevan and Ken McNamara

If it is deleted, the List of impact craters in Australia needs to be modified.Paul H. (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought we already had! It isn't real. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The evidence is so thin that I'm not at all surprised that no one but the originator has picked it up. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Monroe, MH. "MAPCIS - Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure". Australia: The Land Where Time Began. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
^ Alexander, D (2020). Apocalypse Now: The Rocks Cry Out. Sword Bearers Ministries. p. 138.

Do Not Delete In Defense of MAPCIS Wiki Page
1. The circular geophysical structure currently known as MAPCIS has been independently discovered and published by four individuals on three occasions prior to my discovery. Two were amateur scientists but two were respected Australian geoscientists who published in a peer reviewed journal. All came to a similar conclusion, that the ring anomaly is most likely impact related. Early discoveries were limited, mostly by the lack of technologies to visualize surface rings and corresponding deep crustal structures. I have found no known alternate hypotheses for this geophysical structure in the literature.

O'Driscoll, E. S. T.; Campbell, I. B. (31 July 1996). "Mineral deposits related to Australian continental ring and rift structures with some terrestrial and planetary analogies". Global Tectonics and Metallogeny: 83–101. doi:10.1127/gtm/6/1996/83.

2. MAPCIS is being increasing recognized by geoscientists as an object of research. A. This can be seen by the steady increase in reads on Researchgate, totaling 3553 to date. B. A MAPCIS oral presentation was accepted for the planetary/impact session of the 36th International Geological Congress, India 2020 for an audience of the top international planetary/impact geologists…..unfortunately cancelled by Covid. C. MAPCIS research has been published in a significant peer reviewed journal with a main audience of Australian geologists and geoscientists.

"The Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS) part one | AIG Journal". aigjournal.aig.org.au.

3. The discovery of a geophysical structure is not controversial, but the implications of this discovery are. Dated to the about 542 million years old and 500 to 600km in diameter, we have a huge geophysical anomaly at the single most significant boundary in Earth’s history. Many people will attach their own hypotheses onto it. Some will be credible and some not. Scientists trained in geology or biology know instantaneously and intuitively what the implications of this discovery are. There is almost always an initial reactive objection. Most stop there, but more are taking the time to investigate the research and data behind the discovery. The biggest supporters from the geosciences community are those who were initially openly hostile, then took the time to try to disprove MAPCIS.

4. A Wikipedia page is appropriate for MAPCIS. I have no control over what is written. Some of it, I would like to change but it is not my position to do so. MAPCIS is labeled as “highly speculative”. “Highly Speculative” is not one of the officially recognized categories of impacts. Confirmed, probable, possible, suspected, potential and discredited are accepted by the impact community.
Conclusion: The MAPCIS page has a foundation in solid falsifiable research performed by PhD geologists from accredited Universities that has been published many places including an established geoscientist peer reviewed journal. MAPCIS is recognized as a potential/suspected impact by the international planetary/impact geologists. The body of work on MAPCIS is now quite extensive and the likelihood of new pages would be high if this page was deleted. Wikipedia and specifically the MAPCIS page are the appropriate place to add research by the editor community.
Note: Entries of MAPCIS are being deleted from other WPs. MAPCIS was deleted from List of possible impact structures on Earth WP on 6/2 and 6/3. It appears that there is an organized effort to delete MAPCIS. This in itself, suggests the importance of maintaining the MAPCIS page and possibly putting it under a protected status as the discovery reaches a wider audience.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs)

Daniel, your original account Daniel Connelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by the arbitration committee in 2013, and therefore you are engaging in WP:BLOCKEVASION. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hemiauchenia You specifically invited me by e-mail to defend the site.....Are you recinding your invitation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs)

I did nothing of the sort. Notifications to your inbox are automatic. I did not specifically email you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel contacted the committee about this. What happened is a bit obscure, but after some digging it appears that the committee was aware when blocking that account that there was a second account already being operated, and apparently asked Daniel to choose one or the other, they left the other (since renamed during SUL finalization, and the login detail lost) account unblocked, so speaking for myself as the arb who investigated this, I do not believe he is evading that block. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources I checked have nothing to do with the subject. The only source which did was a primary one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Beeblebrox

   I will address concerns. I have never used sock puppets. The creationist book uses my work as a source.  They are not and have never been one of my sources.

There are high volume sandstone and conglomerate deposits near to and distal from the proposed impact site. The creationists have made these water driven deposits the centerpiece of many of their flood stories. When MAPCIS gains consensus as an impact structure(which usually takes 30 years)the centerpiece of their flood story collapses. I have tried contacting them but they don't like what I have to say.

Hemiauchenia your name suggests a background in geology/paleontology. I had an oral presentation at the 4th International Palaeontological Congress in Mendoza. You probably would have liked the talk. I ask you to take some time, a good month, to really dig into MAPCIS and shred it.  That is how I get collaborators. In the interim would you mind removing MAPCIS from the fringe page.  You can always put it back and there is nothing I can do about.
Paul H. it was our interaction in 2013 that lead to my being blocked indefinitely. Part of the block was not to contact you in any way even to apologize. I am doing that now. You have a passion for impact crater research. I ask you to also take time to dig into the research since 2013. Due to our past interaction, I ask that you change your vote to neutral for now.
   If any of you have a specific question on sources and methods I will gladly answer. What you can't see is the work behind the research.  I hiked into the Australian outback to collect samples as well as collecting samples from Vredefort South Africa and Sudbury Canada. Then finding collaborators at Universities to analyse the samples.  Yes, we found a significant Iridium anomaly in the Australian sample consistent with either a mantle source or an impact....the work doesn't stop.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been edited as part of a uni assignment by JeffreyYin333 -- ping tutor Ajcwritwiki -- could either of you please confirm that the work has been either marked or suitably snapshotted for marking (that the subject is likely to be deleted here at WP:AFD due to a failure of secondary coverage in reliable sources should not count against a good faith attempt to improve the article [33]) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, what?!? Whether something is edited as part of an assignment is irrelevant to our task. Unless the assignment was supposed to be a breaching experiment, it seems that a student who is engaging in Wikipedia article crafting that is contrary to WP:MAINSTREAM should not receive credit for the assignment. The WP community certainly doesn't need to worry about whether such credit is given in any case. jps (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (A.) I searched using JSTOR, GEOREF, GEOREF Process, Geoscience World, and Web of Science.

1. Search for "MAPCIS" in JSTOR yield 10 hits, none of them related to extraterrestrial impacts.

2. Search for "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in JSTOR yielded "no results found".

3. Search for "MAPCIS" in GEOREF yielded 14 hits. All of these hits are conference abstracts and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly.

4. Search for "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in GEOREF yielded eight hits. All of these hits are conference abstracts and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly.

5. Search for "MAPCIS" in GEOREF In Progress yielded one hit. It is a conference abstract and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly.

6. Search for "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in GEOREF In Progress yielded 0 hits.

7 Search for "MAPCIS in Geoscience World yielded 18 hits. 16 of these hits are conference abstracts and coauthored by Daniel P. Connelly; one hit was a publication about the Mining and Petroleum Control Index (MAPCIS); and a final hit was a peer-reviewed paper about the Vredefort Dome that weirdly had one of Connelly's conference abstracts in its list of references and seemingly lacking either any citation to or mention of it in the body text of the paper. In comparison, a search for "Vredefort Dome" produced 236 hits (219 journal articles) and "Vredefort" produced 604 hits.

8 Search for "D. P. Connelly" in Web of Science between 1900 and 2021 yielded 15 unrelated publications by a geochemist and a biochemist. A search for "Daniel P. Connelly" only found a handful of unrelated publications about electrical engineering, medical research, and wildlife.

9 Found nothing for either "MAPCIS" and "Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian" in the Web of Science. For comparison, I found 77 publications with "Vredefort Dome" in their title and 230 publications with "Vredefort" in their title.

(B.) My conclusions of these and other searches that the publication record for MAPCIS is overwhelmingly lacking in secondary coverage by reliable sources and there is profound lack of interest in it by geoscientists.

(C.) Just out of curiosity, do AfDs affect redirects such as MAPCIS and Massive Australian Precambrian/Cambrian Impact Structure,MAPCIS? Paul H. (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirects will be deleted along with the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Paul - there's no evidence of notability here, and this seems to be a fringe theory. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTMADEUP, which seems applicable here. Do we have any sources not written by the originator of this hypothesis, published in a peer-reviewed or government agency report? Hyperion35 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only publication that might possibly be "peer-reviewed" that I have seen is Connelly, D.P., Sikder, A.M. and Presser, J.L., 2019. The Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure (MAPCIS) part one. AIG Journal Paper N2018-002. Note: "AIG" = Australian Institute of Geoscientists. However, it is written by the originator of this hypothesis. The same issues are shared by the Mistassini-Otish impact crater. Paul H. (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Let Me help you’’’

By appearances, it seems that the move to delete MAPCIS was decided before the discussion period with a predetermine method to be followed by a predetermined outcome. The problem with this method is that it fails to address contradictory statements, unsupported assertions, unintended consequences and innate biases that a full and robust discussion would winnow out. This would leave the path open for reinstatement through Wikipedia review processes ‘Unintended consequences’

  Removal of the MAPCIS page and/or posting it on the Fringe theories/notice board has the unintended consequence of creating a fringe theory and promoting another.   Removal of the MAPCIS page leaves no scientific explanation for the deep ring anomaly in central Australia.   This in itself creates a fringe theory that structure was created by nothing.   Second, there is no current hypothesis that adequately addresses many geologic formations of the anomaly.   This has allowed the creationists to successfully attack the flaws, replace them with Noah’s flood narrative and make it the single keystone that holds together a religiously based internationally recognized fringe theory.   MAPCIS is the only current theory that fully addresses and negates the flood narrative promoted by well funded international religious groups.   I don’t think it is your intention to either create fringe or to support one which is used by Wiki as an example of fringe theories.  Unfortunately, a delete vote will do that and the creationists will be thankful.

‘Consistencies and biases’

   There is a statement that the MAPCIS page had 115,000 views in six years.   This was followed up me, that MAPCIS presentations and papers have over 3500 reads on Researchgate.   MAPCIS was accepted by Uwe Reimold, a name that everyone here should recognize, for an oral presentation at the 36th International Geological Congress where the top impact geologists would be in the audience.  We have assertion on this delete page, that there is no scientific interest in MAPCIS.  That assertion does not hold water, as there is extreme interest albeit negative on this delete page as well.

‘Fringe Theory’

   It has been asserted that MAPCIS is a fringe theory.  Impact craters/structures/astroblemes were considered a fringe theory ninety years ago for Earth.  They are now considered one of the most common geological physical features in the solar system and a well accepted mainstream explanation for Earth structures that meet rigorous criteria.  It is normal and well established to list impacts as confirmed, probable, possible, unlikely or discredited based on the evidence.  People commonly source Wikipedia to find the status of a structure.  It is in my opinion, important for Wikipedia to list all impacts along with current status.  There was no easy information in 2007 and I ended up traveling to Australia to take long exploratory walks in the desert. 
   To be precise, if I asserted the anomaly know as MAPCIS was made by a gamma burst from an exoplanet or a tsunami from Noah’s flood, these would be the definition of a fringe theory.

    Now we come to the difficult issue of biases.   There are professional, personal, systemic and innate biases that only can be addressed through introspection.   The study of impact geology is highly competitive for the limited resources to study any specific crater.  My primary field of study is medicine with impact geology as a passion.  This can make for a recipe for an intense negative bias especially in light of recent success.  I overcame many of my limitations by working with the top geologists and accepting their input.   I can only hope that there is no innate bias against my co-authors who are top geologists or the Australian Institute of Geoscientists because they are not members of a select group.  I hope there is no innate bias against the late Australian geologist E.S.T. O'Driscoll & I. B. Campbell,  who published in 1997 the existence of CAR, Central Australian Ring as they are highly esteemed for their body of work.   Before you delete the page, take the time to address these issues.

I have followed the guidance and rule of Wikipedia to the best of my ability.  I started the page in 2010 and quickly realized it was not my place as primary researcher to fill it in.   As Wiki advises, do the work and get published in peer reviewed papers.  It is up to Wiki contributors and editors to read those papers and fill in the page.   I feel quite fortunate to have the opportunity to have written under the guidance of and along with highly qualified, credentialed geologists Arif Sikdar and Jaime Presser, what appears to be a seminal paper.   History will decide if it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielone2 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"By appearances, it seems that the move to delete MAPCIS was decided before the discussion period with a predetermine method to be followed by a predetermined outcome." This is untrue and unfair. You seem to want the discussion to focus on the merits of your theory and on the motivations and qualifications of those proposing and supporting deletion of the article. The only relevant criterion here is whether the theory is notable, measured by whether there are multiple independent sources discussing the theory. The answer to the latter appears to be No, which is all that really matters here. It is not our job to prognosticate which theory will turn out to be the next plate tectonics, or warm-blooded dinosaurs, or Yucatan impact event. It is to determine which theories currently have significant support in the expert community. This one does not. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Paul H. Complete lack of notability as per Wikipedia guidelines. Deus et lex (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that this MAPCIS article was created in 2010 by user Daniel Connelly (now present in this AfD discussion as user Danielone2) to report his original research about MAPCIS. How has this article survived for 11 years when, it seems to me, that it violates/violated Wikipedia's no original research policy? Wikipedia is for reporting what reliable secondary sources report about notable things in the universe; Wikipedia is not for reporting things that are new to science which do not have reliable secondary sources. Many academic researchers have struggled or failed to understand that Wikipedia is not e.g. an academic journal. GeoWriter (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sansad Ratna Award

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

An award given by an NGO. Created by a banned user with major COI issues, the NGO itself seems likely to be deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Point Foundation) as part of the series of AfDs initiated by User:M4DU7 and User:Alexandermcnabb. This award has been mentioned in passing by a few minor media outlets, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV to make it pass WP:NAWARD (note: this is just an essay/failed proposal) or WP:GNG (which of course is not, and which doesn't seem to be met here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's MORE of these? Press releases and passing mentions, as noted by nom, as well as 404 errors and non-RS sources all add up to some very dubious sourcing. Created by a blocked COI/UPE sock. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandermcnabb, Last surviving article not being currently considered for deletion by the same creator is Cartoon Watch. It doesn't seem related to the PPF, although I am not sure if it is notable anyway. We should probably look at it soon to finish tidying up here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus duly done! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of a series of articles on non-notable topics related to Prime Point Foundation. I could not unearth any source that has significant and independent coverage on this award. Fails GNG. M4DU7 (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sansad means parliament. It's a very clever play of making people believe that it's a reputed award that probably involves the government. So many such deceptive awards exists in India! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2021 (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. Anarchyte (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big V Telecom

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

Fails NCORP. Lacks any serious coverage beyond the usual corporate announcements. The article is a borderline WP:SPAMPAGE which was created by a user who was blocked for spam/advertising. M4DU7 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wins a record for most mentions of 'Incubated by Tata Elxsi'. Slim sources, passing mentions, press releases, nom's concerns all add up... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious spam page is obvious. However, the page did let me know that Big V Telecom, incubated by TATA ELXSI, is expanding its footprints in Delhi and the NCR, which is nice. AdoTang (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 00:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Burgess

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

Fails WP:GNG. A google search, even including “figure skater” fails to find any reliable sources. Doesn’t appear he’s ever competed in the Olympics. Rockchalk7 17 02:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP 99% of all the best skaters in the world will never compete in an Olympics! Some world medalists have never competed in an Olympics. No way should the standard for figure skater on Wikipedia be appearence in an Olympics. You think Wikipedia would be good on figure skating if there was no entry for yukari nakano Alissa czisny etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty786 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty786: And 99% of figure skaters don’t meet Wikipedia’s eligibility requirements. That’s the issue and question here. He has to fit Wikipedia’s nobility definition, which is at the very least meeting WP:GNG, which he does not.--Rockchalk7 17 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:NSPORT Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:NSKATE criteria, and the largely trivial coverage isn't sufficient to pass the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2021 (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. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snooper (brand)

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

non notable fgnievinski (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Fmalina blanked the AfD along with removal of the AfD template from the page. I have left them a message to contribute here. Nightfury 11:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing banner, please read my contribution comments before dismissing or reverting my actions, the non notability comment of fgnievinski is insulting as is the banner that was displayed as a result of that action
Nightfury how dare your revert my changes with that patronising tone??
Delete While the somewhat generic name of this brand makes it more difficult to search, trying "snooper"+"GPS" or "snooper"+"radar" do not seem to help. Most articles seem to be retreads of PR releases. (see [34] and [35]. While the brand definitely exists, it has not received enough coverage to warrant its own article on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much promotional WP:SPAM, if this was a new article I would of G11'ed it. Jumpytoo Talk 17:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure what guidelines cover a "brand" (as opposed to an organization or a product) but I believe the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. The references fails the requirements for establishing notabilty. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 9 June 2021 (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. Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glen O'Hara

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

Nothing notable about the person apart from a brief stint as an advisor to a small political party, only one proper reference, and the article reads like a CV. It was flagged for notability issues in 2012 and hasn't improved significantly since then. Extua (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can not see anything that makes this man notable. --Bduke (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he has written multiple books that have been reviewed in major publications: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] which passes WP:NAUTHOR. --hroest 00:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What hroest presented helps and if you do a bit of Googling you can find that he's regularly interviewed or featured as a subject matter expert in major major news publications - New York Times, The Guardian etc. Missvain (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He has indeed written some books, as you would expect for an academic, and he has written commentary pieces for a few newspapers and magazines. Is there anything special about his commentary or anything that he's done which marks him out as different from the average university professor? As it is all we have is a list of links to his profiles and a LinkedIn page. Unless anyone can improve the article (which nobody has done so far) this article should be deleted. Extua (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added to the article 20 published reviews of 5 books. That's 20 in-depth independent published reliable sources about O'Hara's work. It should be easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. As for Extua's "unless anyone can improve the article": see WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2021 (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. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Heart Study

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

Article created solely to promote the study. Fails WP:GNG, with not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The study has produced lots of highly-cited papers, as can be seen by simply clicking on the word "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are (as Phil notes) literally scores of oft-cited academic papers, and additionally a quick Google Books yields a great deal of independent coverage, e.g. 1 2 3. A thorough WP:BEFORE search would have uncovered all of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep True enough, poking your head under the academic bonnet shows this to have been a big thing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2021 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Major

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

Quite obvious vanity article, edit history even shows the majority of the article is based on a personal interview, which is also original research. Transfo47 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC no WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Current sources are mostly primary from org website (not IS) and ditto for the leavecom ref. The slideshare ref also does nothing to establish notability. Running the gamut of afd searches doesn't yield any other SIGCOV either. Looks like the reviewer didn't examine this too closely and then it stuck around for several years as no one who knew what to do ran across it. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's history implies that there is a lot of OR in the article (most of which is unsourced) - the author says they conducted an interview with the subject in one of their edit summaries. I'm not seeing the sources to indicate a GNG pass. I think this has just flown under the radar until now - it doesn't pass muster. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:14, 9 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shkumbin Ismaili

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

Non notable singer who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER neither do they possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search predominantly links me to user generated and self published sources thus a GNG fail. I should state that they have won two very non notable awards Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, uncontroversially fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find self-published sources and YouTube videos... Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 2 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tribulation Force (group)

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

Fancruft article. Even if in-depth discussion of this fictional group is out there this article needs WP:TNT at the very least. Dronebogus (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete fancruft that's unsourced. Table list of members is exceptionally unfortunate. Would fit better on a FANDOM wiki, and even then it'd probably still need some work, seeing it appears to be a major force in the series. AdoTang (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a redirect to, e.g., List of Left Behind characters would be a reasonable alternative to deletion? That would at least ensure readers get to a relevant article. Otherwise, I'm not averse to deletion, essentially per nom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This belongs on a fan wiki, not here (fails WP:GNG, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep They are the main protagnosts in a culturally significant series of books. They also indicate what the cultural perception of the audience of the books. It shows the diversity of the cast of characters in Left Behind.47.149.194.55 (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2021 (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. ✗plicit 03:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global Community

AfDs for this article:

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

Huge fancruft article, with no independent sources to be found. Dronebogus (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete fancruft that's unsourced and written entirely in-universe. Also uses a table instead of an infobox, which is excellent, but that's not a reason to delete. AdoTang (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTPLOT and has no sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sign of sources outside the series. Might as well redirect to the unrelated World community article while we're at it since it's a plausible search term. (Global community already redirects there.) See WP:D&R. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This belongs on a fan wiki, not here (fails WP:GNG, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The Global Community plays an important role in the Left Behind series. It is notable because it is the main antagonistic organization in the Left Behind series and illustrates some cultural prejudices of American Christians, such as opposition to the UN and a suspicion towards disarmament. I can attest that most of the information in the article is accurate. 47.149.194.55 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2021 (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 merge to List of Left Behind characters. ✗plicit 03:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolae Carpathia

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was turned into a redirect by community consensus way back in 2011 but seemingly restored unilaterally without explanation in 2015. Dronebogus (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Left Behind characters and then redirect there. References to the character in sources I could find were passing mentions, in the context of the series as a whole, or as part of a general treatment of the antichrist. As such, the character does not appear to be sufficiently notable for a discrete article. firefly ( t · c ) 11:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Left Behind characters per Firefly above, no evidence this has GNG to merit a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He is the iconic antagonist of Left Behind. 47.149.194.55 (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2021 (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 merge to List of Left Behind characters. ✗plicit 03:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suhail Akbar

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

Not a notable character. Even if there’s more sources out there discussing him this character clearly doesn’t have enough importance to warrant his own page due to his seemingly rather minor role in the Left Behind series. Dronebogus (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Left Behind characters. His cited reception in [41] fails WP:SIGCOV (but is otherwise reliable and should be preserved by merger). I also found another SIGCOV failing one liner to enforce it here: [42]. Not sure if [43] goes beyond SIGCOV, the tiny snippet I see is very limited (update: found it here and no, it is useless). I didn't find anything else, but ping me if better sources I found (my search query was "Suhail Akbar" "Left Behind" and I'll revise my vote if necessary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Left Behind characters per above. Sanketio31 (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Suhail Akbar plays an important role in the latter part of the Left Behind series where he constantly harasses the Tribulation Force. He was also tasked in organizing the Battle of Armageddon where the Nicolae Carpathia makes one final push to destroy all dissidents to the Global Community. Akbar is effectively one of the most powerful people in the world and an instrumental part of the Global Community. Also, as we can see, he is also referred in secondary sources as an example how the Left Behind series does not positively depict Muslims. 47.149.194.55 (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Even if he is important in-fiction I have not been any to turn up any substantial coverage showing that he is independently notable enough for his own article. The most I found was [3] that Piotr identified above already, which is definitely not significant coverage; for notability I'd like to see a whole article with the character's name in the title, as we see with discussions of Snape as a possibly anti-semitic figure in Harry Potter. The discussion of anti-Muslim sentiment might belong on the article for Left Behind itself. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 22:25, 6 June 2021 (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] Pride Glasgow, For Women Scotland, 18 August 2019.

[2] rwomen.scot @ForwomenScot, June 29, 2020, "In Sept 2019, Magdalen Berns, co-founder of FWS died at the age of 36.....

[3] Monroe, MH. "MAPCIS - Massive Australian Precambrian-Cambrian Impact Structure". Australia: The Land Where Time Began. Retrieved 2021-06-02.

[4] Alexander, D (2020). Apocalypse Now: The Rocks Cry Out. Sword Bearers Ministries. p. 138.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]