Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 3

• Delete At best, a small mention (and yes, Filipino TV editors, I mean small) is justified in the main
  chatter) 18:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge - it's not independent of the TV network. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neverwinter Campaign Setting

Neverwinter Campaign Setting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

• Merge or Redirect to
  WP:SIGCOV. That said, the content here might be useful at Neverwinter, though, it's unclear if even that article is safe from deletion based on its current state and without investigating further. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lourdes 05:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ennedi tiger

Ennedi tiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

At least two users at the

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain

Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus favors deletion with only a tepid suggestion for a redirect. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Rich

Lil Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy ‘Bos’ Bullock

Timothy ‘Bos’ Bullock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I

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

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

• Timothy ‘BOS’ Bullock is an acclaimed music producer, with Grammy nominations and everything on his page is true. There is no reason for deletion. All of his songs listed can be verified through ASCAP’s official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livinmydestiny (talk • contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Venerability is not the issue, notability is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree as per nom. Barca (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Walt Disney Company Latin America. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Walt Disney Company Argentina

The Walt Disney Company Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Urquhart

Cory Urquhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject fails

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete.
  reliable source coverage to get over GNG in lieu of having to satisfy an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Looks like this fails the GNG as it is bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet any of the notability criteria of
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Sara Schätzl

Sara Schätzl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete a Proquest newspapers search turns up only 5 sources in German and ZERO sources in any other language. gNewshas more sources, but they are of a less reliable species than the sources found via Proquest newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete since subject does not meet
  WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Comment. No views either way on the subject's notability or otherwise; but I just want to say that it is also considered "good form" for the proposer of an AfD not to attempt to game the system by deleting wikilinks thereby reducing the subject's visibility before the issue has been decided, as here, here, here and here. GrindtXX (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A lot of publications about her in news, although mostly in German. Definitely notable as a columnist, author, and actress (see the page). My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thank you User:GrindtXX for catching the chicanery. The subject is notable. German media and books. Meets GNG. Lightburst (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am not opposed to draftifying a page if there is any evidence that the subject is likely to pass our notability guidelines at some point in the future. But I'm not really seeing that here and the consensus is clearly against keeping this page at the present time. Nonetheless this close is w/o prejudice to an undelete request should the subject garner enough coverage to ring the WP:N bell at a future date. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Zenda

Keith Zenda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Zimbabwean contemporary artist. Fails

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

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

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

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

Comment:

WP:TOOSOON at this time. Netherzone (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

• Delete, rather than draft, seems to be the right outcome here, in the absence or RS.
  talk) 13:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Although the numerical tally is about even between those who want to keep and those who want to delete this article, the arguments invoking NOTNEWS (and, to a lesser extent also BLP1E), in combination with BLP concerns lead me to close this as delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case

If you came here because of a tweet [7], a reddit thread [8] or blog [9], please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Article fails to meet

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Nblund ^talk 15:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Take up what with the Guardian?

And are you now advocating that

gay cake case took an awfully long time to come to a conclusion and even if this (as seeems likely) ends up merged as a section somewhere, that's still some distance from deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

The case was previously mentioned on the

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Actually, a BLP already existed using this person's birthname, but it was deleted and salted and
  WP:AFC discussion before doing that. I don't really think there's enough high quality sourcing to justify this article, much less a full BLP about this person. Nblund ^talk 23:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

WP:AGF. Nblund ^talk 15:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

There is no Yaniv page. There is general agreement that they do not meet

PERSON when separated from the tribunal case and the increasing internet footprint of anti-trans rights related lobbying and mostly abusive click-bait that Google returns about Yaniv. --Fæ (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per the
  talk) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - various comments gyrate around a perceived lack of
  WP:RS
  . Observe this is only because of a mass campaign of deletions of the following major news sources, all documented on the TP:

Le Journal de Montréal^[2]

Toronto Sun^[3]

Vancouver Sun^[4]

The Herald (Glasgow)^[5]

The Now (newspaper)^[6]

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

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