Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 2

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

MightyCall

MightyCall (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)

Does not meet the rather high bar that is

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

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

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

• Delete - likely
  unremarkable startup. MER-C 17:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Faculty of Medicine of Sorocaba

Faculty of Medicine of Sorocaba (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)

Seems to fail

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Big Eight States

Big Eight States (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 has existed for over a decade, but I'm not sure it refers to a term that is actually used. There are a few mentions in running text, but also "Big Seven" and "Big Nine" are used at least as frequently. Google results show more references to the old

Note: This discussion has been included in the

π, ν) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

π, ν) 17:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Surpura

Surpura (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)

not notable per

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

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

• Keep. The term is mentioned in passing in K.L. Shrivastava; Arun Kumar (1 May 2014). Geo-Resources. Scientific Publishers. pp. 637–.
  WP:NGEO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:1S. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

@

One sentence does not an article make. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

We can wait for others to comment but I don't think that being an unreferenced

WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worshipp Khanna

Worshipp Khanna (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)

Like the last nominator, I see no evidence this person is notable. A search gives virtually nothing in the way of

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

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

• Delete per nom (and consider salt). -- Begoon 08:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99)

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1977–99) (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 has pretty much the same problems as the edition-specific lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, such as

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76)

List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–76) (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 has pretty much the same problems as the edition-specific lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters, such as

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 12:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Vengeance of Hell

Vengeance of Hell (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 Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: Related AfDs - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protected from Reality, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metal Revolution, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Death (band). — MarkH21 (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Metal Revolution

Metal Revolution (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 Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manpareka Kehi Kavita

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Aandhibehari

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

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

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

• Delete Nowhere near
  ping}} me in replies) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per nom. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a lengthy Nepali Wikipedia version, but other Wikipedias have different notability criteria. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Metroplex (Transformers) (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I support this idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to
  List of Autobots where there is a mention of the character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

SRM transports

SRM transports (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 Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete searches show up very little. Author likely has a
  ping}} me in replies) 16:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: I could find 2 articles that suggest it passes
  WP:ORGCRIT: the first and second articles from The Hindu Business Line. I also found this Motor India article, but it mostly consists of an interview (and therefore is not a secondary source). I couldn't find anything else though, so it's a pretty weak case. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The Hindu Business Line goes out of its way to distance itself from the second article and undercuts its

  independence, "according to a company press release." -- Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I interpreted that to mean only the last paragraph is based on the press release - not that the entire article is echoing a press release. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Of the two possible press releases, "SRM Transports has set a target of quadrupling its fleet..." or SRM releases a list of its vehicles, I think the former (& THBL's whole article being a rehash of the press release) is the more likely. -- Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The ref you added without providing a url only mentions the company in passing in the 17th paragraph of 19 as "The other major businesses are SRM Transport (Rs 75 crore) and SRM Hotels (Rs 30 crore)." That's not

significant coverage. (I've added the url.) Cabayi (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bentra Golf Course

Bentra Golf Course (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)

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

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

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

• Delete per nom. A quick search for sources which may establish notability (under
  WP:GNG. Guliolopez (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

List of Schlock Mercenary characters

List of Schlock Mercenary characters (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)

Page has no secondary sources and most of it counts as original research.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

Magdalen Berns

Magdalen Berns (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)

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 spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Berns was a YouTuber known for her commentary opposing transgender rights advocacy. She recently died after she was diagnosed with glioblastoma; we now have a page largely supported with primary sources and fairly brief mentions in newspapers of Twitter spats she was involved in. I was not able to find significant coverage that would reach the threshold of notability outlined in

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

talk) 15:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for taking the time to comment on this AFD. It's simply not true that "[a]ll sources bar Berns' YouTube channel itself" are secondary; "

brief bursts of news coverage". —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @
  WP:OR going on, such as linking to her Youtube channel and somehow turning that into a description of what the content is there without an actual source stating such a description. Or the link to her involvement in Google Summer of Code and that being used to reference her "teaching herself to code". That's pretty blatant original research not backed up directly by the sourcing. Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

• Delete, lack of reliable sources beyond ones that mention one twitter incident means
  WP:BIO1E is an issue. Did a google news search and did not find RS to fix this problem. Rab V (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The Notability guideline is satisfied. Berns is the central subject of this article at the National Review (
  WP:BASIC
  states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

To the objections:

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

This is yet another obituary piece that, somehow, still manages to say pretty much nothing about the subject, Magdalen Berns. It is just an opinion piece that doesn't even bother to give any actual information about the subject and their life. It's honestly rather impressive to have so many obituaries that give no usable biographical focus other than age and location. It conveys basically nothing to notability. And this doesn't contribute to notability in any way. It is a two paragraph piece discussing Rachel McKinnon and gives one mention of Berns. That is not how notability works and you seem to be misunderstanding how

WP:BIO1E works. Coverage of Twitter feuds, especially when the articles in question are entirely about the other person in the feud and not Berns, does not convey notability. There has yet to be a single secondary source that actually discusses Berns to any direct extent, just opinion pieces of the authors' politics in relation to Berns existing. Notability has yet to be met in any fashion whatsoever, just inclusion of a bunch of mentions and primary sources. Silverseren^C 00:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick note: there is no editor consensus on National Review being a reliable source, see

WP:RSP. Using a source whose reliability is iffy and is known for being partisan is questionable for controversial subjects like this and ill-advised when there is a dearth of other reliable sources that can balance it out. Rab V (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

I don't think AfterEllen would be a reliable source; I don't know that they have any public editorial policy and most of their content resembles blog posts.

WP:RS also mentions sources seen as extremist are questionable. They have been denounced by former editors and other lgbt media organizations for having an anti-trans stance, see this link for details.Rab V (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

I reference BIO1E and BLP1E because some editors erroneously believe that these policies state, more or less, that if someone is notable for one thing then it means the subject should not have an article. These policies (and their friends and neighbors like

WP:CRIME), in actuality, address whether a participant in an event should have a stand-alone article independently of that event. For example, if there was a shooting on Sesame Street and the shooter was Big Bird, and Big Bird was not notable for anything other than the Sesame Street Shooting, then Big Bird should not have an article if the Sesame Street Shooting article exists. On the other hand, if Big Bird had independent notability, he'd have his own article in addition to the Sesame Street Shooting. That's why BIO1E/BLP1E do not apply here. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ^Talk 18:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

It's not particularly clear what your position is from this comment. If your position is that 1E does not apply because Berns is independently notable, you should say specifically why by pointing to

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

]

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

And that is for the specific items that confer notability. For example, we are not permitted to guess at McKinnon's motivations in encouraging celebration of her death, we can only report what the secondary sources say. But

WP:BASIC

says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article". I'm sorry to bold this at you, but this is the third time I've had to say it. We need to rely on what the guideline actually says, and it says we don't need to be able to source everything from secondary sources.

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

That is not what

original research

means. No one has had to call up Berns' family for biographical details, or synthesize additional assumptions out of the available sources. Primary sources are used, and primary sources are allowed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this is the third time you've had to say something, people have almost certainly

editorial (not usually considered RS for statements of fact) and the National Review piece is from "The Corner", a blog section not subject to National Review's usual editorial standards. (Note that our RSP entry indicates people disagree whether NR is acceptable sourcing even in general). —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

If you think that wording is not supported by the link, go

WP:FIXIT

. That's a minor content dispute, not an argument for article deletion.

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

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

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Also the article is pretty much an orphan."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it does not apply, there should be

WP:TOOSOON as coverage might've expanded but as it is, it just isn't there.Battleofalma (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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