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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bosom P-Yung[edit]

Bosom P-Yung (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 artist who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of GNG. Perhaps a case of TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wren Kitchens[edit]

Wren Kitchens (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)

A promotion-led Wikipedia article that has links to editors who have been deleted from Wikipedia due to potential corporate tie-ins, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sala90&action=edit&redlink=1.

It is currently locked and has been for awhile due to the editing by what appear to be people connected to the company. With that in mind, I feel Wikipedia is better without such content than simply having it locked for the foreseeable future. No doubt the contributors with a conflict of interest will return, as they have done in the past when the page was unlocked. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BritishGuy (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Keep. The sourcing in the article already demonstrates notability. And while WP:TNT can be a reasonable delete rationale, this has been worked on by established editors quite a bit and doesn't seem overly promotional. Any existing problems in that regard are certainly fixable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily notable enough for an article. No good reason for deletion given in nomination. All that is relevant here is notability, not poor editing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With 84 showrooms it is clearly notable. Dormskirk (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the nomination mentions COI editors were involved, I do not see that as a reason to determine that a company with 84 locations is not notable. Also whether or not the COI editors return, that too is not a reason to delete a notable company article. Wm335td (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2020 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Chibueze[edit]

Gaius Chibueze (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 of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Also does not seem to qualify via WP:AUTHOR. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nom that he falls way short of the GNG. Only coverage I found seems to be about his visiting 5000 facebook friends, and a single article of his own writing. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete falls short of WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Abishe (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article falls far short of establishing notability. Maproom (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a Google search uncovers almost nothing about his background. Fails WP:GNG TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Hmmm. Not so sure about deleting. Seems like a big deal in the world of Cryptocoin. Some people think he is a big enough deal to fly him to Dubai to give a lecture on bitcoin. There are sources to be found. and Daily Post Nigeria News Wm335td (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2020 (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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tormenta[edit]

Tormenta (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 evidence this fictional location (game setting) passes NFICTION/GNG. Prior AfD from 2008 closed as keep with WP:GOOGLEHITS argumen. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was deemed notable in the previous AfD and has a comprehensive, well-referenced article in the Portuguese Wikipedia. I do not speak Portuguese, but it appears to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Marcelo Cassaro as seemingly the only relevant existing article. Just looking at the Portuguese article even without understanding it, I'm not sure I'd call it comprehensive. The only section filled out is "History," which is rarely going to help anything meet the threshold of notability. TTN (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Portuguese wiki article and WP:WORLDVIEW convince me that this is notable (enough) to be covered, with "The campaign was the largest in Brazil in all categories, breaking all collection records". – sgeureka ^t•c 08:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have rewritten the article using material from the Portuguese Wikipedia (and a big assist from Google Translate). There are now 14 various sources, I believe this now denotes notability. Guinness323 (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable role-playing game. Wm335td (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Improved. Probably on the right side of borderline now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:35, 3 February 2020 (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. There are obviously a lot of editorial issues to discuss on the talk page of the article going forward, but there is no consensus to delete the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders[edit]

Media coverage of Bernie Sanders (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)

Proposing deletion per NPOV and VERIFIABILITY. Bernie Sanders is the only BLP with an entire page devoted to media coverage of the subject. While the media's coverage of Sanders may be notable, I doubt he is the only person in the world for whom this is the case. This article seems to have been started as a POVFORK arguing that the media is biased against Sanders. While the title was changed from "Media bias against Bernie Sanders", the content has not reflected this change. It is basically a list of assertions from pundits alleging bias against Sanders with limited rebuttal and remarkably little verifiable fact. Some of this content may be merged into his page and pages for his presidential campaigns, but the article as it stands is far from encyclopedic, and my attempts to make constructive edits have been repeatedly rebuffed (see the talk page for more on that). WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WMSR (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Stay on topic. This is not a WP:FORUM to debate the subject of the article. Be pithy. Be concise. Cite policies or guidelines. Confine your comments to what is germane to the discussion and be brief. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - MSM & the DNC are opposed to Sanders' winning the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike as this is was neither a correctly classified !vote nor a relevant argument.Jahaza (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 (talk · contribs), the same source (WP:TALK) that prohibits striking another's comment (except as provided) also prohibits removing others' comments.Jahaza (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Bbb23 was right. I deleted my vote. --WMSR (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's all the commotion? I watch independent news everyday & the MSM bias against Sanders, is spotted & pointed out. My reason for 'keeping' this article is valid. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, they are talking about this Special:Diff/937894263 WMSR shouldn't vote when he/she is the nominator. I agree, the media bias against Sanders controversy is notable itself. It has even got its own "Bernie blackout".-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that my 21:31 post was unstuck, btw. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoodDay: This is an AfD. What does "oppose" mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch :) GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- as the principal author (now), I should probably avoid voting "snow keep" :) Many people have worked on it. Here is Naked Wikipedia's automatic analysis of the page's sourcing & concepts. (The page appears to have broken the css!) ^^ -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is third nomination (but it was a different title), the nomination title must be changed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the content, merge some of the WP:DUE content with (i) Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election (ii) the main Bernie Sanders article, (iii) Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign and (iv) Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. The article was created as POVFORK to promote the Sanders supporter POV that the media is biased against Sanders. During every presidential campaign, there are accusations (which are widely reported in RS that this-or-that candidate was unfairly treated by the media). During 2016 alone, candidates such as Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich all made similar claims and RS reported on those claims. it's neither feasible nor reasonable to create a separate Wikipedia article for every major candidate who claims that the media are against them. Most of the article is a coatrack of accusations in low-quality RS or in op-ed pages. The academic analyses in the article are about media coverage in general during the 2016 election, and cover how the media covered all candidates (not just Sanders), so they do not indicate that this page is any more notable than a similar page for Rubio, Cruz, Clinton, Trump, Kasich, Jeb Bush etc. Furthermore, what makes this POVFORK egregious is that academic analyses do not substantiate that the media was biased against Sanders:

• (1) Sanders received the most positive coverage of any candidate in the 2016 election whereas his main Democratic opponent (Clinton) received the most negative coverage. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.
• (2) While Sanders received less media coverage than Clinton, his coverage was "strongly correlated" with his standing in the polls, and candidates who poll lower get less media coverage. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107.
• (3) Per peer-reviewed research, Sanders' media coverage exceeded his standing in the polls during 2015, and the media exaggerated how close the Democratic race was from March 2016 onwards. Sources: A) John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107. B) Bitecofer, Rachel (2018). "The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential Election". Palgrave: 36–38, 48. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is false. Sanders had fewer positive stories written about him than Clinton or Trump at all times during the campaign, according to both Brandwatch & Media Tense (the sources for Sides & Shorenstein)

(2) is meaningless. Correlated how? Is this correlation relevant in the Democratic race? If so, how? Was Clinton's coverage strongly correlated with her standing in the polls, or did it fluctuate with the various media moments?

(3) Bitecofer is not a good reference for this claim, which again does not tell the whole media/DNC/super-delegate story. She cites Brock's Blue Nation Review in her research (and not to make fun of it) that's your Kelley ref). Also Media Tense's data as studied at Harvard by Mr. Patterson directly and resoundingly contradict both quantitatively and qualitatively the idea that the press outlets studied were primarily interested in pushing Sanders in the Democratic race from March 2016.

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shorenstein Center report for 2015[1]: "Sanders’ coverage in 2015 was the most favorable of any of the top candidates, Republican or Democratic." Shorenstein Center report for 2016[2]: "Sanders’ coverage during the opening stage of the primaries was the most positive of any candidate... Sanders’ coverage during the Super Tuesday period, as was true of earlier stages, was the most favorable of any candidate... The middle stage of the primaries was the first time in the campaign where a candidate other than Sanders got the most favorable coverage." John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press: "Sanders’s appeal... depended on extensive and often positive media coverage." + "In 2015, Sanders benefited from increas- ing news coverage that was more positive than Clinton received... This increasing and increasingly positive coverage helped give Sanders a national profile... The tone of news coverage continued to favor Sanders for the rest of the primary." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for the love of marshmallows would you knock it off. The point is part II. Everyone who works on this page knows that. "Sanders’ coverage was particularly sparse. [...] In terms of the volume of media coverage, the Democratic race was one sided" (source) Read the 1st source in the entry and get back with me on the Shorenstein Center. I suppose a byproduct of deletion is that the talk page would be deleted. I get it. But that's not a reason to delete an encyclopedia entry. And quit comparing meaningless decontextualized percentages when you should be comparing numbers of stories for comparisons of superiority.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is a notable, controversial issue that is widely covered in reliable sources. Definitely should have its own article. Content disputes and I just dont like it are not reasons for deletions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Article is a vehicle for inclusion of speculative information, rather than a record of a notable event. It's active edit history is indicative of the controversy of the topic, not actual notability. Slywriter (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a textual example of this speculative information. That's easy to say... let's see some text...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In February 2019, Shane Ryan (Paste Magazine) reported that within 48 hours of Sanders' campaign launch, the Washington Post had published four opinion pieces about him, two of which were by columnist Jennifer Rubin. Ryan described the common themes in these columns as a "manufactured narrative" that Sanders' time had—as one of the columnists put it—"come and gone". - speculation into why WaPo wrote articles
• Entire politico section relies on Pro-Sanders quotes to support a speculative anti-Semitism claim
• Katie Halper used to speculate on motives of NYT writer
• Shakir, Sanders' Campaign Manager used as a source against CNN
• Sanders own musings about WaPo used to indicate WaPo bias
• WaPo vs Rolling Stone to create perception that WaPo maliciously declares his statement false
• The use of In These Times to use quantity of coverage as a metric to prove media doesn't cover Sanders. Perhaps he just didn't say anything new or notable
• 2 Journalist quotes to validate media has a centrist bias
• The entire CNN debate section which ends with an Anti Semitism claim to bolster it's impact.
• All references above are the 2020 section of the article. 2016 can be summed up as "Nobody likes that Trump sucked the air out of the room"

Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true I haven't worked as much on the stuff from 2020, you can see the difference in the prose between the two sections, as I tend to be less prolix, in general. I responded to your comments when you wrote them and now that I've had a moment I've made two or three changes because of them. Let me know if you consider these improvements (see the grayed items and my most recent edit to the article).

1. This is quoted material from the WaPo about which there was a discussion that took place on the TP. A median solution between the two proposals was found after someone (will check who) deleted it during the RfC (which is usually considered a no-no).
2. The guy from JTA is pro-Sanders? I think you should read that again. (I've removed the quote from AOC, which I did not add, though I left it as the title of the tweet-ref) The guy from JTA mentions the tweet, unless I'm mistaken.
3. Katie Halper provides rather a lot of evidence.
4. Shakir is being cited as to what he would like to discuss other than Trump's tweets: he answers "regulatory capture". Your description of that section is just a tiny bit parodic.
5. Rather a lot of newspaper ink was spilled over this.
6. I've read the WaPo article which published the APJH's response, which was not flattering. When two medical doctors at Harvard accuse the WaPo fact-checker of lying I suppose he could be telling the truth... will fix up the ref, I hadn't read that article yet. I think I've read the RS one, but again, I've worked mostly on 2016. Your summary is reductive.
7. They said Sanders wasn't covered. Media coverage of Bernie Sanders is the title of the page. Quantity of coverage as you know was converted into as mega-Trump-bucks worth of free advertising equivalents in the secondary lit. That said I've shortened the section on Grim covering that the following month.
8. Two journalists (including the founding editor of Politico) wrote that they thought it did
9. yeah, I'm not a big fan of that either boldly removed for you, though I'm not 100% convinced this MSNBC story should stay out or that Greenwald is wrong.
10. Not really. There's Brock. There's the WaPo. There's the DNC (the debates & media coverage are not well covered yet at all) There's the TV networks (AZ). There's the Shorenstein Study, which has been widely cited as confirming a huge statistical bias against issues (& a negative slant on Sanders from March 15th for the little press Media Tenor found that he got...)

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge some of the content following the excellent argument made by User:Snooganssnoogans. JamieWhat (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:COATRACK and WP:DUE. Move usable/relevant information to Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign, and Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign. KidAd (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The issue of how Sanders is covered in the media is pivotal, heavily covered and discussed, blatantly notable, and worthy of an article. This looks like another attempt to minimize the existence of something some editors seem to have an interest in minimizing. With the unquestionable notability of the subject combined with the fact that this is a repeated nomination after multiple failed ones, deletion seems incredibly petty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PlanespotterA320 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above comment. To illustrate how notable this controversy of media coverage of Bernie Sanders search "Bernie blackout". I have been in deletion discussions many times, never that I saw content disputes being a valid reason for deletion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep entry as is with no deletion of content not agreed upon between the editors in its Talk Page. How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden. In addition, many RS's have covered the subject; why should Wikipedia abstain from it when this website should be but a mirror of how reliable sources approach a given subject? Deleting this entry is true WP:COATRACK. Rafe87 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that reliable sources haven't really covered the subject. They have published opinions about it. The article is not about reactions to media coverage of Sanders, yet that's all that seems to be present. There is very little verifiable factual information about the subject. Furthermore, saying that Sanders is becoming a frontrunner is not only WP:CRYSTALBALL, but largely irrelevant. Biden does not have a comparable page. I also don't understand how deleting the article is true WP:COATRACK, since an article can't be a coat rack if it doesn't exist. --WMSR (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what CRYSTALBALL are you talking about. The content is discussed in the media extensively. The media coverage of Bernie has been widely called "Bernie Blackout" and sources are discussing this. Content disputes are not reasons for deletions.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about How Sanders is covered by the press is an important subject and will become more so as he rises to the position of co-front runner with Biden (emphasis mine). Nowhere did I say that content disputes were reasons for deletion, but the actual reasons that I gave in the nomination are. Media sources discussing a topic is much different than sources reporting on it. There are very few, if any, sources in this article with concrete facts; as it stands now, most of the article is quoted or summarized opinions of pundits. There are not enough reliable sources with verifiable facts pertaining to the subject to prove notability. I understand that it's tempting to give in to confirmation bias, but at the end of the day, a thousand op-eds alleging mistreatment of Sanders by the media does not an article make. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Starting another AFD for an article that just had one ending the month before is a waste of time. There are ample references in the article about this. Reliable sources give significant coverage to the media coverage of him. Dream Focus 02:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination. After this get closed there will be no more nominations.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The second nomination was closed for procedural reasons by the proposer with no comments or votes. --WMSR (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and generalize We're observing a philosophical clash between two divergent journalistic philosophies. One side wants to uphold an ideal of journalists as scrupulously impartial judges of political ideas, as a fourth branch of government. The other side often observes many or most media outlets as rags, as dirty bird sheets in serious thrall to some wealthy owner's perverse political axe to grind or to their big advertisers' money. Paul Klinkman (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The other side often observes many or most media outlets as rags, as dirty bird sheets in serious thrall to some wealthy owner's perverse political axe to grind or to their big advertisers' money Oh boy...WP:TIAC...WP:FRINGE KidAd (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just want to link this story from the WaPo that says how the DNC leaks exposed the anti-Sanders democrats who worked to smear him and his campaign [3]. I believe this is relevant especially for those who deny that there is a conspiracy. Open in chrome incognito if you want to pass the paywall.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – What is the point of going through a giant AfD if you're just gonna ignore it and try to blow up the article again a month later? Master of Time (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I cast a vote for cutting this down by 2/3s? The subject is worthwhile but the article length is excessive and it's only going to get longer and longer as we move into 2020 as more and more coverage gets added. I know that AfD options are Keep, Delete, Merge or Redirect but jeez, this is just a completely unwieldy article but redeemable if it was just massively cut down in size. Count this as a Comment then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the arguments presented as reasons for deleting this article are in fact reasons to keep it.

• Media bias can never be proven because it requires mind reading? Good. The article should continue to describe media coverage and meta-analyses of this coverage and let the reader decide if those alleging bias are correct.
• You can find academic sources arguing that Sanders was covered fairly? Good. They should be added to the article to show that people on both sides of the debate consider the topic notable.
• You think negative media mentions of other candidates are just as systemic (which I doubt) as they are with Sanders? Good. Keep this article to serve as a guide for writing your Media coverage of Joe Biden article.

In case anyone needs a reminder, let me point out that just since the last AfD, a CNN host has framed two debate questions from Warren's point of view and an MSNBC host has reached out to a pseudoscience purveyor who called Sanders a liar. Is anyone going to tell me that these things were not covered in RS sources or that they represent acceptable media conduct? Connor Behan (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Most discussion of media coverage of Bernie Sanders are opinions about singular events, such as polls, policy opinions, and the "16 stories about Bernie Sanders over a 16-hour period by the Washington Post" (which was based on performance from a single debate). The vast majority of large studies on the matter, which focused on Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election as a whole, have confirmed that there is no significant, special bias for or against Sanders. For instance, from the article referencing a study covering the entire 2016 election, "Patterson said that Sanders did better [in terms of media coverage] than most 'candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following.'" It's better, but not significantly better to the point where it's an extreme outlier. Ylevental (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That quotation almost sounds like it's making Bernie's point for him. If the media were consistent, a candidate with lots of money, lots of organization and a huge following should do better than all of the candidates who lack those three qualities, not just most of them. Connor Behan (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the peer-reviewed research shows, the coverage that Sanders received during his early candidacy far exceeded his support in the polls. Source: John Sides; Michael Tesler; Lynn Vavreck (2018). Identity Crisis. Princeton University Press. pp. 8, 62, 99, 104–107. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that media coverage was greater, but it was not significantly greater compared to other candidates in his situation. Ylevental (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The vast majority of large studies on the matter..." -- sounds like the topic is notable! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Those studies are all about Media coverage of the 2016 United States presidential election, of which Sanders is one of many candidates. None of the studies are specifically about media coverage of Sanders. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed to clarify Ylevental (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some reliable sources that support notability of the subject: [4][5][6][7][8][9]

And lots and lots of other sources discussing this highly controversial subject. Content disputes are not valid arguments for deletion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting point, but all those sources use the term "Bernie Blackout", which doesn't focus on media coverage as a whole. Maybe an article about the "Bernie Blackout" could be created, describing the phenomenon as a term coined by Sanders supporters describing their view on Sanders and the media, along with others' responses to that phenomenon. It would be very different from this article however, as the "blackout" is far more narrow in scope, so I'm sticking with deletion. Ylevental (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The RSs are discussing the media coverage of Bernie Sanders. The subject of media coverage of Bernie Sanders is obviously notable and controversial.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All major 2016 candidates have RS coverage of claims regarding media bias. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant content but otherwise delete To group all the singular events as to give the appearance of a singular bias against Sanders is flat out synthesis and original research, considering that (as Snooganssnoogans is pointing out, there is similar bias for all candidates in these last two elections but we aren't giving wholly separate articles to the other candidates). You need a fair number of sources that cover the state of journalism to assert that there was a media bias against Sanders to support this to get past the OR issue. Some of the individual events do merit inclusion in the separate Sanders campaign articles or similar cases, but this as standalone is wholly improper for WP to be making the claim. --Masem (t) 20:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sanders got 78% of the popular votes that Clinton got, but only 2/3 of the media coverage in the drastically undercovered Democratic primary. This has been widely covered by both major mainstream press actors (editor of the Nation for example), the Berkman Klein Center, which notes the WaPo & NYTimes had massive social media retweeting from the Clinton camp, whereas different media outlets were more amply echoed in Sanders' circles. Everyone should take a step back and realize that the debate is not about whether there was media bias or not, but whether the overwhelming majority of 17 people who voted to rename the page "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders" were not onto something more fundamental. My personal choice at that time was "Media coverage of Democratic primaries 2000-2020". I went with the flow though, and this is the repayment I get for the hard work. Also it is worth noting that Snoogans recent pov creation (17 Jan) cites Hillary Clinton's memoir, whereas he deleted Jeff Weaver's book-length study of media coverage and the election, because he did not like the part about David Brock's media manipulation. (diff)

Further directions for the page include, Sanders use of local access media in Vermont, his radio show, his social media machinery... -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

78% of popular vote? Think we need to be writing a different article if that was true.Slywriter (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "that Clinton got". The data is very clear as you can see. This does not count the landslide victories in Washington, North Dakota & Maine (or Clinton's razor thin win in Iowa or her 5% spread in NV). 21:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

78% vote and 66% coverage are not that far apart. Many people knew about Bernie Sanders, but still willingly chose to vote for Clinton. Ylevental (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an AFD argument. WP:N (85 references), WP:V (all references are verifiable for their claims), are both unquestionably met. WP:NPOV is met because multiple points of view are represented and nothing prevents further POV being added. WP:OSE is not a valid argument in an AFD.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those refs are either self-identified "progressive" outlets or editorials. For that reason, they mostly fail verifiability. Sure, we can verify that x pundit said y, but at the end of the day, if we remove editorials, there is barely an article left. And saying that nothing prevents further POV being added is problematic; we are not here to present an argument to moderation. We are here to present facts, and facts are not sufficiently present in this article. --WMSR (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. You want to say, now, that facts matter. I'm afraid that some folks have been deleting those cold hard facts you like so much and you have been helping them to do so:

At the end of the month, Alex Seitz-Wald reported in MSNBC that David Brock had filed three complaints with the FEC against the Sanders' campaign through his American Democracy Legal Fund. Seitz-Wald said it marked the first time this group had initiated action against a Democrat and that it was unlikely to lead to any result given the FEC's structural deadlock.^[1]

Elsewhere, you argue that Tulsi Gabbard's lawsuits against google and against Clinton should be seen as media coverage tactics (which, of course, I agree with), but here you don't see it the same way. And then you complain there aren't enough facts. I will dig up the CTR's deleted links to their suits and add them to the bibliography on the talk page.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 01:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done [10] -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about the content of the article. It is not about me. The two situations are not analogous, and the source you mention is unfit for the article. Of course campaigns say negative things about other candidates. That isn't surprising or notable, and it has little to do with media coverage of Sanders and more to do with coverage of Brock. Pushing a conspiracy theory about David Brock is not going to improve this article. --WMSR (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🐟 Now, I see you are accusing Alex Seitz-Wald, MSNBC (and also Jeff Weaver, who tells the same story) of "pushing a conspiracy theory" go wmsr, go. wait, isn't that a BLP violation? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such accusation. Stop casting aspersions. This discussion is about the article, not about me. --WMSR (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🐟 Saying someone is "pushing a conspiracy theory" -- as you did -- by providing sources that say exactly what they are described as saying is either a BLP violation or a personal attack (or, more likely, both). You do what you want with your credibility. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete every candidate receives negative press and usually has valid complaints about the media. Some of the complaints also seem to be rife with cherrypicking to fit a narrative. AaronY (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It becomes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when an editor chooses which coverage fits the hypotheses. Wm335td (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:WEIGHT. Not a POV fork; for whatever reason (perhaps because Sanders identifies as a socialist), the nature of his coverage in US media differs from that of the other Democratic candidates. Miniapolis 23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Some say that Bernie Sanders is still a definitive capitalist, that's why I think this controversy is very unlikely. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/upshot/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialist-capitalist.html and https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/real-socialists-left-bernie/596890/ Ylevental (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Take this seriously. I am a firm inclusionist. I have spent my wikipedia career protecting articles, trying to keep censorship from wikipedia. This might be my fourth Delete ivote ever and I sadly make this because this article is a lost cause.

This originally was titled Media bias against Bernie Sanders. It was a well sourced discussion of the Bernie Blackout, a phenomenon often discussed amongst “Progressive” media for most of the last four years (including while it was happening). The discussions spend most of their time talking about the subtle techniques being employed to turn whatever coverage that does exist into dismissive instructions to ignore Bernie Sanders and consider who else should displace him. They discuss the ways thoughtful, credible journalists have been guided into perpetuating this poor coverage. You have a large segment of the American population that understand this concept clearly. Because conventional media is perpetrating this mis-reporting, it also backs up its reporting by self-generated, self regulation. We’re doing a good job. See, we just told you we are doing a good job, so now its a fact. Since that is happening in what are considered by wikipedia to be reliable sources, the reporting of the bias has had to happen outside that structure in what is referred to as “new media.” This blackout itself has caused millions of people to flock to getting their news and information from this new media because they cannot get it from conventional media. Ten thousand people do not show up at a Bernie rally because it was in the newspaper or on local TV, they get that news from new media sources. Wikipedia must adapt its standards to account for “new media” or it will become a party to this mis-reporting.

Since its creation, this article has been descended upon by what I firmly believe to be political operatives, probably paid operatives and certainly sent by the same forces that caused the Bernie blackout across major media in the first place. Since they have taken over the article, they have changed the title, then reversed the content of the article to promote the opposing message. In other words, they have gone beyond censoring the original content, the have reversed the spin and are presenting one sided information to guide the public perception away from learning about the phenomenon. Misinformation.

My first contribution to the article, the first outside editor after the creator, was to include the well known elemental beginning of the phenomenon:

MSNBC host, Ed Schultz stated that he had prepared a report on Bernie Sanders' presidential candidate announcement at his home, but five minutes before the broadcast was due to air, he was angrily told by then-president of MSNBC Phil Griffin that "you're not covering this" and "you're not covering Bernie Sanders”. And I noted that Shultz was terminated by MSNBC 45 days later, which additional sources also report Shultz attributed directly to that disagreement. That content was removed. The wikilawyering has made its source, a direct quote from the now deceased Shultz himself, to be considered non-reliable source because Shultz found his next employment working for the American version of RT (TV network) so presumably after 30 plus years of credible American broadcasting from both sides of the aisle, now he was a foreign agent and his own words cannot be trusted. This is the addled logic that now has subjugated this entire article.

Now, instead, we have phrases like: Sanders was not the subject of a "media blackout," as he had just reached a 30 percent share of coverage. They are using wikipedia’s voice to tell us not to believe our lying eyes. Whenever any editor tries to insert any content that goes opposite to their counter-narrative, one of them swoops in and removes that content. They are actively protecting this presentation of misinformation.

This is a terrible trend for our worldwide information source. These same operatives are descending on every article related to “progressive” media and particularly progressive political candidates. They are removing sourced content to hide information and taking aggressive measures to keep it hidden. These are evolutions of "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

If these articles can get hacked, if we as the wikipedia community let them, the entire credibility of wikipedia will come into question. This is a much bigger problem than just this article that wikipedia will have to deal with, or suffer the consequences of losing its position as the world’s leading information source. When people find wikipedia reporting information diametrically opposed to what they know and experience, they will leave. Unfortunately for now, this article is a lost cause and should be deleted.

I will firmly argue we should create a proper article describing the Bernie Blackout, but I do not know how we can protect it from immediately being seized by these same forces and also turned into propaganda. Trackinfo (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For info the sentence about the Bernie Blackout said Claire Malone of FiveThirtyEight rejected that Sanders was the subject of a "media blackout," saying that he received sizable and rising article coverage. when it was added on 31 December 2019 by Snooganssnoogans. In an effort to keep him from raising hell, but still with the idea of correcting the misrepresentation of Malone's views, I changed that to the current text on 3 January 2020, adding a direct citation to the quote tag from Claire Malone: "And now he's sort of edged up into 30% of coverage. And people have been searching Bernie quite a bit, in the low 50-60 range, and they kind of plateaued into the following winter. So, maybe he's not getting super duper coverage, but he's not not there." I agree that the text as it was added on 31 December 2019 did not respect the spirit of what Claire Malone said in the interview. This is not unusual and fighting it often leads to conflict, cf. this edit. Since 3 January you've had a lot of time to fix that... (incidentally: I'm not a political operative) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. I say we simply just write a new article titled Bernie blackout and use some of the original material wrote. The current version of the article is ridiculous and has been captured by establishment hawks. Censorship is very real in this situation, and the only way to fight it is to write an article that actual covers the topic of the Bernie blackout. This article does not do that anymore. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you're saying, but IMO those are not reasons to delete. To rename, sure. To protect or semi-protect, sure. To delete, no way. If the topic is article worthy as you suggest it is, then delete is simply the wrong result. WP shouldn't negotiate with (for lack of a better word) media terrorists. We already have WP:DR to deal with those issues. To capitulate to vandalism is not encyclopedic. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WMSR, Snooganssnoogans, KidAd, Trackinfo, and others. Some material about media bias for and against Sanders is warranted in the campaign articles, but this one has been seized upon for WP:ADVOCACY. I tried to help fix it several weeks ago, but there are too many zealous editors willing to ignore our content policies for the article not to remain a WP:COATRACK for WP:PROPAGANDA. - MrX 🖋 18:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Gathering information about independent events and tying them together in an article to present a conclusion in the mind of the reader is WP:SYNTH (at best). Some of the text can be merged into relevant articles. O3000 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This can be covered in the articles Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign and Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign (where it can probably can be done in a few short sentences, as opposed to this fork article, which is an overwhelming wall of text). I don't see any significant, in-depth coverage of media coverage as a concept separate or apart from the Senator's presidential campaigns. I have to say that there is a very strong feeling of recentism about an article with a concept like this. Our encyclopedia should be timely and cover topics of current interest, but it should not be dominated by up-to-the-minute, blow-by-blow, back-and-forth, claims-and-counterclaims of the campaign horserace. Neutrality^talk 20:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that there is a very strong feeling of recentism. Let's see... first ref = 2005, more than half of the text is about 2016. Fascinating to see everyone coming to play! Hi, "neutrality". 77/83 references are over a month old. A clear majority are over a year old.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: The article was created by User:Azcolvin429 on November 30, 2019 after he had been working on it in his sandbox. When he inserted links to the new article that day, it started showing up in my watchlist and I first contributed about an hour later. It describes events that have a timeline starting in 2015, though there is a historical phenomenon existing as long as history itself. Anyone with views that do not match the establishment will come under some form of attack from the establishment. America's pioneers, my relatives and maybe yours, are among those victims of persecution. Refer back to the quote. Trackinfo (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the vast majority of sources are news and commentary pieces relating to either the 2016 or 2020 election campaign: i.e., horse race. Neutrality^talk 21:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a highly notable, well-covered topic, backed by numerous reliable sources. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - WP:SYNTH: The article. The sourcing is weak at best and POV pushing is all over this article. Jdcomix (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the sourcing "weak"? CompactSpacez (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- A notable topic with plenty of sources. It has been well documented that the media treats Sanders differently than any other Democrat candidate.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons others have described, namely that this is a well-sourced article on a notable topic. I would also like to specifically respond to some arguments made in favour of deleting. The article is not "POV pushing". "POV pushing" is when minor, fringe or disreputed views are given undue weight (say, Vitamin C megadoses on an article about cancer treatments). However, that media bias against Sanders exists has been a significant point of mainstream discussion in both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns, more so than any other candidate. A comparison I like to make is with the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. That has been called "POV pushing", but ultimately, despite numerous attempts to delete, it has been kept, simply because the analogy is so powerful, and has been such a significant point in the debate. The most important reason the article should be kept is, of course, because the Bernie Blackout is....real. You saw it with your own eyes in the last Democratic debate hosted by CNN. Is it not the responsibility of an encyclopedia to be writing about the truth, rather than trying to come up with reasons to suppress it? CompactSpacez (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some articles and opinion pieces referring to an alleged "Bernie Blackout", but there are no major studies that present evidence that there is significant media bias against Bernie Sanders. Ylevental (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not able to decide, but the article it self seems to be more in a format of Template:Cleanup-PR. Sorry there is no Wikipedia namespace article talking about the fact that the article is almost like a news. If looked carefully, in many places the sentences start with a date, "On so and so month and year..." something like that. It seems that the user only looked up the subject of this media coverage of Bernie Sanders on google or Bing news search, and tried to implement each article or statement as short with stating the date as the month and year the article was posted on the internet. This is almost like WP:Copyedit, but not exactly, as the sources were inferenced and summarized. For the statements that have multiple sources from reliable sources, those statements could be broadened to make the article look less like a news article. However for sources that are unreliable and are overused, statements that rely just on those sources should be removed. I do agree with those that stated the sources like "NPR", "Daily Beast", are being over used or may be unreliable. However, there are other reliable sources like ABC, CNN,....

In regards to editors saying the articles are sounding too opinionated confuses me, since some of the reliable sources are were some of the statistics are coming from. I do not think a statistic from a reliable source can be considered opinionated, but i can be wrong. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An old saying is "stats don't lie, statisticians do." In this case, it's the question of what do those stats actually mean? For 2016, Trump was a bumbling fool and Hillary was under federal investigation. Bad news is always covered more than feel good stories. For 2020, He is old news. His tale is the same, so journalists write about other candidates. Slywriter (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not totally true, he still is in the campaign. At the same time, it is the responsibility of the person who wants to get political news about candidates, to find that political news. If you remember when Bernie had a heart attack, he was all over the news. News channels don't want to show news that won't give them much viewer rating points. For example, if Micheal Bloomburg fell asleep in a classic music concert and on the same day Joe Biden got the flu, news channels and sources would write about Joe Bidden. They would not write about Bloomburg falling asleep, that would just sound like dumb news. Also the statement that "Bernie is old news", is an opinionated statement. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per CompactSpacez, Rusf10, Bloodofox, Ylevental and Master of Time. Coming back here only a month after the last attempt to delete this article is something I regard as ludicrous at best. Jusdafax (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, disregarding that the article should not have been nominated for deletion so soon after the last discussion was closed, the topic of the Media's coverage of Bernie Sanders has clearly been the subject of enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Whether the supposed bias in coverage is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion. And yes, the article is a mess in its current state, but AFD is not cleanup. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that AfD is not a proposal to cleanup, but editors who are making earnest attempts to do so are constantly rebuffed. --WMSR (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to WMSR's reply to Devonian Wombat WMSR, can you explain rebuffed? I have a feeling that when you are saying rebuffed, that you are referring to more stuff of things like Template:Cleanup-PR are being added, that still is not a reason for AfD. Although, that is reason for an article to be discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or WP:RFC. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: During my time editing this page, I have tried to clean up the article and I have also placed issue banners. The banners have since been removed, and my attempts to remove content that does not belong have all faced serious resistance; most were reverted and several personal attacks were lobbed at me. I don't have the desire to edit-war content out of this article or continue to face abuse, and I doubt any other editor wants to either, nor should they. Basically, to say "this article just needs to be cleaned up" on the RfD and calling it a day ignores the true difficulty of actually completing that work. --WMSR (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick fact-check shows that WMSR has added zero reliable sources to the article, has been criticized for edit warring on 13-14 January at AN/I (1RR page) and has removed about a dozen sources. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism that you are referring to was not that much. On the other hand however, multiple people have actually told you multiple times on this AfD, that this is not a forum. This is an AfD, where we discuss the article and the subject of the article, not the users themselves. FYI, WMSR never stated in his reply to me that he had added references. Cleanup does not always mean references. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) you are correct about WMSR at AN/I; I misread Bbb23's comment. 2) I will not reply to what is wrong in your post, but will add that the story about the interim chair of the DNC leaking information about the questions that would be asked at CNN townhalls to the Clinton campaign during the primary is missing from the entry. (Her contract with CNN was terminated 7 months later as a result.) [[11]]. Feel free to participate on the page if you think you can help make the entry better.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about Donna Brazile. She did this as a part of her job at the DNC, not the media. She was also a guest contributor at CNN and they terminated her when they heard about it. She is now a Fox contributor. I think it would be a very difficult case to make that this has anything to do with this article. O3000 (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it should be added in a section about DNC control over debates & townhalls. I've added a section to the talk page where you can add to the discussion. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We already went through this and the decision was to rename. This was a mistake because it fundamentally changed the nature of the article and set it up to be nominated for deletion. The article was originally about the Bernie blackout/bias and the media coverage concerning it. Simply making it about media coverage is far too general and it opens the door to having an article about media coverage for any person on TV. I propose the article be renamed back to Media bias against Bernie Sanders or Bernie Blackout. This second deletion nom is absurd and uses the exact same arguments as before. It should’ve been closed by admin the moment it was nominated. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Speedy keep. This relisting breaks the guidelines for relisting (WP:RELIST), specifically:

relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure

Also:

if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.

That criteria is not met.

Furthermore, given that this article has already recently been through this process, WP:SNOWBALL also applies. This aFd should be closed.

Aside from the speedy reasons, the plain keep argument would include that the lister claims the page violates WP:V but provides no examples of non-WP:V or non-WP:RS content or sourcing, never mind a predominance of it that would justify a deletion. Besides that, this exact argument has already been presented in the previous discussion, which was already resolved. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELIST does not apply to this situation. Relisting and renominating are entirely different processes. WP:SNOWBALL does not apply either, as the last AfD was closed with no consensus. --WMSR (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse. It's an abuse of process. Death by a thousand cuts. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When this discussion ends with a non-delete outcome, the article will no doubt be nominated again. And again. And again. That has to be nipped in the bud. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 3 nominations in 60 days is essentially trolling. The topic verifiably exists, citations are bountiful and on-point. Third Way Dems are upset over Sanders' populist message, but this isn't the way to go about disagreeing with it. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has become a coatrack for pro-sanders/anti-media talking points and any attempt to restore neutrality is eventually reverted. – Anne drew 17:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is true. Most of the studies in this article focus on elections as a whole. Ylevental (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - FWIW, over the last few days, DNC Chairman Tom Perez has nominated a slate of candidates for committees at the 2020 Democratic National Convention. All the candidates are anti-Sanders. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this related to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders? O3000 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. It relates to the bias against Sanders that has been present since 2015. Which is a good reason this article (or a new one) should be about the bias, not the media coverage.Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - To those that that make the final decision that results from this AfD discussion, I have faith in your decision and reasoning. However, I have noticed that while most people who support keeping claim that they want an article title that focuses on media coverage in general, they insist in their explanations that the media is heavily biased against Sanders, when only a few opinion pieces claim this. Ylevental (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall that this article has already been taken over and owned, numerous sources have been sanitized and most of the content has been disappeared here. You may not see them presented in this article, but there are entire networks who regularly talk about the bias against Bernie Sanders in a variety of forms, then and now. You can't depend on the content of this article to get a full story, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Trackinfo (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2020 (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. There is clearly very strong consensus against deletion. There is no clear consensus as to whether the articles should be merged and redirected but, as has been pointed out, that can be decided elsewhere. JBW (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fellowship of the Ring[edit]

The Fellowship of the Ring (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'm nominating The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King for deletion. Has a palantír driven me mad? No, let me explain:

WP:PAGEDECIDE says editors should consider how best to help readers understand a topic and that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context.

Tolkien conceived and wrote Lord of the Rings as one novel, split into multiple volumes, and I believe that's the easiest and best way to talk about the work. (Just like the best way to talk about Moby Dick is with a single article, even though, like LotR, it's very long and was originally published in multiple volumes.) Just look at the sources, and how they largely focus on the work as a whole and not individual volumes: [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17]...etc.

Now look at how comprehensive the The Lord of the Rings article is, and compare it to how under-developed the articles about the individual volumes are. If a reader types "Fellowship of the Ring" into Wikipedia, do we really want them to wind up at the start-class Fellowship of the Ring article? An article with just a handful of references, that mostly conists of an overly-long plot summary, that barely touches on the things a reader would want to learn about, like the work's development, themes, influences, etc.? Wouldn't it be better for them to wind up at the comprehensive Lord of the Rings article, which covers everything in the FotR article plus lots more? Of course the three sub-articles could be expanded over time, but, in the end, is there a compelling reason for them to exist in the first place? WanderingWanda (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I mean, I hear you, and appreciate the bold idea, but there are three books, and each of the books is notable in its own right. If there's significant overlap between this and the Lord of the Rings article, then the more reasonable approach would be to have that focus more on the series as a series without getting into the specifics of the individual books -- as each book has more than enough to say about it to make its own article. So, yeah, this is a definite keep for me, but again appreciate the bold idea. TheOtherBob 20:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An obviously notable book. AFD is not for cleanup, per WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP; proposed content rearrangements and merges are best discussed on the talk pages of their respective articles. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Update OK, it looks like this nomination is about all three books. My assertions are the same for all three books, and my recommendation is keep for all of them. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 21:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and perhaps we can make this a Snow Close? What you are suggesting has merit, but deletion is not the right way to go here. You should have a merger discussion as that is what you are actually proposing. Deletion is only concerned with notability and the books pass on those grounds. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above as well. The articles are clearly notable and just need some clean up and then they'll be golden. My assertion is for all three articles.QueerFilmNerd^talk 21:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I wonder. I hear all the instant reflex Keep !votes, but the 3 articles are all neglected and it's hard to see what they're actually for - there's the main LOTR article (pretty good), 3 scrappy unmaintained "book" articles, lots of character, place, and artefact articles (in need of work, and they're getting attention now from me and others). Deletion may be a wee bit drastic but it's not absurd; of course we'd want to merge and redirect to LOTR instead, really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment But merge is keep. The merge discussion has to be proposed on the pages that will be merged. It is a different process and if AfD has consensus to merge then the admin closing the AfD keeps the page and someone else has to go and propose the merge. An agreed merge would indeed involve a redirect being created. Thus my comment above. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An AfD can decide on merge as an outcome, though this one clearly won't. But you're right, the matter can be pursued outside this narrow forum. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the purposes of this AfD, or open to merge. The three books are all notable. Why not discuss this with involved and uninvolved editors on the talk pages? Esowteric+Talk 21:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Or Void if the AfD criteria have not been met here. Esowteric+Talk 21:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and of course leave redirects, to The Lord of the Rings. While this is at AfD, it is clearly more of a merge discussion. However, I support it being at AfD (due to how contentious this will be) instead of left to rot on the talk pages. A bold nomination, but I must agree. The subpages are mostly plot, with little actual sourcing. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we have the leeway to decide how to best present the series. The three book breakdown is a bit of a publisher's formality, as it was intended to be a single volume, but of course you're not going to sell a single, 3,000 page book. I note that the main page could certainly absorb the others without crowding; the LoTR page has only 43kb of prose, well under the 100k max we prefer. Creating a single subsection for each of the three books would make a complete article that was not overly crowded. Most of the sources (even on the subpages) discuss the series as a whole, rather than as individual books. I also note that the main page receives some 5-10 times the page views as the subpages. I see no need for us to maintain several poor pages, when we could simply maintain one good page and have the same end result: our readers become well informed about LoTR. Combined with issues of context, I agree that having standalone pages is unnecessary. I would urge others reading this not to reflexively vote keep, but instead consider that our duty is create an excellent encyclopedia, and that having a certain number of pages is less useful to our readers than having concise and accessible content. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would urge others reading this to not reflexively vote merge, as this is the wrong venue. You and Chiswick Chap have good arguments for merging, but these belong on the talk pages, where all the editors watching the articles can see them, not just the masochistic few who choose to participate at AfD. AfD definitely should not be wielded as a sword of Damocles to force a merge discussion. Let's not turn AfD into a general drama board for all manner of contentious article edits. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 01:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because the trilogy could be covered at one article, doesn't mean it has to be. Easily passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Cleanup is needed, especially with the WP:ALLPLOT issues, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. There are some incidents of books meant to be published together having a single article (I and II Samuel share Books of Samuel), but there isn't a precedent that that has to be done. I don't see a strong enough reason to combine three books that all easily pass WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG into one article on the trilogy just because we can. Hog Farm (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LOTR: There is no trilogy; there are no three books. It is written as a single novel, and often published as one volume. Within the novel there are six books, originally published in three volumes.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LOTR: It is a single work with relatively unimportant subdivisions; redirects to a table of chapters/books/volumes/ in LotR would be good. PJTraill (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to LOTR per nom and CaptainEek, Chiswick Chap and Jack Upland and others, but reserve the option to split out again if elements focused on the individual works become large enough. Some consideration is also needed on how to handle sales figures and meta-data (e.g. I know Wikidata can be tweaked to reflect this merge, but some care may be needed to ensure the right tweaks are made, plus some updating of the incoming links would be useful). I would suggest that if the result here is merge (or even no consensus) that a post-AfD discussion is continued at the appropriate article talk page on how best to handle this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: What Tolkien intended is well documented, but the books were released separately, reviewed separately, are (most often) sold as separate books to this day. Moreover, and most importantly, RS consistently describe LOTR as a trilogy not as a novel ("There is no trilogy"? According to whom? RS treat it as such, and we're not art critics, we're WP editors relying on those same RS).--MattMauler (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: As per the other bob.Halbared (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and spend time improving the articles instead of talking about deleting them. Deagol2 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: WP:DINC. If you want to make the plot summary more concise or do other edits, that's fine, but that's not what AfD is for. — Xaonon (Talk) 01:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree with MattMauler that this is treated as a trilogy by everyone except maybe Jack Upland, I guess. The movie adaptation was released as three movies -- see The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. This is obviously a notable work, and per WP:ARTN, the current state of the article does not diminish the article subject's notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of people don't agree this is a trilogy.[18][19][20][21] Simply because the book is often sold in separate volumes does not make it a trilogy. Charles Dickens' novels were first published as serials. Simply because the Jackson movie version was a trilogy is not particularly relevant. He also filmed The Hobbit as a trilogy. The Lord of the Rings article, understandably, treats it as one novel. There is a continuous story, and the volumes cannot be understood as standalone volumes.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to LOTR – per nom. It’s one novel, best for the reader to present all info on the novel on one page to the extent possible. Plus these three spin off pages are essentially just extended plot summaries. Better to merge for now; it can always be split again if it grows unsizable in the future. Levivich 14:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge None of these article have demonstrated the need to be split from the main topic. The main article's plot summary could be extended but the rest is redundant. Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings and Reception_of_J._R._R._Tolkien#Reviews_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings are likewise duplicates and merge targets: the volumes do not need separate pages just to give a longer summary. Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I see, the more I'm tempted by merge, but I'm reminded of the words: "One Page to rule them all, One Page to find them, One Page to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them", and wouldn't want this movement to go too far. Esowteric+Talk 19:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Esowteric, You reminded me of this ditty I wrote up the other day, on an unrelated, yet quite applicable, note:
  

  Three rings for the admins under ANI,
  

  Seven for the vandal fighters with their bot of clue,
  

  Nine for draft writers doomed to be unnotable,
  

  One for the dark Jimbo on his open talk page,
  

  In the Wikipedia where the articles lie,
  

  One ring to verify them all, one ring to cite them,
  

  One ring to bring them all and in the AfD delete them,
  

  In the Wikipedia where the articles lie.
  

  CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I really needed a laugh today. Esowteric+Talk 20:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice! AfD needs less vitriol and more poetry. Thank you for that. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 22:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - The novel articles are in poor shape, and it's very unlikely they'll be drastically improved any time soon. Regardless if you view it as a singular book or a trilogy, the three are child articles of "The Lord of the Rings." Even if you're of the opinion that all three have the potential to stand on their own, I can't see any harm in upmerging them. It'll either draw more traffic to the main article and allow for it to reach GA/FA status eventually, or it'll incubate those articles until such a time they aren't just a plot summary and two reviews each. TTN (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I have place a neutral message about this discussion on the WikiProject Novels talk page.--MattMauler (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I think the strongest argument for a "keep" is WP:DETAIL -- in summary style, the LOTR entry would provide an overview of all three, and then additional pages on the individual books would provide a space for a level of detail that exceeds what would be reasonable in the main article, such as longer plot summaries. However, other than plot summaries, I'm not sure what would go on these individual book pages. I actually think it would be difficult to find coverage to satisfy notability criteria per book; I don't think I've ever seen literary scholarship discussing only The Two Towers independently, for example. The fact that the books were published within months of each other is very different from how contemporary series work; unlike with the movies for example, hardly anybody really had a chance to react to them as individual novels. (Although readers encountering them later almost certainly do apply "trilogy" expectations to them.) So although I came here scoffing at the idea of a delete for such a famous book, I now think a merge to LOTR, deleting the individual book articles, is the most appropriate. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all The books each got ample review when they were first released months apart from one another. The reception section of each article could be expanded if anyone can find old sources from back then. Look at how popular the Hobbit was and it came out in 1937 and then these three books came out in 1954. The Lord of the Rings is at the top of the List of best-selling books of all times. So a lot has been written about each book. Dream Focus 02:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For people who are open to a merge discussion but think AfD is the wrong venue, I think it would be helpful if you made that clear in your vote, with something along the lines of "Procedural Keep...but open to merge discussion". (I don't see the reason why we can't hash out how best to handle the articles here at AfD, but I admit I don't have much experience with merge/deletion discussions.) WanderingWanda (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. I'm all for deleting Tolkien-cruft such as explaining the details of individual battles or a list of elves by name, but this is just silly. This is pretty much the main point in the entire franchise. All three books have been notable for about half a century now. JIP | Talk 08:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge My experience is that deletion discussions get more attention and more action than a merge discussion ever can. These books were written as a unit. At times they are published as a unit (my copy is one large volume. The breaks are internal book breaks, there is no actual change from one book to the next in a way that compels treating them as new books. The same actually applies to the films, since they were all filmed at once. I know the size and popularity and existence of three titles compels people to see these as three works, but they can just as easily be seen as 6 works, and are at root just one work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if there have ever been examples of translating only one of the books. My understanding is that originally the LotR movies by Jackson were meant to only be 2. It is also of note that the 1970s animated film movie covered everything in one film all the way to the Battle of Helm's Deep, so not all adaptations have followed the 3 works break.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Jackson's movie trilogy breaks up the story differently to the book version. In the book the "breaking of the Fellowship" is split between "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers". The capture of Frodo by orcs is split between "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King". The movie version tries to create self-contained episodes, whereas the first two novel volumes end in cliffhangers. The movie trilogy is really an adaptation of LOTR as a whole. It uses the titles used by Tolkien for the three volumes as published, but the individual movies are not adaptations of the individual volumes because the storyline of each is quite different. Because of this, it's wrong to argue that because the movie version is a trilogy the book version must be a trilogy, as the three movie instalments don't actually correspond to the three book volumes.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I fully agree with MattMauler. A merge discussion could take place in the appropriate venue if necessary (though at least on the surface of it, I think I would vote against a merge as well) but for the purposes of this AFD, the standalone articles should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 18:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I think we need to reform the system. Deletion debates have much better changes of coming to people's attention than merge ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe so, but that's still not a good reason to bring an issue to the incorrect forum. — Hunter Kahn 13:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hunter Kahn, I think WP:NOTBURO applies here. Yeah, maybe its not at the ideal forum. But its here, and we can solve the problem here and now. Closing this, just to open a merge discussion, that is covering the same exact issue? Seems an unnecessary amount of bureaucracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Aside from the (overly detailed) plot summaries, there's very little meaningful content that's unique to the individual volumes. The whole thing can easily be covered in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 20:09, February 2, 2020 (UTC)
• Keep. These books are independently notable and of literary significance. Merging hists of historical revisionism. --Auric talk 16:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Each published volume is notable and is cited in its own right. I'm dismayed by the amount of energy devoted to deleting articles, where will it end? One article Books by Tolkien? I'm seriously considering closing my account. Thu (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see List of best-selling books of all time. AfD is not for cleanup. This is very notable in regard to the franchise. Wm335td (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wm335td, The list of best selling books lists it as a single book, not three separate volumes. What is your point? This isn't about deleting things altogether, but rather merging into one singular article, which would be more accessible. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  CaptainEek My point is that this is a notable part of the franchise. IMO it deserves a stand alone article. Wm335td (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wm335td, But how is it a notable part of the franchise? Why a standalone for each "book" (even though they are all one book) and not a singular article that could cover the series in context? And as I said earlier, the entry on the list of best selling books is "Lord of the Rings" not any one of the individual titles, which are publishers formalities (as a footnote on the bestselling books page mentions). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @CaptainEek: This then makes it a content fork issue. I would say this is a valid content fork, since there is coverage of the three books as separate. We have Torah and the individual five books even though, tradition holds that they were composed as one unit and they are more commonly published as a unit than individually. There are times for content forks. Hog Farm (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't one of those times. There isn't enough content to justify forking–it's all extended plot summary. Love the point about List of best-selling books and yet it's listed as one book. I also love how nearly every keep !voter is arguing that "it's notable" when nobody is arguing that it's not notable, including the nom. Keep voters completely ignoring PAGEDECIDE as mentioned in the nom. But I think this is why having merge discussions at AfD isn't always a good idea. Probably should've been done by RfC. Levivich 23:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree with you that a lot of the plot summary absolutely needs to go. However, I do think that an (albeit shorter) article can be crafted around what we have here. Just because the article is in horrible shape right now doesn't mean that it needs to go. Hog Farm (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I also agree that a shorter, better article could be drafted in place of what's there now, but I sincerely think that it's better for our reader to have one regular-sized page that talks about the book and all three volumes, rather than having three short pages. (Per WP:PAGEDECIDE.) I also agree that in theory, there is enough that could be written about LOTR that splitting the main LOTR page would make sense, and if we did split it due to WP:PAGESIZE issues, splitting it among volumes would also make sense. I just don't think we're there right now. I think the best thing we can do today is to redirect the three volumes to one main page, and put the content onto the page and develop it, and at some point in the future, when the page grows too big, it can be split out again. – Levivich 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there's much that could be said about the three volumes that wouldn't better said in one article. The characters are the same; the plot is continuous; criticism etc is of the whole work.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2020 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison_Morris[edit]

Alison_Morris (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 - Wikipedia is not a newspaper. coverage not significant enough to warrant an entire article about the news anchor, who had no page prior to this incident. there is coverage in major publications, but creating an article for this would be like creating an article for every controversy that gets national exposure for a day. StickyEmotions (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)— StickyEmotions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep- She appears as an anchor on a national news channel and has received coverage from multiple sources for her controversial remarks. To prove that this is not a one event only case, she also was profiled by Variety back in July, long before the incident.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  a profile on Variety is hardly noteworthy enough to warrant its own article, which is why nobody created one back in July. This incident has received coverage in major publications, but it remains to be seen if this is a simple one-day controversy or something more notable. Wikipedia doesn't report the news, and this anchor seems noteworthy just for this single incident.StickyEmotions (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Up until recently, Alison Morris merely worked for local news stations, but now she's the anchor of a major American news network with a national and even international audience. Most, if not all, news anchors from the major American news networks have articles on Wikipedia. Morris is not a random person who found herself in the midst of a controversy, she is an anchor of one of the most influential news networks in the world. Even without the incident, there would have been more than enough reasons to create a page for her. -- Adriano 7 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - National news anchor with significant press coverage. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 23:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• She deserves to be known for using the N-word. That kind of slip up only means she uses it more than once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:A:7:0:0:0:5E (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  She didn't use the n-word. she very clearly said something gibberish that sounded like Nakers. but that's not relevant to the argument. it looks like this is going to overwhelmingly be "keep", which is fine, but your argument for why is the only one out of all of these that is invalid.StickyEmotions (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Matter of fact, I heard "nakers" BEFORE she ever came out saying that. I'm guessing you've never worked in public speaking before. I am a bleeding heart liberal who has 'cancelled' tons of celebrities for using racial epithets or saying racially inappropriate things. but there is no merit to this one and right now, this lady is getting harassed for what is clearly a flub and if you actually listen without pre-conceived bias, you'll hear she did not use the epithet, but rather gibberish due to getting tongue tied and starting to say the wrong team's name. she's not a sports reporter.StickyEmotions (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - She passes GNG. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG, notable even without the Kobe controversy.LM2000 (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons stated above.Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably the most truthful statement above is the "she deserves to be known for using the n-word". To me, living in Detroit surrounded by people who use this word with many permutations of meaning on a regular basis, this claim makes zero sense. Secondly, even if it is true, Wikipedia does not have the purpose to right great wrongs. The coverage of Morris is all one event, news cycle type coverage. It does not show long term notability. We should delete this article. We are not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG as the host on a major TV network. KidAd (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. XenonNSMB pretty much said it best. (SN: I always get a little suspicious when one of the first contributions from a supposed new user is an AfD.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now technically not a BLP1E because she is known for her role as a talking head, and then somewhat infamous for her use of the N word on live television. I think we have enough RS for a keep and perhaps a weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I see this, the only reason we suddenly decided she was notable was for saying maybe the n-word on TV, as we didn't have a page for her before that. As JPL says above, this is news cycle type coverage that seems to fall in line with BLP1E. For our subjects we look for sustained coverage. While she did have an article in variety about 6 months ago, that alone doesn't do it for me. My question: will we still be talking about this event 6 months from now? I suspect not. Thus we're going to make a negative BLP over a single reactionary news event? I fail to see the encyclopedic value here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Politics of Thailand. Sandstein 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism in Thailand[edit]

Liberalism in Thailand (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 is named "Liberalism in Thailand" but this short stub goes onto say there really isn't any liberalism. Mattg82 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Politics of Thailand. Does not need own article. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Politics of Thailand without prejudice, if people can find reputable sources this would be a fine page to have. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Current article doesn't qualify to have standalone. Merging seems the best option. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2020 (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 Betagi Union. Sandstein 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Betagi Union High School[edit]

Rotary Betagi Union High School (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 high school. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান:this school is notable in it's area and has enough sources provided for now. This article can be make more useful by editing. Help to improve it, do not apply deletion— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahedi181 (talk • contribs)

I went to a school which is also notable for that area but i know that will fail WP:GNG. You must provide WP:RS. Long time ago, i made this comment, same comment also valid for this. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)@আফতাবুজ্জামান:If my article is under fail then why this article ( Pomara High School ) is live?[reply]

@Mahedi181: Remember to indent your replies and sign your posts, see Help:Talk pages. The existence of an article does not mean it should exist, it may only mean that no one has gotten around to deleting it yet, see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or delete, the current sources seem to be directory listings and you had already created another school of a similar format which I had moved back to draftspace. Could you please work on this? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Betagi Union, the administrative unit in which the school is located. Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, found no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Listings in indiscriminate directories do not establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. So a stand alone article is not justified. There is no need for a merge because the school is already listed at the target article, and there is no additional reliably sourced information suitable for merging. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Yasin Chowdhury[edit]

Mohammad Yasin Chowdhury (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 might be founder of a group but non notable businessman who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. falls WP:GNG. All the sources are unrelated or just mentions person name only. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Fails WP:GNG.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, likely a WP:PROMO article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, agree with GPL93. Angus1986 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity (software)[edit]

Veracity (software) (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 long-dead software project never got multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable third party sources Samboy (talk) 18:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as nominator. This article survived AfD eight years ago, back when this open source project was being actively maintained, and back when the criteria for inclusion was looser. Right now, there appears to be the following mentions:

• this 2011 article about Veracity
• An entire chapter in the 2011 book Version control by example, by Eric Sink, who is involved with SourceGear who made Veracity (so this is not a third party mention)
• A one word mention in a 2012 book.
• A one-word mention in the 2012 book “Professional Team Foundation Server 2012” on page 91
• There was also an OsCon speech
• A one word mention in a 2011 Dr. Dobbs article.

I am a pretty strict inclusionist, but this project came and died within a couple years, never got three non-trivial sources of coverage, and probably deserves a one-paragraph mention in Comparison of version-control software, not an entire standalone article. Samboy (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete My opinion has not changed from the previous nomination: does not demonstrate nor indicate notability. No need to leave a redirect as it is a potentially misleading disambiguator. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging previous !voters @Greenrd:, @Fritzophrenic:, while Jeff Dickey has not been active for several years. Also, @Czarkoff:, although editor has not been active for the past year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is a stub for all I care, and this article doesn't look like encyclopedic content, and the last section is just some stuff about the developers. 96.230.240.122 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Had to be removed long ago. Orientls (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2020 (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 Astronomical interferometer#Modern astronomical interferometry. Sandstein 20:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fast Fourier Transform Telescope[edit]

Fast Fourier Transform Telescope (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)

Potentially non-notable technology. Notability template has been in place since 2008, and I'm not sure this subject qualifies for a standalone article. The New Scientist source appears to focus directly on the technology, but does not use the term "Fast Fourier Transform." Other sources mention the tech, but do not expand on it. Article appears to be based on a single paper written by the technology's creators. Other sources I located during WP:BEFORE mention individual telescopes using the technology, or mention the Tegmark & Zaldarriaga paper, but do not appear to provide significant coverage. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Astronomical_interferometer#Modern_astronomical_interferometry, where it is mentioned and merge any refs needed for verification. This is a telescope proposal that never got much secondary coverage beyond press releases or signifcant uptake by the astronomical community--it is no Square Kilometer Array. But it is a published method for radio interferometry and the one sentence in the astronomical interferometer article seems OK as due weight. It is a reasonable search term. Hence redirect. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 23:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thank you for that redirect suggestion. I've merged the independent coverage from the FFTT article to the Astronomical interferometer article. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Bugmyrin[edit]

Nikolay Bugmyrin (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 about footballer who made a single 75th-minute substitute's appearance in a Russian Cup (football) match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [22]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a few minutes play (technically passing NFOOTBALL) is not sufficient when GNG is so comprehensively failed. GiantSnowman 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete playing in one game does not technically make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2020 (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 20:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rus Education[edit]

Rus Education (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)

WP:SOAP? --Wright Streetdeck 08:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sources look like WP:ROUTINE coverage, "about us" tone to the page makes me suspect COI. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:54, 28 January 2020 (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 20:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sajid[edit]

Ali Sajid (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 coverage found. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Störm (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He appears to be the author of "Critical analysis of Six Sigma implementation" with 125 citations on Google scholar, but that alone isn't enough for WP:PROF#C1 and any other publications appear to have significantly lower citations. The references in the article don't support notability of any kind, and I didn't find much else in a search. But there may be a language barrier involved and I'm open to changing my mind if a pass of WP:GNG can be demonstrated through in-depth reliable independent sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if the claims made in the article are true then it needs improvements, not deletion. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Missvain (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Force of Evil (band)[edit]

Force of Evil (band) (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)

The only reference this band has had in the 15 years this article has been on WP is the Allmusic bio I added 11 years ago. After a look for more sources I couldn't find anything that could be described as significant coverage. The usual Metal fan sites and name dropping but little else. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Delete - This one is a close call because they do have a valid AllMusic bio and have been covered (a little) at Blabbermouth ([23]). With two independently notable members they qualify for WP:NBAND #6 but I don't think they get sufficiently close to any of the other provisions in that policy. Note that there is a new incarnation of the group called Denner/Sherman ([24]) which also received a little coverage, but the band under discussion here comes just a little under the requirements. I recommend that their existence be introduced at Mercyful Fate and at the individual articles for notable members Michael Denner and Hank Shermann.---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an article for one of this band's albums, Force of Evil (album), which will have to be deleted under WP:A9 if the band's article doesn't survive. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Now that the members have been shown to be non-noatble, WP:MUSICBIO is no longer met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Glossary of astronomy#M. Missvain (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morning width[edit]

Morning width (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 WP:DICDEF. Oddly enough, the only reference takes me to a webpage explaining the GNU license. Even if this topic is notable, I recommend we follow the wise advice at the WP:JUNK essay and just scrap this thing. Hog Farm (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Glossary_of_astronomy#M where it is mentioned. Using a simple WP:BEFORE-style search, I easily fixed the Gcal reference and added two more, an astronomy text and a review of a historical source. With these sources, the term looks verifiable. I haven't found sufficient sourcing for notability, but there is already a good target for merging--its entry in the glossary of astronomy. It is our policy, per WP:ATD, to prefer merging verifiable material to deletion when there is a reasonable merge target. Following policy, I recommend a merge. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 19:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Praemonitus (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Glossary_of_astronomy#M per Mark viking's results. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:36, 28 January 2020 (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 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inam-ur-Raheem[edit]

Inam-ur-Raheem (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)

NOTNEWS, BLP1E and VICTIM applies to this article with only 3 refs all from November 2012. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Two legitimate sources, The Nation and NYT.-Splinemath (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable there, doesn't meet any of WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even tried to find coverage? Störm (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Störm, not my job, we go on what's there. Mztourist (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable as lawyer and is known for his activism. He is now abducted again and there is ton of coverage [25].Störm (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on the stub of an article present. Not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Passing trivia and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Please note, I have expanded the article to reflect recent developments. His case is pending in the Supreme Court. Störm (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage is sufficient and the article has been expanded significantly since it was listed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still not seeing enough there to satisfy WP:GNG. All a very local perspective with no wider notability. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted. Please, take care. Also, the nominator happened to be a sock and is now blocked. Their vote doesn't count. Störm (talk) 09:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am voting on the "new" version. Take care yourself. Mztourist (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2020 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Vietnam[edit]

New Vietnam (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 business that never got off the ground. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Carl McIntire. Little information to get out of stub status, but good material. BTW I have the book (well not the book, but a compilation containing that book). ミラP 04:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Proposed idea with nothing notable in reality. Does not meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Add additional sourcing and merge with Carl McIntire. This project was the topic of an episode for a podcast I work on called Underunderstood which contains additional information and new sourcing. I believe it should not be deleted. It should be fleshed out and incorporated into the Carl McIntire entry. I don't want to edit this myself since I was involved, but I'm leaving this here as a starting point. ^[1]

  References

  1. ^ https://underunderstood.com/podcast/episode/new-vietnam-2/

  Citadrianne (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. The Best of the Best of Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. San Diego: Portable Press. 2012. ISBN 978-1-60710-683-8. Retrieved 2020-01-28.
  2. Salmans, Sandra; Belleville, Bill (1975-09-08). "Enterprise: 'New Vietnam'". Newsweek.
  3. Upchurch, Davis. "Most React Unfavorably to McIntire War Village". Sentinel Star.
  4. Holmes, Cindy (1979-12-27). "McIntire: Big Plans Gone Awry". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28.
  5. Belleville, Bill (1975-08-10). "Viet Village, Camp Likely to Blossom". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28.
  6. "Viets May Have Different Idea of Love". Charleston Gazette-Mail. 1975-09-14. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28.

  Sources with quotes

  The Best of the Best of Uncle John's Bathroom Reader. San Diego: Portable Press. 2012. ISBN 978-1-60710-683-8. Retrieved 2020-01-28. The book notes: In 1975, Reverend Carl McIntire, a New Jersey fundamentalist preacher and pro-Vietnam War activist, began construction on what was to be "New Vietnam." Spread out over 300 acres of land in Cape Canaveral, Florida, McIntire and his partner, former Green Beret Giles Pace, envisioned a theme park where people could get a glimpse of the Vietnam War. What would the theme park look like? Here are a few of the attractions McIntire planned: *Sampan ride. [two sentences] *Special Forces camp. [two sentences] *The perimeter. [three sentences] *A Vietnamese village. [three sentences] *Vietnamese people. [four sentences] ... The idea bombed and the park was never completed. Vietnamese refugees, having just experienced the horrors of a real war, weren't about to participate in a fake one. "My wife won't walk around that village in a costume like Mickey Mouse," refugee Cong Nguyen Binh told reporters. "We want to forget. We want to live here like you. We don't want any more war." Salmans, Sandra; Belleville, Bill (1975-09-08). "Enterprise: 'New Vietnam'". Newsweek. The article notes: What is going up at Canaveral these days is nothing less than a Vietnamese village "like our boys went into during the war," says McIntire - and even the war will be simulated. The inspiration is McIntire's, as is the site: 300 acres with five abandoned buildings that his Reformation Freedom Center bought for $14.5 million a year ago and had found little use for until Vietnamese refugees began streaming into Florida. McIntire promptly sponsored 56 of them, mostly middle-class businessmen, artisans and former air force officers and their families, and housed them in his Palms East apartment complex. They have opened a Viet Arts factory that turns out ceramic elephants, frogs and Christmas trees, and they are launching a carpet-weaving operation with wool donated by the minister's flock. But the grand design is the Viet habitat, and last week bulldozers began to break ground. Moat: The blueprints for "New Vietnam," as McIntire has dubbed it, call for paddies with irrigation dikes, water buffalo (the ones with humps on their backs), cows, chickens and ducks, all of them encircled by a moat, tapped from the nearby Banana River - which also will be used to ferry tourists on sampan rides. The village will contain sixteen thatched huts - facades only - and four concrete buildings representing upper-class Vietnamese homes; they will double as retail shops for Viet Arts knickknacks and snack bars serving rice, noodles and typical Vietnamese fare. About 40 banana and palm trees are being brought in "to give the place atmosphere," says Pace along with an equal number of Vietnamese. They will dress and act in picturesque fashion but will not actually live in the village. "It's a Fantasyland type of thing," Pace explains. ... The Vietnamese themselves aren't so sure. Cong Nguyen Binh, once a wealthy Saigon businessman and now supervisor of the Viet Arts factory, says flatly that he wants no part of New Vietnam. "My wife won't walk around that village in a costume like Mickey Mouse," he declares. Dignity is only part of his objection. "We want to forget, we want to live here like you," Binh says. "We don't want any more war." Upchurch, Davis. "Most React Unfavorably to McIntire War Village". Sentinel Star. The article notes: Local reaction to the Rev. Carl McIntire's plans to build a Vietnamese village and special forces camp as a tourist attraction here has been almost totally unfavorable, according to public officials. "The calls I've received range from the obscene to the violent — all against," Cape Canaveral City Councilman, Harry Rhame said. "I've had about a dozen calls, and no one is remotely in favor." ... Adjacent to the village will be a rectangular special forces camp encircled by a moat and guarded by machine gun nests, punji stakes and fatigue-clad "soldiers" hired from the county. Inside will be a war museum of Viet Cong and American memorabilia. The news article clipping is from https://digg.com/2019/underunderstood-new-vietnamarchive.is. No date is provided. Holmes, Cindy (1979-12-27). "McIntire: Big Plans Gone Awry". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28. The article notes: Fundamentalist preacher Carl McIntire once aspired to become the Walt Disney of the religious world. Cape Canaveral was to be his Disneyland. In the 1970s, McIntire negotiated the purchase of five Cape Canaveral properties — the Cape Kennedy Hilton, L. Mendel Rivers Convention Center, Palms East Apartments, and Chrysler and Boeing Buildings. ... Fifty-six South Vietnamese citizens — most of them skilled workers and middle-class Asians — were to act the part of villagers. They were brought to Cape Canaveral in June 1975 under McIntire's sponsorship. But all of McIntire's plans fizzled in late 1975 when he ran short of money and was unable to meet the purchase price of the Cape Canaveral property. All but the hotel and convention center reverted to the original owners. Belleville, Bill (1975-08-10). "Viet Village, Camp Likely to Blossom". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28. The article notes: The latest plans by fundamentalist preacher Carl McIntire to build and operate a Vietnamese village and a Special Forces camp as tourist attractions in Cape Canaveral probably have a better chance of materializing than other, more expensive projects he's announced in the past, locals agree. In the first place, sandbags and barbed wire – which McIntire aide Giles Pace says are necessary for the camp – are a lot easier to obtain the more expensive building materials that are supposed to go into the long-planned Solomon's Temple. ... The village and camp – dubbed "New Vietnam" by McIntire when he was in town this week – wouldn't have any problems with zoning, as did the refugee ceramics factory down the road. The village would be built on land already zoned for tourist attractions. "Viets May Have Different Idea of Love". Charleston Gazette-Mail. 1975-09-14. Archived from the original on 2020-01-28. Retrieved 2020-01-28. The article notes: The Rev. Carl McIntire, the fundamentalist New Jersey preacher, is a man of strange imagination, but he may have outdone even himself with his latest inspiration: the creation of what he calls "New Vietnam." A year ago Mr McIntire's Reformation Freedom Center bought 300 acres of land with five abandoned buildings at Cape Canaveral, Fla., for $14.5 million. There was little use for the site until Vietnamese refugees began streaming into Florida and Mr. McIntire sponsored 56 of them, opening a Viet Arts factory where the refugees may work at turning out ceramic trinkets and other products common to their native land. It sounds fine—until we come to the grand design. Mr. McIntire recently took two Newsweek reporters on what the magazine called a tour of the future. ... ... Somehow we imagine the Vietnamese, who have endured 30 years of war with particularly devastating carnage over the last 10 years, will have different ideas about how love should be shown.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow New Vietnam to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rajesh[edit]

Mr. Rajesh (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)

Poorly sourced film (has a Times of India review and a list of non-notable film review sites). DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as has at least one reliable sources review in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Cites only one reliable source, which fails the multiple sources requirement of WP:GNG. Sandstein 19:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Movie does not have significant sources as per WP:NFSOURCES. GargAvinash (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2020 (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 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Archives of the Vatican[edit]

Secret Archives of the Vatican (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 group with junk references, see WP:Notability (music) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of importance, even their Allmusic page is rather empty. The BBC Asian radio ref looks interesting until it shows they only played one song. There may have been interviewed in the program as well but I don't think this classes as anything much and it appears there is no other significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2020 (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 19:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pothi.com[edit]

Pothi.com (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 WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. The few trivial coverage that exist is related to VC funding or mention this among many in a promising startup type articles , all rely on information/quotations from company sources or interviews with founders. Zero indications of notability, a run-of-the-mill company. None of the provided references meet the criteria for establishing notability Razer(talk) 21:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minimal coverage and sources only provide glancing references. An online search only turns up references from the company itself. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 06:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  CoI declaration: I am one of the founders. We have been covered by almost all leading newspapers in India in both print and online editions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment CoI: Founder of the company here, hence not adding a vote. Providing some reference links Times of India 2016, The Hindu 2012, Hindu Businessline discussing InstaScribe launch in 2012, ToI again in 2012. Interview in Crazy Engineers about our product InstaScribe. Abhaga (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sources fail the criteria for establishing notability. Looking at the new references provided above, they are, for the most part, churnalism. The Times of India reference from 2016 contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on information provided by company sources. The Hindu reference from 2012 likewise contains no Independent Content and fails WP:ORGIND as the piece about this company relies entirely on information provided by company sources. The Hindu Businessline reference fails for the same reason - no Independent Content, all information provided by company sources, fails WP:ORGIND. The next ToI reference fails for the same reasons as the first. Finally, this Interview in Crazy Engineers is entirely based on ... an interview with the founder. More churnalism, zero Independent Content, fails ORGIND. Overall, I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  While we were interviewed for those articles, they are not based on PR material provided by us. They interview multiple people in the industry. Our claim to notability is being the first print-on-demand self-publishing company in India when there were none others. Time based Google search can establish that much. Indian School of Business did a case study on us which is available here: ISB Ivey Publishing Unfortunately, it is a paid source. Abhaga (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only "keep" opinion makes no argument. Sandstein 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Torchlighters: Heroes of the Faith[edit]

The Torchlighters: Heroes of the Faith (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)

All the cited sources here are affiliated with the producers / distributors. I can find a lot of sales pages, and some homeschooling forums that discuss it, but I can't find any substantive independent coverage of the subject. Guy (help!) 08:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either Keep or merge with Christian History Institute. I might have preferred to see the description of the content placed as a separate column in the table. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of GNG compliance. What sources are significant are not independent and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. Sandstein 19:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 9 booster B1019[edit]

Falcon 9 booster B1019 (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)

Nominating these articles covering the individual serial numbered first stage boosters produced by SpaceX, they do not meet notability guidelines and are already well covered by articles on the mission(s) flown, that do meet these notability guidelines.

References supplied in each article focus on the missions. These serial numbers are mentioned in passing, if at all in references.

Also nominating B1019, B1021, B1023, B1029, B1046, B1047, B1048, B1049, B1050, B1051, and B1056. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• About B1019 : It's only the first orbital rocket booster that was ever successfully landed and is now on permanent display at spaceX HQ, that's not notable, right? Only a milestone in spaceflight history and a Los Angeles landmark. 146.60.131.130 (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be covered in the section of the SpaceX article on the Hawthorn facility, but I dont think it rises to the level of notability for its own article.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources, just SpaceX/Elon fanboying. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters, if it someday becomes more widely covered by WP:RS then it can get its own page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters per above editors. There’s not sufficient coverage of each booster individually to warrant pages for each of them, and all the relevant information can be provided on the list page. This isn’t denying the historic status of B1019, but being the first in an intended line of mass produced vehicles isn’t enough to warrant coverage on a dedicated article. Mass production means by nature that the details of notable individual units are easily presented within the general product article or a dedicated list page. I don’t believe there’s a dedicated separate article for the very first Douglas DC-3 or the very first Boeing 747 either. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per above arguments. No matter how much of a milestone this may be, it doesn't warrant a page for each booster SpaceX makes. It would be better to note this accomplishment in the list instead. Jeb³_{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 14:16, 30 January 2020 (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 19:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Markov (footballer)[edit]

Aleksandr Markov (footballer) (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 about footballer who made a single 85th-minute substitute's appearance in a Russian Football National League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [26]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here. Jogurney (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a few minutes play (technically passing NFOOTBALL) is not sufficient when GNG is so comprehensively failed. GiantSnowman 19:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete one appearance is not enough to confer notability under any reasonable system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2020 (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. It seems that not only South Dakota, but also Wikipedia really likes cats. Consensus is that coverage is sufficient, even if if occured for seemingly silly reasons. Sandstein 19:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats[edit]

South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats (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 state supreme court decision. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per WP:GNG, there are sufficient reliable 3rd party sources to cover reliability. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep They may be from the funny name but there are sources covering it. Honestly surprised there were two dissents. I removed the useless listicle source and irrelevant picture of a cat though...people know what they look like... 20:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak keep It may have received coverage for a, uhh, funny reason -- but it did receive coverage, and I wouldn't override that by deleting simply because we think that it's not an important enough case. The media thought it was important enough to cover, and even if that does not necessarily speak well of the coverage of legal issues in this country... that's basically what we use for notability here. TheOtherBob 20:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly non-notable case; it received substantial coverage the week it was issued, but almost no significant coverage since then. Mostly it’s just included as one of multiple examples of funny names of in rem court cases. See:

Here (The Daily Caller) ("As a result, civil forfeiture cases often have truly bizarre titles, such as South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats, United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins and United States v. Articles Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls.”)

Here (NPR) ("A typical civil forfeiture case comes with a bizarre name like U.S. v. $124,700 or South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats...")

Here (ACLU of Nebraska) ("Typical civil forfeiture cases involve money, but the government has used this system to seize a wide range of unusual property such as: South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats; United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins; United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls")

Here (Technician Online...??) ("Unlike criminal forfeiture, under which police can seize property from those convicted of a crime, civil forfeiture does not require you be convicted or even charged. Instead, a civil case is brought against the property itself, giving way to case names such as State of Texas vs. One Gold Crucifix and South Dakota v. Fifteen Impounded Cats.")

That’s all I found, beyond contemporaneous news coverage of the ruling itself and one Below the Law blog post already linked in the article. None of that counts as substantial coverage of the case. There’s no academic analysis of it. It’s literally just mentioned periodically as an example of a funny case name, which might someday belong on a "list of notably named in rem cases" or something, but the case itself lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage and is completely non-notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually if you use the alternate name of "State v. Fifteen Impounded Cats", you find it has been cited multiple times as legal precedent so I think that counts as academic analysis by it constantly being used by the court to make judgments. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or weak keep it doesn't really matter how a subject crosses the notability line as long as they do it, a large part of this case’s notability *does* appear to be its unique name but there is solid reporting and commentary on the case. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In the examples I mentioned above, none represent "solid reporting" or solid commentary on the case, the case is just mentioned within the story as one of multiple cases with funny names. Per WP:SIGCOV, "significant coverage" means "more than a trivial mention"; these are all trivial mentions about how in rem cases can have funny names, in articles that are actually focused on legal civil forfeiture process (and they don't discuss or analyze this case for that part). This case didn't have a WP:LASTING effect; all the notable coverage of it is from around the day it was issued. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per The CofE - God Save the Queen! Appears to have sufficient 3rd party notable coverage to meet GNG (even if only just). Bookscale (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even if it's only notable for its amusing name, if it has coverage it's notable, IMO. Poydoo (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to sufficient notability. However, we really need to establish some notability guidelines for legal cases. BD2412 T 03:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree @BD2412:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days, I'll draft something up. BD2412 T 11:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Helena Juntunen[edit]

Helena Juntunen (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)

Declined A7, article about a opera singer which does not seem to meet the criteria either for WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. The provided references are not reliable as the BBC one is simply a listing/press release and the other is a listing site. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)&[reply]

• Keep – Sources include

• "Solisti Helena Juntunen johdatti hullunkuriseen musiikki-ihmemaahan, jossa kaikki vääntyi ja värittyi" from the Helsingin Sanomat – Biggest newspaper in Finland
• "Helena Juntunen tähdittää musiikkipäivien avajaiskonserttia" from Heinäveden Lehti
• "Lisää teatteria oopperalavoille!" from Yle
• "Madetoja Complete Lieder Vol 2" from Gramophone
• "Helena Juntunen, Wigmore Hall, review" from The Telegraph
• "Robert Schumann: Kohtauksia Goethen Faustista " from Yle
• "Mitä kuuluu, Helena Juntunen? "Harjoittelen kotona Janáčekin oopperaa Katja Kabanova, tšekin kielellä vedetään"" from Kaleva

Helps establish WP:BASIC:

• "Hivelevän kauniisti laulava Helena Juntunen Miminä saa kyyneliin La Bohèmessa" from Kansan Uutiset
• "Arvio: Sopraano Helena Juntusen äänenkäyttö loisti Riihimäen kesäkonserteissa" from Hämeen Sanomat
• "Höginspirerad och medmänsklig resa" from Ystads Allehanda
• "Sonate d’automne d'après Bergman à l'Opéra de Malmö" from Olyrix
• "Opera Autumn Sonata, adapted from the original Swedish film, is an explosion of musical colour masterfully wielded by HK Phil" from the South China Morning Post
• "Bergmans film blir en stark föreställning" from Aftonbladet
• "RSO:n Kullervossa vain makuasioista voi kiistellä" from Yle
• "Dausgaard/Appl/BBCSSO: Kullervo review – thrilling and intense account of Sibelius' epic" from The Guardian
• "Puhdistus (Purge), Finnish National Opera, Helsinki" from the Financial Times
• "Orfeo lumosi kuulijat kauneudellaan RSO:n Magnus Lindberg -festivaalin päätöskonsertissa" from Helsingin Sanomat
• "Croatian National Theatre Rijeka 2018-19 Review: Elektra" from OperaWire
• "Kullervo: the radical hit that made Sibelius Finland's national hero" from The Telegraph

And many, many more. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agree with Missvain. She appears to meet WP:MUSICIAN as her performances have received substantial reviews, e.g. from The Guardian. Apart from that, she seems to have enough Finnish/English coverage to warrant inclusion under general notability. Best, PK650 (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: clearly notable. Have upgraded the poorly-presented refs and ELs. PamD 14:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn as nominator and no delete votes I am closing this as keep. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:08, 28 January 2020 (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) 17:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerSupport.com[edit]

ComputerSupport.com (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 company, most references are WP:ROUTINE coverage, the linked awards don't strike me as sufficiently important to confer notability. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. WP:NOTAWEBHOST Ravenswing 23:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Obvious advert/spam. There's a citation to a book some guy connected to the company is selling on Amazon. Which has nothing to with anything. Even without that its not notable anyway. Inclusion in a bunch of top-lists doesn't make something notable. Inclusion in them are examples of trivial coverage per the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was speedily deleted in 2013 and rightly so, and then recreated in 2016. Still no reason for it to be here though. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2020 (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) 17:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wintertree[edit]

Wintertree (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 WP:NCORP. No independent WP:RS and I could not find any additional. Tagged for notability for years. shoy (reactions) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh for goodness sake, can someone delete the article already without going through a week-long AfD. No-one is disputing the PROD rationale (fails WP:NPRODUCT). The only reason the article is still here is because it was dePRODed to appear in a Signpost column (a userspace copy has been created to substitute), then an admin decided this meant the PROD could not be reinstated despite the exceptional circumstances. – Teratix ₵ 15:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NPRODUCT — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and I'd be fine with a speedy) for being unambiguous advertising of a non-wiki-notable product. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in mainspace but keep a copy in userspace for the Signpost link/historical reference. buidhe 18:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails G11 as there is salvageable content there but this is irrelevant as the subject is non-notable. I know I’m only the 5th !voter but I feel the temperature of this page dropping already.... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails basic notability test. Glendoremus (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 07:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TROUT at Miraclepine for deprodding an article with no good faith belief that it should be kept. I endorse instant closure by anyone with page delete userright per approximately a half dozen [[WP:random capital letters]] rationales. Alsee (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]