Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to News media. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|News media|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to News media. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/News media/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also Internet-related deletions and publications for deletion. For news events, use Events-related deletions.

News media

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) b uidhe 22:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare (podcast)

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

Not notable - not every tiny podcast needs a Wiki page. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received coverage from The Telegraph, The Times, and The New York Times. Greyjoy^talk 06:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has been covered by notable publications and has thousands of listeners, according to its Patreon page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socksinrain (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is able to attract notable guests such as Steve Bannon, Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard. A small non-notable podcast would not attract a US presidential candidate as a guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D612:3E00:1533:707C:3195:34 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By the first two references pointed out by Greyjoy. The NYT reference is a passing mention, but the previous two are more than sufficient. Jlevi (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page needs to be reworked and fleshed out more but the podcast is obviously notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources. This nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption, OP seems to have a personal gripe with one of the hosts and therefore their concerns about "notability" cannot be taken seriously. If you check their history, they've nominated Dasha Nekrasova's page for deletion twice in less than two months (both times the page survived by significant margins), and they are now trying to get the podcast's page deleted. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:38, 8 April 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) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Glass (journalist)

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

Does not seems to follow WP:JOURNALIST, not notable enough to have a mainspace article. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Glass's work does not appear to have attracted sufficient attention in independent sources, as required by WP:JOURNALIST. The article about her in The Jewish Chronicle ([1]) is good coverage, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. The interview with Glass from Vuelio.com ([2]) is not really independent coverage, as it consists entirely of cookie-cutter questions with no original reporting. The only other sources I could find through Google are blurbs from publications she has written for, like this or this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 3 April 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumantra Sumo Dutta

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

Repeatedly rejected at AfC, unilaterally moved to mainspace by one of the primary contributors. The provided coverage is limited to press releases, unreliable sources without bylines, WP:ROUTINE coverage, and trivial coverage in the form of softball interviews and quotes from the subject in the context of one of the companies that he has worked for. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnaf Lion (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)The person described here is a veteran of the Indian media industry and even though he has primarily worked in STAR, STAR is a behemoth player in the industry and his performance & contribution for STAR has actually impacted the industry notably. Unilateral decision of the primary contributor to move the article was motivated by his being a scholar of Indian sub-continent media industry. The citations inserted here are from sources that are notable among the industry critics. Also, a same version of the article was reviewed and approved in 2018. Therefore, the article shouldn't at all e deleted. Ahnaf Lion (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 review was conducted by Frayae, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet that was approving non-notable promotional articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still has the same fundamental problems as the version most recently rejected at AfC (link). Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
Delete Purely promotional article that lacks evidence of passing WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Coverage that is significant is either not independent or not reliable and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. czar 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Atlanta

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

Non-notable news website that does not meet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)) James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. James Richards 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:27, 14 April 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 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Post (magazine)

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no coverage that I can find of the topic. Fails WP:ARTN among most guidelines. Pilot333 (talk) 03:23, 9 April 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. I have to go with delete here despite little discussion, because the article is indeed completely unsourced. Sandstein 17:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly Aanchal

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article is not eligible for soft deletion as the last AfD resulted in "no consensus".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 15:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is unreferenced and self-contradictory (established in 1969 or 1979?). Its claim to being "the oldest Magazine or Digest of Pakistan in continuous publication" needs a verifiable source (and a publication such as Urdu Digest appears to be older, challenging that claim). If the article is to remain, the text needs some mooring in references (and the passing mentions in lists identified in the first AfD are not enough). I'm happy to revise my view if such sources can be identified to rectify the text, but as things stand this fails WP:PRODUCT (and the publisher has no article which could serve as a redirect target) and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 21 April 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amali Science

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

Non-notable publication. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total fails of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 21 April 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 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Audio Video Satellite

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:29, 14 April 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasoosi Digest

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any RS regarding this. --Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 14 April 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 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Waraq

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:30, 14 April 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Computing (Urdu magazine)

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It looks like a hoax, swims and quacks like a hoax to me. The external link links to a parked domain (a Wayback snapshot from 2007 shows it is a forum and nothing to do with a magazine), the native name returns nothing relevant from search results, the names of the editor and publisher also return only Wikipedia mirrors, and the ISSN link returns a 404. The article was created in 2007, and it seems that the only people who have added substiantial content to it are SPAs. Even if this supposed publication somehow exists, there is no indicator of notability. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 21 April 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Beeley

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

Delete as nom Non-notable conspiracy peddler who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO KidAd (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is substantial RS coverage of this person (BBC, PBS, Guardian, France24, HuffPost, NY Review of Books, Snopes), including detailed coverage by the NY Review of Books[3] and coverage in the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review which highlights her as the single most influential disinformation peddler in the Syrian Civil War.[4] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is adequately covered in reliable sources to a sufficient extent to establish wiki-notability. Moreover, it serves the public interest for our encyclopedia to document the spreaders of disinformation. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is certainly valid, but any notion that granting non-notable spreaders of disinformation any shred of legitimacy is detrimental to the project. And as the page exists now, it appears as a clear Wikipedia:Attack page. I am in no way endorsing or supporting this individual's views, but the fact that the page lacks basic biographic material (birthdate, birthplace, education, etc.) and only serves as a repository for falsehoods and misnomers, speaks volumes. KidAd (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This falls under the fringe guidelines. I do not think we have the level of indepth, reliable, and I emphasize that as key, secondary source coverage to pass that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sourcing looks good to me, and she is notable enough that she is mentioned as some pushing misinformation. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She may be a conspiracy theorist but she passes notability guidelines. Frankly on an encyclopedia that has articles for neo-Nazis, it makes no sense to start worrying that "granting non-notable spreaders of disinformation any shred of legitimacy is detrimental to the project". Wikipedia weighs notability on the number of available sources, not on the coherency of a subjects views.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:44, 7 April 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.