Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Celan


 * 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. SpinningSpark 16:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Patricia Celan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The references section is clearly a case of WP:BOMBARDMENT with links to UGC platforms and other sources. Fails WP:GNG Zoodino (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: While the references may include links to UGC platforms, according to External links/Perennial websites, social media sites can sometimes be used as sources. Note also several of the reference links are to non-UGC sources, such as news articles or non-UGC websites/PDFs. There are several indicators of notability such as trending news and tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of views on related YouTube content. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete won a beauty title that does not even come close to even remotely showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: While the title itself is not notable, related actions lead to several news articles including trending news in 2013, conferring notability. See other articles such as Amy Soranno; someone with an even less notable beauty title is considered notable enough for an encyclopedia article if other aspects of the person are significant. Other signs of notability in this case include performance arts with significant viewership and some notability within the medical field. Where only 18.46% of English Wikipedia's biographies are about women according to WikiProject Women in Red, one wonders about the systemic bias in suggesting an article about a female titleholder/physician is worthy of deletion whereas articles such as Ron Wear and Darren Storsley are allowed. --Wiki2008time (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I started Amy Soranno myself. It's creation is irrelevant.  Either, both, or neither article might get deleted.  With millions of article, there's always something else that has issues.  But, since we're comparing the two, I'd say, in both cases, the pageant by itself, is not important.  You need substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources, that's not all tied to a single event, but rather, is biographical in nature, and focused on the subject.  The sources used here, need to be cleaned up.  You can't use sources like linkedin or pintrest.  Replacing these with better sources would help more than any argument.  Now, I'll go over to the other article, and check for the inevitable AFD nomination.  --Rob (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: Thank you for the explanation. Note in the article that while Pinterest and LinkedIn are sometimes used, they are not the only citation for any particular claim. For example, a PDF of UBC's official medical graduation document is also cited at the same time as Pinterest. As well, I mentioned above "according to External links/Perennial websites, social media sites can sometimes be used as sources." --Wiki2008time (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sometimes on occassion, social media is a valid source for non-contentious material, written by the verified account of the subject. But, it never conveys any degree of notability, or supports claims of notability.  Also, anybody can write anything they want on linkedin.  It doesn't verify the claims.  In most cases, it doesn't even verify the true identity of the account holder.  --Rob (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the actual content of what the LinkedIn and Pinterest pages are cited for, you'll see that they are not the claims that are suggesting notability; they are simply more biographical information. You could delete them and the article would still have merit based on the fame of the head shave, the extensive YouTube viewership for the head shave video and for the various musical parodies that Patricia worked on, and her medical career - all of which are supported by news articles or links from official university sources. The LinkedIn and Pinterest information is simply being kept there as additional background for interest. I looked at other Wikipedia pages such as Tara Teng when learning how to use Wikipedia, and I noticed in her Talk page that there were some extensive issues about excess background information that needed trimming. Her article was not deleted, but merely improved, which is why I am rebutting suggestions for deletion of my first article. While I could argue for why I chose to do everything that I did, editing out misguided additions seems to me more appropriate than full deletion of someone that I felt was notable, and I still feel including the LinkedIn/Pinterest sources provide some useful additional information. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete as 1EVENT, ultimately. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Biographies of living people can often start as one event and expand from there with other notable information, which was the intention with this article. Wiki2008time (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If something is 1Event it’s just that. If there are no other forms of significant coverage besides that 1Event then it doesn’t meet general notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It’s not the fact that she won a pageant that isn’t a major pageant, it’s the “she shaved her head” part, which is not news. Trillfendi (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I interpreted notability given that I saw several news articles about the head shave, 300K views on YouTube for it, 75K views on YouTube for her biggest parody project, 3K views for each of her other parody videos as well as 2-3K views for other performance videos each, and dozens of articles/blogs on mental health in which she contributed her expertise as a medical doctor. These are not part of 1Event but are separate aspects of the biography of one person over time. No crystal ball needed - these are all supported by my citations to news articles, YouTube videos, and official university sources. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * sigh* YouTube views do not contribute to notability. The head shaving act is the 1Event. As of what I've seen, the sources referring to her as a doctor do not go deep enough for general notability. One sentence type of mentions are not enough, we need in depth articles on the subject's medical career. Just my opinion but I speak from experience here. Trillfendi (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused then, as shorter pageant stubs (Debbe Ebben, Shalom Reimer) and medical stubs (Mira Ashby, Emma Gaudreau Casgrain, May Cohen, April Sanders, and Kona Williams) I've seen around Wikipedia that have been around for years, as well as other pageant stubs I've created (Courtnee Anderson, Gloren Guelos, Sandra Gin), have not been nominated for deletion, so I don't understand why this particular one was. I had more material to work with on this one compared to the other pageant stubs I've created or edited, where I couldn't find any notable career outside minor beauty pageant titles. I'm looking at this from the eyes of someone inexperienced and trying to learn by example, and relatively speaking, this is probably one of my better articles. I'm seeing double standards. --Wiki2008time (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of those articles warrant deletion proposals too. Some of them practically being brazen resumes, violating policy. The problem with this website is that any girl who wins a pageant has an article made without regard to standards. Trillfendi (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The above criticisms are in regard to the pageant aspect of this page. However, this is a biography of a living person that started as one event (pageant) and grew to some additional notability (performance arts, medical career). Both the pageant and the medical career separately have sufficient reliable sources to have some notability within themselves, and most arguments are focused on only one field or the other but this person is simultaneously somewhat notable within both fields. Therefore arguing it does pass WP:GNG and is not "1EVENT". Also recommend keeping it on the basis of having inadequate Wikipedia biographies about women according to WikiProject Women in Red, having inadequate Wikipedia biographies in the category of Canadian women physicians, and other existing articles about Canadian women physicians are even shorter and without additional notability outside medicine, such as Mira Ashby, Emma Gaudreau Casgrain, May Cohen, April Sanders, and Kona Williams. As well, existing articles about Canadian pageant winners can also be found to be shorter and without additional notability outside pageants, which have been around for a long time, such as Debbe Ebben and Shalom Reimer. I have also cleaned up the UGC links per criticism, but per External links/Perennial websites, I do think the UGC added some helpful biographical information. --Wiki2008time (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please only !vote once. --Rob (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, fixed. --Wiki2008time (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:BIO. A one-time stunt that had no WP:LASTING impact. No other beauty pageant winners shaved their heads too. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, this article is not about a one-time stunt and once again, this is a criticism only about the beauty pageant portion of the article. Half the article is also about medical career including medical parody performances. Regarding the one-time stunt and failing WP:BIO, I added another source - this person is noted as "Miss Charity BC" in the Canadian Cancer Society's donor report and is the first instance I could find of a Miss Charity BC being in their reports. The fact that no other beauty pageant winners shaved their heads is something that confers notability; if it was commonplace to do so, then this act would be less significant and would not have sparked all the headlines in Canada, U.S., U.K., India, China. One could also argue the fundraising and head shave itself was a catalyst for her acceptance into medical school. Again, this article is a biography covering pageantry and a medical career, not just a one-time stunt in a pageant. By that argument, any pageant title is a one-time stunt, wondering why then pages such as Debbe Ebben, Courtnee Anderson, Gloren Guelos, Shalom Reimer are not marked for deletion given that there is significantly less news coverage available about their respective wins compared to this lesser title but more widespread media coverage. --Wiki2008time (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody following in her footsteps somehow makes her act more notable? That makes no sense. Also, her medical career is nothing out of the ordinary, so 0 notability + 0 notability = 0 notability. Finally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, but I'll get around to nominating at least Anderson, Guelos and Reimer for deletion. Not sure about Ebben. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, because if many women were shaving their heads on stage at beauty pageants, then her doing this would be "nothing out of the ordinary" to use your words. By her doing this and nobody else in Canadian pageants that we know of, she gained significant notability within British Columbia and headlines in other countries as well. The notability may not be 1000, but it's more than 0. As well, her medical career is not nothing out of the ordinary; nothing out of the ordinary would be Kona Williams, who is known for nothing more than being the first First Nations doctor in her field in Canada; no evidence of any other notable actions, shorter article, yet her article remains for years. Here we have what seems to be the first beauty queen turned doctor in Canada (I can find no evidence of other beauty queen doctors in Canada) who has significant provincial fame for the head shave, then became a doctor who won at least one award during her training that has been documented and has been quoted as an expert repeatedly about COVID-19 and other topics, per Fuzheado's response. So medical notability is not 0; there is slightly more here than the "ordinary" doctor like Kona Williams. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - If folks took a few minutes to look beyond the pageant, one would find many quotes from her in 2020 related to COVID-19. Therefore, she is notable for more than one event, and she has been quoted as an expert in this field in multiple WP:RS. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 18:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/5/12/21246611/coronavirus-utah-covid-physical-touch-hugs-hand-shakes-affection-distancing-effects
 * https://www.babygaga.com/experts-discuss-the-impact-of-pregnancy-on-close-relationships/
 * https://www.huffpost.com/entry/body-brain-quarantine-coronavirus-effects_l_5ebde414c5b698a29045d7a9
 * https://bestlifeonline.com/global-changes-after-coronavirus/
 * https://www.insider.com/what-is-ocd
 * https://www.mic.com/p/did-coronavirus-kill-hugs-handshakes-22940828


 * Comment: Substantial coverage about a subject in multiple reliable sources can convey notability.  But, the ones citing Celan as a health expert, do not actually cover Celan as the *subject*.  The only significant coverage about her is pageant related, and is narrowly focussed on a single event.  Now, if there was coverage about something she's done, like research that she's released, or she gave opinions that generated notable disagreements/debates/support, won some awards, or recognition, or even a simple "life of a doctor" story, would convey some notability.  --Rob (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Need not be the subject of the articles to be notable as a health expert in dozens of articles about mental health. Also, she has been profiled on the UBC Medicine and Dalhousie Medicine websites, both of which are cited, so there's your simple "life of a doctor" story. I just checked, and every single doctor is not profiled on the university websites, only a handful. She also won an award within Dalhousie Medicine, which was cited. There were other awards she had won but I removed that background biographical information per complaints about UGC platforms, though per External links/Perennial websites, I still believe there is some merit to the background information provided by the UGC platforms. So once again, this is an article not just about a pageant win (which I would argue is slightly more notable than the average municipal or provincial-level beauty queen given the unique action of the head shave and associated fundraising), but also about a slightly more notable doctor than the average physician who doesn't get profiled, win an award, or get quoted as an expert in a long list of articles. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete An article's coverage doesn't have to be mainly about her, but it does have to about her, to some extent. For example, a story about the life of doctors, that mentions a few, including her would help.  But, the medical related sources are not at all about her.  They are about medical topics.  She's giving pretty standard/common opinion.  Also, I really have to say MyBestMbestmattress.com is not a reliable source.  They sell mattresses.  They are not a media outlet with fact checkers.  Her profile on their site is a standard promotional profile of somebody.  The profiles at academic institutions she works for are not reliable sources.  Those are self-promotional.  --Rob (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This response is completely disregarding some of the things said above, including things said directly to you in the preceding message. As stated above, sources 9, 11, 12, 13 provide doctor profiles and an award, all on university websites - these include stories about the life of doctors that mentions a few, including her. That's not "self-promotional", as those websites are not UGC and the universities are profiling the doctors, not the universities themselves. Besides medical, there are many articles about her within the pageant component. As well, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The articles naming her as a medical expert do not need to be about her "to some extent", naming her as a medical expert in multiple quotes within an article is indicating more than trivial mention. I don't know what to say about mybestmattress.com, I just added that in as a bonus that can easily be removed without changing the overall article much so if it's not reliable then it can be removed. However, from what I see looking around the website, it looks to be a site that compiles reviews for mattresses, it does not seem to be selling mattresses. Their articles quoting Celan are about topics such as coronavirus insomnia, not selling mattresses. You've been overly involved in 3 different people's arguments here and on the attack of everything I've been posting on Wiki ever since I referenced your article Amy Soranno as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which was not intended as a personal attack on your work but rather as a defense to keep my hard work, so please stop attacking my work with arguments that are not even fully informed. Per WP:BITE, please stop the hostility. --Wiki2008time (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure anymore - I'm going to abstain from !voting now. I think the article definitely was *not* ready to go into article space initially, and still isn't, but its in the midst of a cleanup.  I suggest that if a closing admin decides this article should be removed, they should offer to move it it to user and/or draft space to be further improved.  I do still strongly assert that a number of profiles cited, are actually promotional.  That is, when a company/organization hires/uses an expert, they will publish a friendly bio about them (making both look good).  University faculty/staff/student/research profiles are not at all reliable sources.  They are almost always written by the subjects, and not fact checked, even in the most renowned/respected institutions.       --Rob (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You've removed the sleep expert one, so that argument is null now, and that was the only promotional one. The others are reliable sources that did not provide any kind of "promotional" profiling in them. About 1/3-1/2 of the article's sources are about the pageant, from several news outlets. Another 1/3-1/2 are about medical information, with reliable sources that simply discussed the relevant mental health topic and briefly described the expert as a psychiatry resident at Dalhousie University and then went on to use the expert's quotes - no "promotional" profiling. The universities profiling the doctors is not UGC any more than any news articles that interview subjects. Subjects can say anything in a news interview and have it quoted as-is, and the universities did the same in profiling their doctors. As well, they were not providing any outlandish self-promotional material, no wild claims, but rather were simple biographies of doctors. Nothing they said in the profiles scream, "Go to UBC! Go to Dalhousie! Hire me!" - they simply cover who these people are and what their interests are. --Wiki2008time (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

In short, a few facts are verified, but nothing substantial is said about Celan personally. There's no indication of notability in any of this, except maybe, maybe, maybe, a tidbit about a writing award, that we have no meaningful coverage of, beyond that singfular fact. --Rob (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, here is every single citation of in the "Medical Career" section based on the version as of my writing:
 * 11 - sfu.ca => Reliable for facts, no notability conveyed, as it's a simplistic listing
 * 12 - med.ubc.ca => Reliable for singular fact that she entered school. Q&A format means she supplied answers
 * 13 - youtube.com => A YouTube playlist. Without watching it all, I assume it shows her singing and dancing.  Not a reliable source, and not a sign of notability
 * 14 - youtube.com => Not reliable, not a sign of notability. Having thousands of views on YouTube is a trivial matter, anybody can achieve.  More importantly, no reliable source says anything about it.
 * 15 - ubc.ca => Reliable source for fact of graduation. Not a sign of notability, as it's just a mass list
 * 16 - cdn.dal.ca => Reliable source for fact of attendance. Not a sign of notability, as it just shows her picture, and gives her answers to a few questions.  Not a reliable source of facts beyond mere attendance, since she supplied answers.
 * 17 - medicine.dal.ca = > Doesn't mention her
 * 18 - cdn.dal.ca => "..our own Dr. Patricia Celan wrote the winning entry..." is the only thing that's marginally notable, and reliable fact. Saying "our own" doesn't build independence.
 * 19 - healthline.com => Reliable source for facts, not a sign of notability, as nothing substantial is said of Celan personally
 * 20 - insider.com => ditto
 * 21 - ca.finance.yahoo.com => ditto
 * 22 - ca.finance.yahoo.com => ditto
 * 23 - huffingtonpost.ca => ditto
 * (Keeping in mind your focus here is on dismantling the medical aspect, but we do also have the pageant aspect, and the 2 aspects together combine to create more notability than one aspect alone.) Some of these arguments seem to be differences of opinion. Agreed, some of those are simple fact checks. Re: YouTube, does this behind the scenes feature from a different source (UBC IT) provide more notability to her parody work for the one with 75,000 views? https://vimeo.com/121938108 If so, could add it?
 * Disagree about #12 and #16. They are not just reliably showing fact of attendance, they are profiling specific student doctors amid many other possible options, choosing these ones in particular for some reason. There is nothing wrong with the Q&A format, as that is usually the format in newspaper interviews too. She presumably provided the answers to the questions she was quoted in for the pageant articles too.
 * Once again, difference of opinion on being quoted as an expert in multiple articles. As stated above a few times, per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Once again, she does not need to be the subject nor be personally described in any way for the significant coverage to be considered notable. She is repeatedly quoted as an expert speaking about medical topics. By virtue of being quoted as a professional expert, not as a layperson being asked for opinions about a local matter in a local paper, that provides more than a "trivial mention". Expert quotes are not trivial, and especially not in high quantity. I could add many more articles than the 6 listed to demonstrate that there are at least 50 articles she has been quoted in as an expert, but then I'd be accused of WP:BOMBARDMENT again, and a sampling of 6 seems to get the message across well enough. (Keeping in mind your focus here is on dismantling the medical aspect, but we do also have the pageant aspect, and the 2 aspects together combine to create more notability than one aspect alone.) --Wiki2008time (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I just checked, and where you said #16, I think you meant #17. The numbers may have gotten mixed up with edits, where #16 is now about UBC and #17 is about cdn.dal.ca. Anyway, #17 does mention her and profiles her, on page 4, it's not just a mass list - only 8 people are profiled. As well, #18 mentions her if you scroll down, and shows her winning entry - she was the only winner in the doctor category. #19 refers to the previous #18 you were talking about. Then the other articles start at #20. Anyway the point of this update is just to say that she is actually mentioned/profiled in all sources, there are no sources where she is not mentioned. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Meets "Academics" criterion of WP:ANYBIO "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." So she does not need to be the subject of the many articles she was quoted in. See WP:ACADEMIC criterion 7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." - Expert quotations are not small in number (look at this person's twitter) nor local news media (found articles for this Canadian physician in American outlets). This in itself invalidates the WP:ONEEVENT argument as this person is one event PLUS the academic part. "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." --Wiki2008time (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Saw a comment that shaving her head doesn't count as being an academic (editor then reverted this). Once again, this is a person who is not JUST a pageant winner who is notable for shaving her head, she also has a bit of notability in the medical field considering a contest win and dozens of expert quotations in conventional media, per criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. Most comments are focusing on either the pageant or the medical career and disregarding the other half of the article. Please read the entire article in full before determining this person is not notable for one field or the other field, because she has combined notability from both fields. --Wiki2008time (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure how having too many references is a criteria for deletion. While many seem superficial, a handful seem significant. Article needs editing and improving, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of being academic in the least and doesn't satisfy any academic criteria. The article subject is a resident,a junior position and offering the basic of information. She is not allowed to offer anything, confirming again that she is not an academic Known for single event which has been spun in the references, to give reference bloat, and engender notability that doesn't exist. For example, there is 5 instances of getting her head shaved, there is 6 of beauty pageant, then a whole lot passing mentions, that constitute the rest. No real coverage outwith the single event. Fails WP:BIO.  scope_creep Talk  00:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how she is not an academic. I see multiple universities, UGC information that was removed indicated some research and university teaching assistantship, and she's a doctor in residency. Those all look academic to me. Not sure how junior or senior the position is has any influence on the ultimate decision. What do you mean "offering the basic of information" and "she is not allowed to offer anything"? I actually don't understand the argument there so I don't know how to respond. She would count as an academic who contributes to the field of mental health outside academia, per criterion 7 of WP:ACADEMIC. As for the pageant, I was not trying to "give reference bloat" but simply to demonstrate international coverage of the head shave, conferring more notability than the average winner in BC pageants with BC-local coverage only. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. She is not an academic. To be a academic, you must be in that position. She is a junior doctor, a resident, and is allowed to give simple advice and that is it. She doesn't satisfy WP:ACADEMIC#7 in any situation. She entirely non-notable.  scope_creep Talk  22:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." From WP:ACADEMIC. And then again, #7 says "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." She has a lot of quotes in conventional media as an expert in mental health. --Wiki2008time (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also her website says she was a research assistant and teaching assistant in areas related to mental health, and now a quick google search will find her quoted in the news and in blogs dozens of times and all apparently related to mental health in some way. See Academic ranks in Canada. Looks to me like an academic contributing to the field of mental health. --Wiki2008time (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete, WP:BIO1E applies. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the other discussions above (See also discussion under Trillfendi's 1EVENT assertion), this goes beyond 1 event. --Wiki2008time (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.