Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Coates (longevity claimant) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 that the topic is notable per the widespread nature of the hoax, per GNG. I find no consensus for a re-name, but that can take place in a separate discussion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

William Coates (longevity claimant)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This person was briefly believed to have been a supercentenarian, and that turned out to be wrong. No other claim to notability, and no other coverage of his life, so no need for an article. — JFG talk 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the prior nomination for deletion, and I still see no significant coverage. Also, the article has not been expanded since then. That's at best a BLP1E/NOPAGE case. — JFG talk 11:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JFG talk 11:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article fails WP:BIO1E, WP:NOPAGE, and WP:SUSTAINED. The experts say he was a fraud and there was very little reporting on him or anything to say about him in a wiki article except brief information on record possibilities if his already disproven age claim was true and how his claim was debunked. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you're invoking WP:BIO1E: 1) what is the event supposed to be in this case? The man's entire life? 2) Why aren't you proposing a redirect to the event as advised in WP:BIO1E if you think it applies? Bio1E is not, primarily, a delete rationale.
 * If you're invoking WP:SUSTAINED then why isn't years of coverage sufficient?
 * If you're invoking WP:NOPAGE, then what is the page you wish to redirect to and what is your rationale for doing so? FOARP (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The singular BIO1E event would be the controversy about Mr. Coates' age. The relevant NOPAGE target would be Longevity claims. I'm not invoking SUSTAINED, although I'll note that absolutely all coverage of this person was in the context of the age controversy, and one of the reasons for my nomination is that there is no significantly-covered information about his life besides the dispute over his age. — JFG talk 21:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Defining an unresolved factual dispute as an "event" is stretching the English language to breaking point. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus, WP:BIO1E is not a WP:DELREASON. It's a reason to redirect/rename/merge. It clearly states that that is what it is. It's entire purpose is to avoid WP:POVFORKs and duplication by ensuring that where someone is only notable for one event, we don't have both a biographical article on them and an article covering the event, with the default being coverage of the event. And are you really saying you'd be happy with a rename to William Coates longevity claim controversy? FOARP (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The substantial coverage in reliable sources provided by in Articles for deletion/William Coates (longevity claimant) in articles in United Press International, NBC News, and The Washington Post.  The book notes: "William Coates was one such piece of living trivia: at 114 years of age, the Clinton, Maryland man was known around the country as being the oldest living man in the United States. It was an unofficial title he had held for the past several years, as was mentioned in the June 2, 1999 edition of the Washington Post [three-paragraph quote from the Washington Post] Sadly, Coates passed away in February 2004. A mention of his death was made in a February 25 Associated Press story disseminated by hundreds of media outlets: [five-paragraph quote from the Associated Press]  The last sentence should have set off some sort of alarm bells for both reporters and news consumers. While it was not uncommon for those in the 1800s to not have a birth certificate, it certainly was a stretch to consider someone to be the country's eldest citizen in absence of one. By early March, it was revealed that a copy of a 1930 U.S. Census form showed that Coates was listed as being eighteen years old, making him 92, not 114, at the time of his death. Yet even then, some who knew Coates remained firm in their beliefs, as shown in the March 2, 2004 edition of the Maryland Gazette: [one-paragraph quote from the Gazette]  It was noted in some articles that none of Coates' relatives maintained that he was 114 years old, either. [analysis about newspapers and newscasts running the story without independent verification]"  The article notes: "When William Coates died on Feb. 24 at the Southern Maryland Hospital Center, the story made the front page of the Metro section the next day because, the story said, at age 114, he 'was believed to be America's oldest man.' The story, which was relatively brief, said Coates did not have a birth certificate, which would not have been uncommon for African Americans of his generation. But it quoted the director of a Maryland senior center who had done extensive research on county centenarians as saying Coates was born June 2, 1889. The Post had mentioned Coates before in the news section when he was honored at a 1999 event called the Celebration of Centenarians sponsored by Prince George's County and two other local agencies, and in three or four other stories over the past five years. He was also mentioned in 2002 by columnist Courtland Milloy, who added that other authorities were working to authenticate his age. After his death, The Post set out to write a fuller story. On March 2, a front-page Metro story reported that 'in a final twist to a long life that is largely shrouded in questions, U.S. Census records indicate that Coates -- who has been celebrated for his supposed advanced age in news stories and public proclamations -- was no older than 92 when he died.' This was a much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort, including references to earlier Post stories giving his age as 110 at the time. It pointed out that none of Coates's relatives had claimed he was 114 but said, rather, that they knew few details of his life. That second story appeared on the day Coates's relatives were attending his funeral at a Northeast Washington church."  This is per Michael Getler, the "much longer and more thoroughly reported story than the first effort".  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow William Coates to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC) </li></ul>

When those AFDs are planned, co-ordinated, and tag-teamed on the basis of misrepresentations of policy,the system is very clearly being gamed Different tactics in your POV-pushing doesn't alter the fact the WP:LONGEVITY tag team is POV-pushing. When you eventually all end up at arbcom, good luck with he Unlike the GRG lackeys defence. You will need the luck. Classic straw man. I never suggested it was right-wing or vast or a conspiracy. Just a tag team of partisan POV-pushers.
 * Pinging Articles for deletion/William Coates (longevity claimant) participants who have not commented in this AfD:, , , , , , , , , , and . Cunard (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, or don't! We had a recent AfD and I accept the no consensus conclusion. Nothing has changed since then. I don't think we need a new AfD at this time... but as we're here, my view remains the same as then. Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a disgracefully bad nomination. @JFG is a very experienced editor who by now should know much much better than to make such a poor nomination.
 * The fact of whether or not Coates was actually a centenarian is irrelevant to notability. There is no notability guideline either way about that attribute: the relevant test here is WP:GNG.
 * Even minimal WP:BEFORE should have shown JFG, the previous nomination. It's only the seventh item in the page history, so there's no need to even scroll to find it.  The failure to notice the previous AFD looks like strong evidence of minimal scrutiny.
 * In the previous discussion, I rapidly found multiple examples of significant coverage. The failure of JFG to conduct similar searches is further evidence of inadequate preparation for this AFD.
 * Much more seriously, when JFG finally spotted the previous AFD, he posted I still see no significant coverage. That was only 5 minutes after the original nomination, which is completely insufficient time to fully read the the previous discussion, let alone evaluate the evidence.  It's very clear that JFG simply dismissed the previous AFD without proper consideration, and that the comment I still see no significant coverage was a deceitful misrepresentation of JFG's failure to actually look for the evidence even when it involved no greater effort than reading the page in front of him.  (I say "deceitful", because the only alternative explanation is that JFG is so spectacularly stupid that they didn't spot that a lengthy discussion of a long list of reliable sources is highly relevant. And I do not for moment believe that JFG is that stupid.)
 * Even though the previous AFD closed only 6 months ago, JFG made no effort to notify the participants in the previous AFD. That was done the following day by . The lack of notifications is a form of WP:forum-shopping.
 * This nomination arises out of campaign by WP:LONGEVITY to remove as much as possible of Wikipedia's coverage of longevity issues. This has involved a small clique of editors steamrollering their way through the topic as a sort of counterforce to the WP:WOP's spamming of Wikipedia.  The problem is that neither of these sets of POV warriors have shown any respect for en.wp's core policies.  Apart from a long series of AFDs which have been so very badly-prepared that they amount to systematic deception, the WP:LONGEVITY crew have also been trying to systematically abuse WP:BIO1E by redefining the fact of longevity as a single event.  See WT:WikiProject_Longevity/Archive 2 for their outraged reaction when I challenged it.
 * It's unsurprising that the WP:LONGEVITY tag team was quick to respond to JFG's nomination. User:Newshunter12 was also the first to reply to the previous nomination, and has a solid track record of participation in the WP:LONGEVITY tag team of editors who co-ordinate their AFD nominations and vote as bloc.
 * I have a rarely seen such a sustained exercise in gaming the system. How long will it be before the WP:LONGEVITY crew of POV-warriors follow the WOP/GRG  crew of POV-warriors down the path to Arbcom?
 * In the meantime, I hope that the closer of this discussion will cling fast to WP:NOTAVOTE, and not facilitate this tag-team's efforts at forum-shopping through shoddy notifications. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not voting, and never intended to. That said, this is hardly a vast right wing conspiracy; sending articles to AfD is not at all "gaming the system", and every commenter has entirely independent agency. Unlike the GRG lackeys, all the work at the new WikiProject is done on-wiki and not pulling random people from the 110 Club and Yahoo groups. And if the article subject is so notable, why did no one bother to add in all the amazing sources above? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A sadly predictable pile of pile of straw men from @The Blade of the Northern Lights. Here's a few of the straws:
 * sending articles to AfD is not at all "gaming the system"
 * Unlike the GRG lackeys
 * this is hardly a vast right wing conspiracy.
 * And if the article subject is so notable, why did no one bother to add in all the amazing sources above?
 * Because the ratio of editors to articles is low and falling
 * Notable is a property of the topic, not of the state of the article
 * TBOTNL has created some handy evidence there for Arbcom, but it doesn't add anything to this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk about chilling a discussion. Most of this doesn't belong here, so I won't clutter this AfD, but I'll say this; I highly doubt ArbCom will want any involvement at this point, what with the lack of prior DR. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 21:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also realize that, being from opposite sides of the pond, "vast right wing conspiracy" is a bit of a hyperbolic joke in American English. It was an effort at levity, not accusation. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sigh, same arguments I made before. Notable hoaxes are notable subjects for an article. This guy's longevity claim being false is not a good reason for deletion. Can we just stop with this campaign on longevity articles? A notable subject is a notable subject, regardless of whether their claim is true or not. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The previous nomination was posted seven months and one week ago and, in closing it as "no consensus", Michig noted that "another relist doesn't seem likely to change that". As before, the strong and convincing arguments by BrownHairedGirl and Cunard, in particular, confirm that subject's media coverage, such as it was, was nevertheless sufficient to firmly mark his entry as "keep". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep regardless of whether or not his claim was true. The sourcing on the article isn't great but a quick Google search seems to indicate he received coverage from several independent sources. Highway 89 (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nom was fair game as the old AfD was closed as no consensus, but Cunard's and BHG's points in defense of retention are well made, and I tend to concur with the remarks on the state of WP:LONGEVITY, of which I am a dissenting semi-participant. At any rate, SIGCOV is present and the article should be kept. schetm (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither here nor there, but I've certainly appreciated your input there. Even when we disagree you do argue your points well, and based on your work I've definitely come around to a different view on a few articles (e.g. Swami Kalyandev, with a bit of distance from that discussion, was a misfire from me). The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 03:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per BrownHairedGirl. 45.228.209.44 (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has enough quality references to meet at least a technical pass of WP:GNG (I added two more from the Washington Post, and a lesser mention from the Wall Street Journal).  There are also several books that mention the hoax (which I think it was). A hoax that lasted many years (the Washington Post first did an article in 1999 with follow-ups in 2002, and 2004), cannot really be an "event".  I think the case would be interesting to a reader wanting to know the facts of what actually happened here. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to highlight this: even if this hoax were thought to be a single event, the solution per WP:BIO1E would be to rename/redirect/merge to the article covering the event (so it would become William Coates longevity hoax or whatever). WP:BIO1E is not, and was never intended to be, a stand-alone WP:DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Very good point, and even though the WP:BIO1E does say The general rule is to cover the event, not the person, given that the "person" is such a central part of the focus (i.e. mentioned in almost every ref and line), I don't see an imperative to need to rename the article to the "event". Britishfinance (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:GNG. Drunk in Paris (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I very much think that it would be more advisable to keep this article, as it is certainly an oddly well reported incidence! StewBrewer (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I'm sad to see you amalgamate this nomination with several others, just because you have a perception that the WP:LONGEVITY project is some sort of WP:CABAL. In fact, there are significant differences of opinion among "regulars" at that project, and I for one look at each article and each AfD nomination independently. Obviously, the longevity area needed a lot of cleanup work to bring it in line with current Wikipedian standards of coverage. After about a year of diligent work and numerous discussions, where hundreds of editors made their voices heard, we are getting to a rather stable state of affairs, and most of the longstanding disputes in this topic area have been settled by RfC. There is still work to do, and your input is naturally welcome.
 * On this particular nomination:
 * I truly was not aware of the previous AfD, to which I had not participated; I noticed it after my new nomination was saved by Twinkle's XfD tool, and it turned out to be a re-nomination.
 * I looked at the arguments presented in the first AfD, and indeed 5 minutes were enough to ascertain that none of the sources presented six months ago in support of keeping the article had made their way into the text. I do consider AfDs as an important tool to raise awareness about bad articles, and a catalyst to improve them when possible; I rejoice when an article is saved by an AfD, even when I initially support deletion. I did not see any improvement on this article, and from the scant details available in RS, I do not see how it could be improved beyond rehashing the aforementioned age controversy.
 * While there was indeed enough RS coverage of this age dispute, the central subject matter (the dispute, not the person) would be better handled at Longevity claims, where it could be compared to similar historical cases of confusion, misunderstanding, lack of records, or deceitful claims.
 * Finally, our encyclopedia is NOT supposed to repeat everything that was ever printed in newspapers, especially not things that are unlikely to enhance the "sum of human knowledge" over time. As I wrote when opening this AfD, there is only one notable thing about Mr. Coates: This person was briefly believed to have been a supercentenarian, and that turned out to be wrong. That's the "one event" in the WP:BIO1E argument. We would not reprint a Coates story that happened in 1850, although I'm sure newspapers of the day did exhibit similar examples. This factoid was only introduced into Wikipedia because it was recently in the news.
 * In short, I stand firmly by this second nomination. — JFG talk 21:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @JFG, when you're in a hole it's better to stop digging. But since you are digging, here goes:
 * The previous AFD was linked in the edit summary of the 6th item from the top of the history before you made this nomination. If you didn't spot it, that looks like pretty good evidence that you didn't open the page history before nomination.  That's a basic WP:BEFORE failure.
 * your 5-min assessment of the first AFD was plain wrong:
 * The question of whether the sources mentioned in the previous AFD had made their way into the article is irrelevant. Notability is a property of the topic, not of the article
 * I do consider AfDs as an important tool to raise awareness about bad articles. Please read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.
 * You double down again on the fact that the claim appears to be wrong. But again, the veracity or otherwise of the claim forms no part of of the notability policy.  If you disagree, please point me towards
 * I note the lack of any regret that when you became aware of the prev AFD, you made no effort to notify its participants. That makes it hard to give any credence to your claims that you weren't forum-shopping. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Your assumption of bad faith is noted, and unfortunate. Regarding notability, all I'm saying is that only the age dispute was notable, however fleetingly. That's not an article about Mr. Coates, it's an article about an error in reporting who was the oldest U.S. man in 2004. Look at the state of the article when it was created at the time this story emerged. I said and I repeat that this recentist anecdote is not encyclopedic. I understand that you may disagree. — JFG talk 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * @JFG @The Blade of the Northern Lights I wouldn't waste your time trying to "discuss" with BHG. Do you remember last year when she came after me with the same complaints and accused me of being part of an anti-old people conspiracy and of trying to hack her account? Not a pleasant or productive use of time. She also hounded Legacypac until he exploded at her (I am sincerely sorry you got cursed at - I know how unpleasant that can be) and got indefed. It's best to just ignore trolls. And no BHG, before you complain this is further evidence of a conspiracy among editors, I'm just trying to help fellow editors use their time and patience wisely. The only conspiracy in the Longevity area is the wave of harassment and death threats editors in this topic area such as me, Blade, and more have gotten for many months. You also seem quick to criticize,   Brown HairedGirl, but outside of AfD, what contributions to SC longevity articles have you been making in the past year? The above two editors and I have all made quite a few. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Rubbish, @Newshunter12.
 * I did not accuse you of trying to hack my account. That is a lie you have made before. Please stop telling lies.
 * I did not "hound" Legacypac. That's a malicious allegation.
 * Your contributions to AFDs and CFDs on Longevity topics were shockingly fact-averse, and esp a CFD you displayed overt hostility to retaining proper categorisation of the topics concerned.
 * -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Brown HairedGirl (talk) Already not following my own advice...
 * While it's true you said it in such a way as to maintain plausible deniability, the implication was clear that you were saying you thought I tried to hack your account and another editor thereafter repeated on EENG's talk page that allegation against me.
 * I did not say you did anything wrong in regards to Legacypac, but it's my understanding you both clashed repeatedly for months before he was indefed. Is that correct? It seems fair to call that hounding, whether it be righteous corrections on your part or not.
 * At the CFDs in question, I was new to that, and after you explained why my votes were misguided and counter-productive to the encyclopedia, I apologized to you and changed them all, and made an effort to get on with you. Later, my good will withered when you repeatedly accused me and others of bad faith, conspiracies, hacking, and your excessive levels of pinging and threats that we will all get banned. Funny you always leave the positive part out of the CFD story and how it was I who introduced you to WP:LONGEVITY in that conversation!
 * You conveniently don't want to talk about the fact that I and others do a lot for SC longevity pages outside of AfD, but you don't.
 * You don't seem to want to edit constructively with me - I expressed sympathy with you over the verbal abuse you suffered, but not a peep from you over the verbal, sexual, and death threats directed at me by people who want me off Wikipedia and the topic of longevity. I wish we could get past these disagreements, but that doesn't appear to be what you want.
 * --Newshunter12 (talk) 03:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Newshunter.
 * At 02:23 you wrote She also hounded Legacypac.  Then at 03:25 you wrote I did not say you did anything wrong in regards to Legacypac.
 * Make up your mind.
 * As to the hacking thing, I don't recall where the thread was now, but I recall very clearly what happened. Someone, possibly you, mentioned the possibility that my account had been hacked. I responded my noting truthfully that i had just received the first ever notice of an attempted hack of my account, and that the coincidence of the suggestion and the actual attempt was very odd.
 * You are now trying to cast this as if i had popped up out of nowhere and started pointing a finger at you. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are taking the latter quote out of context but I agree, I wasn't trying to send friendly vibes. As far as the hacking stuff goes, that discussion was actually in the first AfD for this very article. You said: no my account was not hacked. But it's a curious coincidence that you have suggested the possibility only 24 hours after the first ever logged attempt to hack it. You wrote that after I made a sarcastic quip about your account being hacked as the source of some stuff you wrote. The same day another editor wrote here: Newshunter12 probably tried hack her account recently.


 * This renewed discussion on an AfD for the same article is another curious coincidence. It really serves to put what happened in perspective. You say you didn't mean to imply I was involved, so I accept you at your word. I am sorry BrownHairedGirl for believing and repeating now and last year that you made that allegation against me. But can you please see from my perspective how your statement could be interpreted and came out of nowhere to me after a little joke and then someone else started repeating what I felt to be this false claim against me? Newshunter12 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12, what I actually wrote about hacking is visible in this diff. You have made several summaries of what I wrote which do not accurately represent my words, so I will withdraw from this discussion with you. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Brown HairedGirl  What I quoted is no different then what you wrote about hacking in that dif, which you only found because of me, yet your acting like I'm engaged in some conspiracy against you. It's word for word the same - I even carried over your italicized attempt. You're just trolling here, but you are more then welcome to find someone else to harass. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @Newshunter12, I am sorry, but your comments quote accurately, but then repeatedly attribute to me words and meanings which are crucially different to what I actually said.
 * I have not alleged that you are part of any conspiracy against me, and I am not "harassing you". I replied to comments you made here, and have already said that I want to withdraw from dialogue with you.  Please just disengage, and drop these bogus allegations of harassment.  If you don't drop them, I will take them to ANI. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. A notification this morning: "There have been multiple failed attempts to log in to your account from a new device. Please make sure your account has a strong password."
 * Only the second time ever. And both occasions came straight after after a discussion with the same editor about the same type of topic. Obviously a pure coincidence. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * @ Brown HairedGirl  I don't know anything about that. I thought you wanted this discussion to be over with? Recently, I have been getting harassed, stalked on wiki, sent death threats (you're an admin, so I believe you can read the blocked comments on my talk page), and suffered attempts to get me blocked (ex. someone recently created a sockpuppet account named Newshunter14 and then threatened another editor I was discussing with on a talk page). Given all that's happened to me lately on wiki, it's far from inconceivable that someone read this exchange and is screwing with you hoping I get the blame and am blocked. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I responded to your allegations on BrownHairedGirl's talk page. 198.8.81.74 (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck comment from now banned (for two years) troll. Thank you for outing yourself. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This AFD probably isn't the right place to have this discussion. However, the WP:CABAL impression is pretty easy to understand given the present state of the WP:LONGEVITY talk page. It's overwhelmingly given over to article deletion, merging, and reduction in lists. Then there's the repetition of talking points already dismissed by consensus (e.g., WP:BIO1E can apply to someone's entire life and is a valid WP:DELREASON, suspicious longevity claims which are nevertheless supported by WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS can be deleted) which smells of a local consensus being maintained even after exposure to the wider community has dismissed it. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.