Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

Note: In most cases there is another, more specific category than this one.

If possible, please use one of these instead:

Note: The following pages are transcluded onto the Biography Deletion sorting page

Note: the following pages are not transcluded onto the Biography Deletion sorting page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion (e.g. models)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion for adult film actors and actresses

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, 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|People|~~~~}} 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.

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:

Purge page cache

watch

People

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. I also see a very generic deletion nomination statement that could be used with just about any article, it lacks any specificity. It doesn't demonstrate that a BEFORE had been done by the nominator before proposing deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Litten

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

Not notable on his own. Fails GNG. Perhaps could be merged into a list but, not notable on his own. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NeoJade ^Talk/_Contribs 02:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Germany. C F A 💬 03:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. We don't often invoke WP:PROF in relation to historical academics but that's because WP:PROF is a modern guideline and historical academics rarely pass it. However, when they do, I think it is OK to invoke it, as is the case here. Litten was a rector of the University of Königsberg, one of the older and quite important universities in Europe, founded in 1544. So WP:Prof#C6 does apply here. There is also a plausible argument for passing WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Apart from the sources currently listed in the article, the German Wikipedia article lists more sources, including this biographical page about Litten [1] at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; there is also apparently more info about him in this book [2]. Nsk92 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and criteria 6 of WP:PROF. James500 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:PROF #6. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfying at least Cat6. It's not borderline, but even if it was, the risk of the creation of vanity articles goes down w/ time after death (significantly more once children and grandchildren have passed on). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 02:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Trammell

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

No evidence of any notability to pass WP:GNG, sources presented are all articles about the same incident, which would likely mark the subject as a WP:1E case. The event's notability itself seems questionable, so I don't see how this could even be a redirect or merge target, and there's clearly not enough coverage of the person who this biography is written about beyond that for there to be an article about him specifically. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Disability, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 30 August 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Van Bik

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

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
"This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7

"More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [3] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [4], [5] are some of the better sources. He's mentioned quite a few times in Baptist media in Gbooks. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, that "On the Road Back to Mandalay" source you link is discussed in my nomination; it's a WP:SPS from a close friend of Van Bik and thus neither reliable nor independent. The Theology Today source is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION. (This is the only sentence that mentions him: "More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward.") The Wisconsin Baptist source appears to a similarly trivial mention. I still don't think we have WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basa Khonelidze

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

I can't find any sources with significant coverage. The best I find is some pages of statistics and mention that he scored in a particular game. Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Mgp28 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Georgia (country). Mgp28 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage by any secondary sources besides a passing mention in an article about a single game. cyberdog958^Talk 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Chakrasali

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

Ostensibly well sourced, the references all fail to show any notability. Two are 404 errors, several are what he said, in which we have no interest, a couple are press releases. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are either info pages from his Engineering College, links to publications, or passing references in news articles about competitions/info days he coordinated. A passing search found no further news articles to support GNG. Spacepine (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as GNG we should also evaluate this article with respect to WP:PROF but the only criterion he has a chance of passing is #C6 and I don't think heading a small private undergraduate-only institution (that is, not a major research university), itself of unclear notability, is enough for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kandiss Taylor

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Non-notable. Came in third in a primary. Per the policy, notability is based on "a politician has receiving "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Coverage is related to routine campaign developments or controversial things she's said over the course of her political career. Non-notable politician. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So, she's a failed political candidate that got mocked about being a flat-earther (nor not, depending on who you believe); regardless, I don't see notability. Running for office isn't notable, career looks routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed political candidate, only reason she's attracted some passing coverage is bizarre comments accusing people of being Satanists. That's not how we build a BLP. AusLondonder (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, candidates do not get articles just for being candidates, and the fact that she bobs back up to the surface of the news cycle every once in a while for saying stupid stuff is not in and of itself a reason why her unsuccessful candidacy would be more special than everybody else's unsuccessful candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh/Comment: This person should not be notable but it is a weird part of the current US Republican party that fringe people who say truly wild things get more traction and press coverage than one would think possible. So the case for notability is not and could not be based on merely being a failed political candidate in a GOP primary seeking a US House seat. On the other hand, it is notable that a Georgia GOP regional chair is saying Jews are 'controlling everything'. I just checked to see if Valentina Gomez has an article - she's the Missouri GOP'er who ran for Secretary of State who says totally bonkers things. She doesn't have an article either. So I'm going to go along with the consensus to delete here as the wiser outcome.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:26, 3 September 2024 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Jaiswar

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

Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:V. I looked at the sources in the article and each one appears to have the same content word for word. Frost 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Frost 16:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any sources about this person that made "significant contributions", so the puffy words don't help. Coverage from the sources used feels PR-ish, some are social media. There just isn't enough coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Clear COI/vanity page with no real claim of notability. Passages like "renowned for his expertise in various disciplines including karate, kickboxing, and mixed martial arts (MMA)" is unacceptable for wiki. Sourcing is atrocious. No significant and reliable sources found as per WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others. Sources appear to be self-published. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears the same article was published at as many websites as the author could find, which clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. There lots of puffery (a first dan black belt is not "prestigious") and nothing that shows any SNG is met. Fightmatrix shows no MMA fights for him, nothing to show notability as a kickboxer (WP:NKICK) or martial artist (WP:MANOTE). Likely a COI and possibly an autobiography. Papaursa (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MOS:PUFFERY - no indication of notability. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 12:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Kumar Mehta

AfDs for this article:

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

As prophesied, this page is immediately back after soft deletion. This biography of an Indian civil servant fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. There is no WP:SIGCOV of the individual in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Sourcing is limited to WP:ROUTINE coverage and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that refer to him in the context of his former role while covering other subjects. (For example, the awards he is purported to have received were granted to the Jammu and Kashmir government and accepted by Mehta on its behalf.) There is no other WP:SIGCOV in sources considered reliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there are two questions here:Notability and Coverage.

I don't WP:NPOL is the standard here. He is a civil servant, neither a person who was voted into the position not a Judge. However, his position in the Order of precedence in India is above certain individuals that would qualify. I think in terms of notability, the closest equivalent would be people who are Secretary of State for a given US State, such as those in Category:Secretaries of state of Texas where Wikipedia has quite a few. (Yes, I know the Americans are (US State) Cabinet positions, but this seems to be close to the same and equally doesn't seem covered by WP:NPOL.
Coverage There isn't any doubt that he holds the position, the question is whether the first two references which show that he *had* the position are enough to show general notability. So at this point, and I'll hopefully come back after others have commented, I'm a Week Keep.

Delete: Chief secretary and other non-notable positions, simply a high civil servant, but nothing to distinguish them from the other thousands like them... The award doesn't appear notable. I'd also SALT. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the description of " top-most executive official and senior-most civil servant " at Chief secretary (India), I don't think "simply a high civil servant" applies.Naraht (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the description makes him sound even less important than a highly placed functionary. Even less notability attached to the positions held then, thank you for the correction. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the references to understand the topic and the importance of it. Also refrain from commenting on things you are clearly unable to comprehend. The Pavan putra (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Most sources on the page are poor, unreliable and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I cannot find subject's work as IPS, Chief secretary and as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is neither a politician nor in Indian police service. Please refer to the sources again as they are reputed and well established publications. The subject is also part of several other pages on wikipedia. The Pavan putra (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Bondi

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

None of the references in this article about a lawyer show significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found references to add; I have removed two existing references which did not mention him. Article has been tagged as orphan for six years, notability and advert for two years, and was recently tagged with possible CoI. It was also recently cut down by another editor from a longer version with no sources, but the quality of those sources is not better than the existing ones. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I looked at this I thought it would be a straightforward senior-lawyer vanity page. I tend to agree that on his career alone, he gets nowhere towards WP:GNG despite having been prominent. There are a few borderline articles like this and this talking about him taking on clients and a court judgment relating to conflict of interest. But nothing that profiles him in the way this article does that doesn't seem to be relying on a press release and CV. Note that the article doesn't mention he's Pam Bondi's brother but that's not inherited. He also got coverage for endowing a scholarship.
Where there is substantial coverage about him is this WSJ article about his 330 acre property and graveyard (someone else's family, also interviewed). The story is also here credited to WSJ.
Cumulatively does this get him across the line? I'm doubtful but would be interested to see further views. Oblivy (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To improve the reliability of sources, it's essential to move beyond press releases, biographies/resumes, and articles drafted by the subject. The apparent CoI editing may be the most problematic. If the subject met WP:GNG, none of the above would be needed. Regarding the WSJ article about the property, the subject is a self-described contributor to WSJ. 2601:18E:C47E:CA30:28D2:4D3:69FF:69B0 (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional evaluation of the sources brought up here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and based on my own standards. I don’t see him even having a single factor. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon consideration, notability isn't shown in the article or by anything I could find elsewhere. The house with the graveyard might be notable but that's not inherited to him. Oblivy (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaeddin Qassemi

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

The only sources for this WP:BLP1E refer to a stunt over five years ago where he claimed to have produced a water powered car - a claim which was, needless to say, never independently validated. Note the conspiracist language at the end. Water powered cars are, of course, impossible: it takes more energy to split hydrogen from oxygen than you get from the hydrogen, because the laws of thermodynamics are a thing. We can describe notable bollocks (see Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car), but we can't do it without reality-based sources, and the sources here are (a) not good and (b) not truly independent, since all reference the same stunt and take his claims at face value. It is inconceivable (and yes that word does mean what I think it means) that this would not have had ongoing coverage if it were genuine. And by "ongoing coverage", I mean at the very least an all expenses paid trip to Stockholm. In the end, this is just another instance of the water powered car hoax, with its attendant conspiracy theory. Any content online is always related back to the same initial stunt. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a lot of WP:PUFFERY in the article itself, so when I went to go look at sources, they looked pretty low quality, especially for the accolades that would have issues attributing notability. Like Guy alludes to, there are some independent coverage issues, and this ultimately doesn't reach WP:SUSTAINED coverage in depth needed for notability. I thought it was worth seeing if they could reach notability through WP:FRINGEN, but I'm not seeing that here either. KoA (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (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. Views were unanimously against an outright deletion, but split between keeping this as a standalone page and merging into Pavel Durov. Many !votes on both sides were discarded as not being based on policy or guidelines. Those include votes based solely on things such as, "let the news evolve", "this article urgently is important", "too early to delete this article", "this article will expand fairly soon", "unprecedented event", "to save server space", "because there is a Pavel Durov article", and "Snow Keep" (that's not how WP:SNOW works).

WP:ARTICLESIZE tells us we may merge the two articles, but says nothing about whether we should do so. The situation with WP:TOOSOON is trickier. The essay focuses on verifiability, not on content forks or splitting articles, as some here correctly noted. If verifiability was an issue here, then the essay advises us to draftify the article, not to merge weakly-verified content elsewhere.

Had views been evenly split between Merge and Delete, then merger would be the obvious ATD. But in the absence of consensus to merge, and with no views to delete, the only valid outcome is the same as if this were a merger proposed on the article's Talk page, that is, no merger takes place.

The massive participation suggests that nothing will be gained by relisting this, but due to the rapid pace in which this story is developing, renomination is allowed as soon as significant events justify it.

Thank you, Liz, for reverting the improper page move. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Pavel Durov

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

This is a recentist fork of material that really belongs in the main Pavel Durov article, which is easily short enough to be able to accommodate it. This article should be deleted, and the content merged to Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: The article creator's edit summary for the creation includes the line " I created the article because I think its relevance as a billionaire behind a free-speech associated messaging platform will lead to long discussions and many details about the nature of the crimes and reactions from libertarians and debates and potential protests against the arrest." This looks like an obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:RGW. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Business, Internet, and Websites. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pavel Durov: I was in the process of creating a merge discussion when this AFD was created. I think the content in Arrest of Pavel Durov can easily be explained in the context of Pavel Durov and a merge would not cause any article-size problems in Pavel Durov. It strikes me that having a separate article for Arrest of Pavel Durov is engaging in WP:RECENTISM and runs contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see that the separate article passes the ten year test. TarnishedPath^talk 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, I tend to agree, however, I suspect that this article will continue to expand with the eventual inclusion of court proceedings, aftermath, and precedence. It seems more likely than not that this event will only evolve and even its current form will be able to stand on its own. Let’s suppose for some reason he were released tomorrow I could see a reason for AfD, but then we’re really talking about CRYSTAL territory.

Giving consideration behind the prolific use of Telegram and Pavel’s involvement with the business, and with the charges being levied against him I don’t see how his arrest (and subsequent actions) won’t have lasting WP:IMPACT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it does quickly result in a merge, any future discussion on splitting the article if there were any future significant developments (e.g. extradition to US, shutdown of Telegram) should not be prejudiced on the mere basis of this AfD. - Mailer Diablo 16:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. However, I feel that such events are sufficiently uncertain, and potentially far in the future, that their possible existence is not a motivation for keeping this article now. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Russia. TarnishedPath^talk 23:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing plenty of reliable and notable sources talking solely about the arrest, so I think that warrants a stand alone article. Scu ba (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let the news evolve for valuation.--Crossswords (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is already a major global event with full WP:SIGCOV pieces from every WP:RS/P on the specific arrest (this is really a Snow Keep, and the OP should familiarize themselves with WP:GNG). There is a longer-term question of whether it should be stand-alone or merged with his main BLP, but it too soon to tell and the event is still developing, so I would hold a separate article for now. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely familiar with GNG. I think it was WP:TOOSOON for this WP:FORK of the main article. On the other hand, I don't think you should be invoking WP:SNOW any time soon - look at the number of Merge !votes this attracted in its first 12 hours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it was merged (and I think this event is probably too big now - and developing exponentially - for that), this redirect will be kept, and hence the SNOW. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not developing exponentially. It's growing approximately linearly, mostly by having tenuously related material and the opinions of Russian government proxies added to it. There doesn't seem to be any more news about the case itself for the time being; we probably won't get that unless either the French government charges him, or the Russian government formally requests his release. As it is, we've got a very one-sided article that is a clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS (as well as all the other issues noted above). GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would respectfully disagree with your assessment of how quickly this event is developing, but regarding your second point about the article quality, remember WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I wouldn't argue that the event is non-notable, but I would argue that it is WP:TOOSOON to know what, if any, lasting impact it will have. If it turns out to be the subject of lasting coverage it can just as easliy be split back off later. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per @Just Step Sideways reasoning Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 03:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep - this article urgently is important and neuralgic because his arrest will have deep consequences for what could influence social media and the future of freedom of expression in the world. 181.39.69.107 (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a campaigning newspaper. We're not here for what could happen, we're here for what has happened, and at the moment that's not enough to merit a separate article. If it's important for the world to read about Durov's arrest, how does putting that information in his main biography stop the world from reading it? (And I really don't think you mean 'neuralgic'.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is my discussion given. 181.39.69.107 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very high-profile case involving multiple countries and one of the most used apps in the world. If he's suddenly released without charge we can always reconsider. Johndavies837 (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — Precedent shows that it is difficult to sustain articles where the arrest itself does not bear any meaningful significance; compare this article to Arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried, not Arrest of Imran Khan. The argument could be made that Russia's response heightens this article's notability—though it is expected of Russia to leverage the situation—but as it stands, there is not enough information to sustain an article without adding unnecessary information such as Russia blocking Telegram in 2018. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it notable that a large proportion of the current article is responses from within Russia, especially (though not only) from people who are either associated with the Russian government, or not notable. Who on earth is 'colonelcassad', who seems to think George Orwell was pro-censorship, for example? While you could totally merge the whole current article into Durov's main article, I think that in practice some judicious editing would be better. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - WP:TOOSOON to have separate article. If it becomes significant, it can be split. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Take out the background and reactions, and you have a simple "person was arrested without incident" paragraph that should be covered in the bio article. The reaction section is very puffery at this point and does not show that this will have any significant long term effects. Now, if this leads to him ultimately being convicted in a well-covered trial, then we can talk about a separate article, but a simple arrest is not something that needs a separate article at this time. To also add, there is no evidence there is enduring coverage of this, which means it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG for notability. Just being covered by the news is not a reason to create an article since WP is not a newspaper.Masem (t) 03:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Only adding that whole some details should be added to the bio article, the bulk of this should be at Telegram since the arrests stem from the service's policies, of which he's being the CEO is being held responsible for — Masem (t) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pavel Durov. This event is a news story with only news sources, and it is certainly in no way independently notable of the man himself. Zero reason for this to have its own article at this time. If you believe that this could be notable in the future and we need to wait for more info, that's further evidence it shouldn't be an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge GNG isn't the issue here, it is whether this merits a stand alone article right now. Given the lack of secondary sources I cannot see how this merits a stand alone article given articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well sourced, there's way too much information for this to be merged onto Durov's article and removing information to conform it with his article doesn't make sense to me personally. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pavel Durov per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Wait until the dust settles - either he would be freed or there would be a notable trial. Brandmeister^talk 10:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's similar to as saying, "2024 CrowdStrike incident -- let's delete it as NOTNEWS and wait as dust settles, merge it Windows article". Wikipedia everyday write articles about news. The project Wikinews exist to handle it. The best answer would be Merge to Wikinews and wait until dust settles. Who here wants to write Wikinews? Better is vote for deletion. ~~ ssr (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not similar to that at all. For a start, Crowdstrike is not made by Microsoft, and is a clearly distinct topic from Windows, so such a merger would be obviously inappropriate. For another thing, the Crowdstrike outage grounded entire airlines and caused global disruption. So far, this arrest is inconveniencing exactly one billionaire. I still don't see how this fork is justified - this information would be better merged into the main Pavel Durov article, except for the increasingly irrelevant laundry list of reactions, which should largely be deleted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable self-sufficient exessevely sourced subject. The text is already looking larger than original Pavel Durov article text. --ssr (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Because people keep adding useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff to the article. This is the "cheap" way to make any topic seem important, to catalog every possible reaction mentioned out there, but that's not encyclopedic, we should be documenting long-term aspects and any actual action-driven responses that would have an impact. — Masem (t) 12:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  News-like activity on Wikipedia should be handled by Wikinews, as the rule WP:NOTNEWS literally and correctly concludes. After that, the notable output should be absorbed in Wikipedia with Wikinews keeping archives of the news processed. And that is the clear rule: WP:NOTNEWS. Why it is not obeyed? As long as it is not, the limitless "deletion nominations of news events" with, as you said is the true "useless non-action, talk-only, reaction stuff". The community, or the WMF just have to make the rules obeyed correctly. Their own rules. BTW, the article will be kept. "Useless" were (will be) all efforts to delete it, starting with this nomination and votes "delete" and "merge". Just useless. --ssr (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is involving one of the most used messaging apps, and deserves it's own page. The page is well sourced, and it seems early to delete this article, as the story is still evolving. OnlyNano^talk 13:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's too early to have this page, as the story is still evolving. The alternative is that every single time a news story breaks anywhere, we create an article as though it's going to be the next big thing, and then go back and delete the ones that turn out not to be. That's ridiculous. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Yes, there are many sources covering this, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. If it turns out that this has a significant lasting impact, then we can create a separate article, but it is too soon to determine this. As for the size of the article, much of the background section would be covered in Durov's page, while most of the reactions section can simply be deleted. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event is recent but has received broad coverage in reliable sources (notability criteria). Its verifiable with reliable references. Generally adheres to NPOV. No Original Research. Adheres to BLP guidelines. I would argue that the article is too small, as it could benefit from additional context, especially regarding the legal implications and historical precedents for such an arrest, but the quality is currently more than acceptable relatively speaking. As time passes it should be evaluated for recentism, ensuring that it maintains relevance over time, but in its current state, there seem to be many large institutions and people that believe this to be a significant event. With regards to Merge: The broadness of topics included (social media, moderation, regulation, free speech) and the already extensive coverage would be an indication of this being suitable as its own article, and something broader than what is suitable on the bio of one man. The fact that there is some fluff only necessitates the pruning and improvement of the article. 148.252.104.241 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pavel Durov. This is a fork of Pavel Durov, and the question is not whether there is notability for the information. The question is whether this is a bad fork. Is it a POVFORK? Perhaps, if we say the coverage of this one event of this notable individual has become skewed out of proportion with the subject's importance. Even if not a POVFORK, it is a redundant fork, because this can and should be contained in a section about Durov. There are no strong reasons for an article split. The parent article is not too long, and this would be a strange split in any case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV ~~and WP:TOOSOON~~. The incident should have an article on their own. It's unnecessary to merge back into one article because it would be difficult to navigate. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does WP:TOOSOON support keeping this article, which was definitely created too soon? And it's our duty as editors to make the articles easy to navigate; we could improve this content by cutting out most of the increasingly irrelevant 'reactions'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also frustrating that my !vote directly above this one points out that SIGCOV is simply not the correct consideration here. This is a content fork. Also what secondary sources do we even have about this arrest? It all looks like news reporting to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the “Background” and “Arrest” sections are already way too long to be properly merged into the main article, and they contain very relevant information about the whole story. Without those details, I’d struggle to understand why he was arrested in first place.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we copied those in without change, those sections contain under 900 words. The subject's page is currently under 1800 words. The combined article would still be at the very short end of WP:SIZERULE. No split is justified on size. And bear in mind that as much of that information is already on the parent page, we don't need to copy it in, even assuming it is all even due. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we merge this into the parent article, we'd run into the problem of undue weight. I really don't think that he's notable for his arrest so that a large chunk of the article documents it. In case it is, then the split is justified.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BG info would not be needed. The reaction section here is absolutely overloaded with useless reactions (particularly on yet if he will be actually charged rather than just detained) Masem (t) 20:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Masem. It is a curious argument that we should keep an article because it contains information that would be undue for the subject. That's a delete argument. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the article is too long to be merged into a parent article which is not much longer in its current shape (I'd have probably supported a merger had the article been much shorter but still clear enough to explain what happened.). Masem is right that some content may be redundant and should be removed, but that should be discussed on the article's talk page with a proper action before this RfD concludes. The worst-case scenario is to wait for this RfD to conclude with a "Merge" result and let the closing admin merge only parts of the article without discussing what's relevant to remain. That's practically censorship.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is AfD, not RfD. The closing admin will not carry out the merge. If this AfD closes as merged, a closing admin is likely to just place a header on the article indicating the decision, and then it is up to any editors to complete the merge. When a merge is carried out, some or all of the content on this page may be copied to the merge target. Undue information and repetitive information need not be merged. See WP:MERGE. I think you are arguing against that outcome under a misapprehension about the process. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy it (this sounds like 'let's first agree to merge and then decide what to merge'). Please first remove the unnecessary content from the article to convince me support a merger. I simply can't support merging the article in the current shape.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's never been a requirement that when merge is suggested as an option at AFD to pre-determine what needs to be merged. A good merge argument at AFD will include what probably can be merged and what can be left behind, as that strengthens the merge rational, but its not a requirement to do so, and if an AFD closes as merge with no clear indication of what should be merged, then a talk page discussion can be opened to determine that, if no editor is bold enough to make the merge themselves after the AFD closes. Masem (t) 00:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Yes, the event is wholly notable, "it's important", or whatever, but this is regardless an unnecessary fork of the article on the human being; even if we were to merge every word of the arrest article into the main article, we would be well away from having any size concerns, and I do not expect such extensive merging to be necessary; around half of this arrest article covers reactions that could be trimmed to two sentences; the same goes for the "background". If anything, it is WP:TOOSOON to have an article, not to delete one; Wikipedia policy is not to "create an article on everything that gets a mention in the news" and then see if an article is really necessary, but the other way around. I don't see any further developments happening very rapidly; he was arrested, some people said "this is a bad thing", and that's about it for now. If somehow Telegram were to shut down following Durov's arrest, I would support a "2024 Telegram shutdown" article with section on Durov's arrest, but for now we do not need an article on an inconsequential arrest. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the standard procedure is to put it as an addition to the person's article and if it turns out that there is a reason it can become a separate article. Pallikari (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to save server space. Nashhinton (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the server space is just fine. Don't worry about it. Kline • talk • contribs 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer, I encourage any closing admin to disregard the above !vote, as the stated rationale is wrong. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because I think the event can fully be covered in the page for Durov himself. --Dynamo128 (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. It is independently notable, and it's quickly evolving. We have no deadline and can decide if it can be merged once the situation has stabilized. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not independently notable; the arrest of Pavel Durov is only notable because it happened to Pavel Durov, about whom we already have an article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge The usual violation of WP:NOTNEWS of constructing a bloated bio-fork out of every news story of what is surely just the first step in a significant episode in this fellow's life. "no deadline" cuts both ways: there's no penalty for waiting for a story to resolve itself before writing about it, especially since we don't actually have any real idea of how significant this is going to turn out to be. Edit it down to a more succinct and encyclopedic level of detial and put it in his bio for now. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, no need to be in a hurry to merge. This is most certainly a notable event which raises this guy's profile to the level of Assange and Snowden. The bio of the "Mark Zuckerberg of Russia" was only about one-third the size of Zuck's bio before Durov's arrest. Merging would fix that discrepancy if nobody insisted on culling the content due to "undue" and "BLP1E" concerns. That's a big if. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument is to keep information here because it might be culled there as undue, then this is a WP:POVFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the summary of this article in Durov's bio should have the same POV as the detailed article here. Just a matter of WP:Summary style. wbm1058 (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Summary style guidance is about splitting an article when the parent becomes too large to contain the whole. That clearly does not apply here. The parent article can contain a full encyclopaedic coverage of the event of his arrest in his article without coming anywhere close to a size split. His article is the place for this. There is no merit in making the reader read a second page for relevant encyclopaedic coverage of this event. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be technically true today, but seems unlikely to still be true a week from today. Hence my "no rush" vote. Seems a pointless exercise to merge now, only to be forced to split it back a week or two from now. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because there is a Pavel Durov article.→StaniStani 01:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge now while the scope is limited to Durov. Sure, as a Telegram user, I also worry about the implications of Durov's arrest. Yet, who's to say it will make waves in the world in the way that Assange and Snowden's actions had? What if things just return to the status quo? If everyone's fears do become true and the repercussions grow beyond Durov, we can always fork to the larger perspective. For comparison, look at Snowden's article versus the 2010s global surveillance disclosures. Spade6179 (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and don't merge (though obs the main bio needs a small summary). Already massively independently notable at the time of the nom, and each passing hour adds stacks of new sources to the already overwhelming keep case. There's all sorts of notable aspects much covered in an article on the arrest rather the min bio - such as calls for tech innovators to relocate from Europe to US, the pov that the arrest was justifiable for crime fighting & internet safety reasons - and then the counter arguments to all of this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-familiarise yourself with WP:SNOW. At the moment there's a reasonable number of opinions on both sides, with a variety of justifications, and both positions come with a viable course of action. This isn't snow territory at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the alternative Merge. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 09:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are the alternatives. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article will expand fairly soon because arrests lead to indictments similar to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. The tally including me and proposer is currently 16-18 (keep-merge). Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:CRYSTAL - at the moment it's only growing because people are stuffing more reactions and responses into it. Some are overkill, the rest would be fine in the Pavel Durov article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an unprecedented event with major geopolitical speculation attached. I see it as having similar notability as Censorship of TikTok, for example. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:5084 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not unprecedented. A lot of people are using words ('unprecedented', 'exponential', for example) without reference to what they actually mean. There are plenty of precedents, including some that are being cited by other Keep !voters. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if charges are laid and bail is refused as the situation will become similar to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange or if this incident leads to the shutdown of Telegram, but merge if bail is provided or released without charge and no substantive changes are made to Telegram. Yes the article in its current form is very poorly written and needs a substantive rewrite, but that alone isn't grounds for outright deletion. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion may run its course before the answer to this becomes clear; that's part of why I'm proposing the merge. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything seems to be too rushed, give a few more days than usual for this AfD to settle before closing. We run the risk of this discussion coming back quickly and repeatedly in one form or another if the discussion is not allowed to settle. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless a majority of editors think it's WP:TOOSOON, in which case it should be merged. Nataev ^talk 19:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the purpose of this discussion. Or are you saying you only believe in Merge !votes that specifically cite WP:TOOSOON? GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because an arrest implies Durov is accused of a crime and that makes this is a WP:BLPCRIME issue. While his biography could document his arrest, a detailed article dedicated to the merits, or otherwise, of his arrest, at this stage, is far too soon and just news. Wikipedia should wait until the judicial process reaches a conclusion about whatever crimes Durov is accused of and then the article can be named to match. WP:CRIME applies. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because a separate article unnecessarily duplicates content which can be incorporated into Pavel Durov and Telegram (software) § Criticism. It's easier to maintain when merged. Y. Dongchen (talk) 02:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to Telegram (software) may not be easier. Per Graywalls, "there's no WP:DEADLINE" to merge. Where was this "explained in talk"? Not at Talk:Telegram (software). – wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because far WP:TOOSOON and other reasons presented above. General Ization ^Talk 02:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is still enough WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG We need keep. 1.2.177.186 (talk) 03:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's also still not independent of Pavel Durov. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an unprecedented event. --Erokhin (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Plenty of people, including rich and famous people, have been arrested in the past. And it's still not separate from the biography of the person it happened to. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. First thinking is `keep' in view of current attention, but a comparable event in the past, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky#Criminal_charges_and_incarceration, lacks a separate page, and in the retrospect this looks adequate. Comech (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per reasons above based on WP:TOOSOON, most notably due to WP:ARTICLESIZE. The combined size of this article and Pavel Durov is only 4,400 words, thus per WP:SIZERULE noting that "Length alone does not justify division or trimming", the current split is unnecessary. Despite GNG and SIGCOV for a standalone article, it appears that many readers are not finding the content they are looking for based on page views, only around 4%. [7] It would therefore benefit the reader for this articles information to be within the BLP article, assuming that the spike in hits to Durovs page is due to his arrest, which I believe is fair to assume. I otherwise don't believe this is a NOTNEWS issue, and arguments for RECENTISM otherwise appear weak due to the likely historical significance of such an arrest. To otherwise counter Cameron Dewe, CRIME only applies to "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial", thus is not relevant to this discussion, as Durov had a BLP article prior to his arrest. This is also a misinterpretation of BLPCRIME; it's not assumed someone arrested is accused of a crime by default and documenting an arrest by no means violates this policy. He has otherwise been charged with 12 counts. CNC (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, though I'd support a separate article if the trial receives significant, long-term coverage and/or results in Telegram being shut down. JSwift49 18:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At first I also did not recognize resons for such an article. But after closer inspection - of the notability of the event - and the article itself, I am really supportive. And naturally hoping that others vote only after being familiar with the matter. IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. The event is still going on, and “Arrest of Pavel Durov” will move on to Prosecution, Trial, Verdict of Pavel Durov. We cannot predict the whole story for now thus it’s impossible to appropriately write a standalone article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move > Arrest and indictment of Pavel Durov or Merge: Based on new reports of Pavel Durov being formally indicted by French prosecutors on six criminal charges related to complicity, being placed on judicial supervision after paying a 5 million Euro bail, and being banned from leaving France, and based on similar articles formats' such as Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange, with Indictment and Arrest swapped due to the ordering of events in Durov's case if the article is moved instead of being merged. Since bail was posted, merging could be considered if the arrest and indictment on their own are not exceptional enough.

Sources: [8][9][10][11] Noble Attempt (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: outstanding article with sufficiently thorough coverage. I disagree to delete or merge, the Page length is more than 43K (in bytes)

QalasQalas (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to Indictment and arrest of Pavel Durov as proposed by another user. It's a major event of global relevance. MaeseLeon (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any claims that this is a "major event" are in the realm on WP:NOT#CRYSTAL as we have no idea what impact this might have. It could have one but we cannot speculate as WPians. Masem (t) 13:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major event in the sense that the person is famous, the arrest resulted in numerous reactions by global leaders and influential people who raised concerns regarding the freedom of speech, and the global media paid careful attention to it. I'm wondering how this event doesn't deserve a stand-alone article based on notability when we already have articles about a violent arrest of a 27-year-old white man in Mulberry, Arkansas and an arrest of a 33-year-old shop-lifter from Walmart in Greenwood Village, Colorado.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not be used at AFD, in the case of those two the attempt to arrest was violent making the arrest attempt newsworthy, though I would still leave open the question if either have shown enduring coverage since these events. Here because it is only an arrest (one completed without incident), we really have no idea what impact it will have, it is all speculation how this impacts Telfram and social media in general. Masem (t) 13:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest itself has already made an impact given the names of the political figures, human rights activists, scholars and businesspeople who made statements in response to it. As the story further unfolds (he may be released or taken to court), we can expand it with all additional information and change the article's title. If this eventually impacts Telegram or the social media in general, that should be treated independently and documented in a separate article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction sections of just commentary are not indications if long term significance, and are used often to prop up claims of notability. Just because we have media trying to fill 24/7 coverage with anyone they can find talking about a subject doesn't mean we need to treat that as notable. If there was an actual impact like Russia cutting diplomatic ties with France over the event, maybe there would be something. But in taking a "how would we have written this 10 years from now" view, this article is excessively overloaded with unnecessary detail for an encyclopedia, and the simple relevant facts can be covered in existing articles. Masem (t) 14:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a valid point for most articles of the type “Arrest of X” or “Death of Y”, which don’t demonstrate any long-lasting impact years after the events they document happened. The real problem is that we frequently run AfDs to discuss the notability of articles involving famous people, while similar articles involving unknown people go unnoticed and remain on the encyclopedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there was no biography articles about that 27-year-old white man from Mulberry, AR, or about a 33-year-old shop-lifter from Colorado; that's why standalone articles appeared... Comech (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a terrible argument. It means that arrests of minor local criminals are more notable than arrests of notable people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes to my point above that for those articles, the long term enduring coverage of the event really isn't there and these likely should be deleted. At least here, we have two existing articles where this can be covered (his bio and Telegram) Masem (t) 19:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m in favour of deleting all such instances, but we need to work out a more systematic approach. We really have the problem of such articles being swept under the carpet for years.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now, the separate article is becoming a coat rack for political posturing from commentators. (A common challenge this past year, I've seen many more recentist articles on single-event topics that trigger a pundit response, where the article is mainly a list of pundit comments) Appropriate to expand the article in his bio to accomodate more detail, and to keep a longer list of quotes and related links on the talk page or in a draft. – SJ + 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is not ordinary, topic is presumed to merit an article. This is obviously not original research or the speculation of the Wikipedia editors. The biography of Pavel Durov is important even without this case. Not only John Scott-Railton, but many independent reliable sources consider the case to be an unprecedented event (such as NYT, WP, Politico, BBC, FT, Aleksandra Urman (University of Zurich), Mariëlle Wijermars (Maastricht University), etc). French lawyers told AFP it was "unprecedented" for an individual to be held criminally liable for what users chose to do on a tech platform. Al Jazeera: In the war for control of the internet, the potential significance of Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov’s arrest is difficult to overstate. Authorities in different countries are considering their possible actions: Iran, India, Indonesia and others.
Perhaps few people use Telegram in France, but the issue clearly went beyond the borders of one country, one person or just one messenger. Since the French authorities decided to continue the matter, it cannot be said that it was a storm in a teacup, etc., and will have to wait until the books are written. More over, the criminal prosecution will last for months, possibly years, giving rise to new discussions.--Proeksad (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficiently notable event with a plenty of coverage by reliable sources. Niokog (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never in doubt. But what is the argument for having this biographical detail split out from Durov's biography? And which of those sources, if any, are secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pavel Durov as said, WP:NOTNEWS. Twomithe (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please note Arrest of Pavel Durov has been moved to Arrest and indictment of Pavel Durov, see its talk page. Bonus note, the current tally of this AfD is 27-27 (keep-merge). Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a vote. See WP:VOTE. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this article page move that not only occurred in the middle of an AFD discussion but after only a few days of a Move discussion where the nominator closed the discussion early in favor of his proposed outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Dib

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia version of this page may have potential sources. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bishops of major denominations have generally been considered to be notable. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BISHOPS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pert the above, Catholic Bishop. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 00:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Khoury Sleman

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations have generally been considered to be notable. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Catholic Bishop, but better sourcing is certainly desirable. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:OUTCOMES states: "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else." So even though clergy are considered notable, there still have to be sources for all of the info in the article. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact he is a bishop is wholly verifiable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether he is a bishop. The question is whether there are sources that support any more than that one fact. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That fact is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove all of the unverified information in the article, we are left with one line: "On 14 March 2015 Elias Slaiman resigned his office as Maronite Eparch of Latakia." The rest is unverified. The one source gives dates, such as the date he was ordained, but says nothing about the pope assigning him to Latakia, nothing about anything in the second paragraph. Following WP:BLP all of that must be removed unless sources can be found. I've marked those paragraphs accordingly. Lamona (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the only source we have for him at all - a database entry. -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 13:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Knox

AfDs for this article:

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

This DJ/TV host fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. All sources are primary-source official bios or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in other coverage. No WP:SIGCOV appears to be available. (NB: It is listed as a second nomination, but the first nomination's article was likely about a different Jay Knox.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very easy call. Not notable in any way and clearly fails WP:GNG criterion. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator, a majority of sources are clearly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. I can find no further significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GhostOfNoMeme 12:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Akinloye

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

Fails WP:GNG or any SNG, the sources are not speaking for the subject in question. Largely lacking WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSes. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Leaning weak keep, because there are sources that point to significant coverage about him. I am just that not sure if there is consensus (doesn't seem like it on archived RS feed) that conclude tribuneonlineng.com or guardian.ng to be generally unreliable. Those two plus a couple of paragraphs on thenationonlineng.net, make up reason to pass WP:SIGCOV and GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very much not notable, from the "30 under 30 list" to the typical puffy articles from Nigerian media, this individual isn't suitable for wikipedia. I'm not finding any suitable sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the sources are significant coverage and that there's enough volume here to pass GNG. But otherwise I'm with Oaktree - these are promotional, puffy, and non-WP:RS sources. -- asilvering (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Ziaul Haq (Juyel)

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating editor removed the AfD template. I have reinstated it and warned them both for a misleading edit summary, and for removal of the template. That last means they have now received a double invitation to make a comment here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is becoming tedious now, reinstating the AfD banner, now for the second time. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:16, 25 August 2024 (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/2024 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could anyone with knowledge of the Bengali language please check the sources in the article? GTrang (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GTrang Google Translate is increasingly effective. I was able to see all the (new) sources except one. Each of them speaks to the subject's status as Mayor, and I do not believe that mayors qualify in general for WP:NPOLITICIAN. One also speaks about an affray, but I am not persuaded that this confers notability upon the subject. A gadget of some description prevented my having access to the Jaghonews item in translation. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GTrang: With regard to the Bengali sources, Daily Naya Diganta, Janakantha, and Jago News 24 are generally reliable for what newspapers are usually reliable for. Somoy News is classified as generally unreliable by User:Headbomb/unreliable, I think unfairly because that's based on a single WP:RSN discussion with very low participation where the main complaint was that their English was poor (almost all their news reporting is in Bengali, not English). Barishal Times is a local news organization without much of an established reputation for accuracy and fact checking, but is probably okay. Barisal Bani is obscure, with no reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I wouldn't cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldbruce (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 18:34, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no presumption of notability for mayors under WP:NPOL. It is possible for them to be notable by meeting the WP:GNG, but Bauphal is a municipality with a population of 11,000-12,000, and it would be highly unusual for a mayor of a Bangladeshi town that size to be notable. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are multiple, mostly reliable sources. The first three are independent of him, but not intellectually independent of each other – they all say essentially the same thing: that he's the first mayor, elected on 22 May 2012, and unopposed in January 2022. The last four are independent, but are primary sources that say little about him: he spoke at a rally, his supporters clashed with opponents, he is one of a large group of people charged in connection with violence at local political events. All of that is par for the course for a Bangladeshi politician, and it may take years for the courts to decide the cases. What the sources lack is significant coverage of him and any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts. So does not meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Awatramani

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. The article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news and lacks significant independent sources that demonstrate sustained coverage or impact. Furthermore, the subject's primary notability appears to be tied to associations with celebrities, rather than achievements that would warrant a standalone article. Also the article has been deleted before. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 10:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources with significant coverage of the subject; BBC Marathi and the South China Morning Post are particularly promising. Clearly passes WP:GNG, GNG requires significant coverage of the subject, and these two coverages are not trival at all. And if I talke about the earlier AfD, it was just soft deleted means that was a PROD. GrabUp - Talk 11:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add a few more points. First of all, this AfD does not fulfill WP:AFDHOWTO, as the nominator did not notify the author. Secondly, I want to counter the nominator’s claim that ‘the article relies primarily on trivial coverage from entertainment news.’ My response to this is, that a person related to finance or business will naturally not receive news coverage from entertainment sources, similarly this person will not get coverage from finance-related articles. It is perfectly normal for someone to receive coverage within their relevant niche. The important factor is whether the sources meet the criteria of WP:SIGCOV, which I believe is clearly satisfied in this case. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for forgetting to notify the author, it slipped my mind. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 12:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M S Hassan: You again forgot to add '(2nd nomination)' while linking to the discussion on the author's talk page, You linked to the first AfD of this article. I recommend using WP:TWINKLE to nominate any articles in the future, as it will automate everything. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agree, why it's kept for deletion, without any valid reason. @M S Hassan kindly confirm before any deletion. Muffeda (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Orhan Awatramani is a notable public figure with significant media coverage in reputable sources. He has a strong social media presence and cultural influence, particularly within certain communities. The article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, supported by reliable, independent sources. Vakanada Putin (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : it's an notable person. Muffeda (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muffeda: What made you come here? Your first edit was to vote here! Did someone ask you to vote? New editors typically don’t vote in AfD unless they are specifically told to. GrabUp - Talk 05:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC) - blocked sock[reply]

Comment: (note to Admin) The article author Vakanada Putin and Muffeda are both blocked for sockpuppetry. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some participation from non-sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's obviously some sort of nonsense going on here, but the subject is clearly notable. Even ignoring all publications that could possibly be construed as WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is still enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG (see GrabUp's comment above). The refbombing and blatant promotion needs to be cleaned up, though. C F A 💬 03:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The BBC and the South China Post seal the notability deal, the coverage from Indian media is helpful, but these show critical notice outside of their local area, which is more than enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 13:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger S. Hayes

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

Biography of a judge for whom I cannot find in depth coverage coverage. None of his roles provide a presumption of notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New York. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any BLP notability there; no source and is an orphan. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable lower-level judge with no assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created some time ago, but no real substantive claim to notability. No secondary sources. Nothing to indicate they exist somewhere. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable online sources found to demonstrate subject's notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suborno Isaac Bari

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

An article on the same person was previously deleted (twice) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soborno Isaac Bari. It is now four years later and he has been admitted to college but he has still not reached the level of adult notability for his achievements in math or physics. (See WP:PRODIGY.) CapitalSasha ~ talk 05:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Mathematics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for including the previous AFD nominations in your statement. Since the subject has already been to AFD before, Soft Deletion is not an option here. However, I think the sources have improved a lot since those 2020 AFDs so a source review would be helpful rather than just rubber-stamping the closure of the previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tend to agree with the advice in the essay linked in the nomination. If we're going to write about kids, we need to be careful. Relevant to the present case are the admonishments, Students are not notable prodigies for their performance as students, no matter how advanced they are in their work, and Prodigious children who demonstrate skill in mathematics or science are expected to have published works on a par with their notable adult academic peers. Another pertinent concern is the general idea of not having a whole article about a person only known for one thing. Only one event has been covered with any degree of reliability, namely his admission into NYU, and that's being very generous to the silly season reporting. On the whole, I'm just not seeing a notability case that is strong enough to outweigh the concerns here. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to encourage more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with XOR'easter's comment Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2024 (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 Wikimedian of the Year#Wikimedian of the Year (formerly Wikipedian of the Year). This discussion appears close, but a full read through the input (thank you all for explaining your choices) shows there is consensus against a standalone article given the degree of sourcing focusing on Rosman's award and questions about the independence of the sourcing. Should there be another target where these Wikipedians can be discussed, the history remains under the redirect as no case has been made for the deletion of the material. Star Mississippi 22:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taufik Rosman

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

This is a BLP1E. Also, Wikimedian of the Year is not a major award recognized by the public. I'd say something like an Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor would be and WotY isn't in the same category at all. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I would say the article is non-notable. First of all, the only thing this person is known for, is the Wikipedian of the Year award, which barely passes any notability guidelines for people. Secondly, little information is known for the person nor any event he is involved, is consider significant. I'm inclining towards the Delete option. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to !vote because I met Taufik recently and it feels improper to specify a desired outcome when I'm at risk of a COI. In regards to other PAGs, I think he has more significant coverage and passes GNG where I wouldn't. From there, I think it's a debate about whether BLP1E or ANYBIO is more applicable. I'll leave that for others to decide. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referencing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover in my comment above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for similar reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover: Wikimedian of the Year is a significant award, even if not the most important award someone can win. Also, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. clearly is not true: their role in winning Wikimedian of the Year was quite substantial, being the winner of the award. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An employee/volunteer recognition award by a non-profit with revenues of 180 million USD is certainly significant to those involved with the non-profit. However, it is hardly a well-known or significant award (what ANYBIO requires) given the lack of accompanying news stories about the award. As someone who is involved with that non-profit it's hardly surprising you consider it significant, but Wikipedia's standards are higher than this. So unless coverage can be found for this recipient there should be no article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- preamble though: I really disagree with the nominator's attempt to set the bar on major awards at Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. The bar for award notability is far lower than that. That aside, I don't think that Wikimedian of the Year is at that level in itself (even the article on the award doesn't provide justification for considering it in a major award category). It is, though, the type of award that in many cases will be accompanied by coverage showing that the broader public has already recognized the efforts of the writer/editor/contributor and thus counts for something in my book, but not enough to rise above the notability bar. If Wikimedian of the Year wants to include a "Brief Biographies of Winners" section and include a little bit on each non-blue-linked winner, I'd have no objection. But there just aren't enough RSes here so far to indicate that the award was recognized as significant for this winner. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's covered significantly by four independent sources. I'm unsure of the reliability of the other three, but the Straits Times looks pretty solid to me as the "most-widely circulated newspaper in the country". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other three, Rise Malaysia! seems way too promotional to count for anything, the Rakyat Post looks like something that'd count towards GNG, and Malaysia Today looks like it could as well. I meant what I said above that he meets GNG, it's those other factors that make things more complicated. Anyways, I'll refrain from commenting further given my obvious COI here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per my comment on Clover's AfD; although Rosman has a greater claim to notability, this is still ultimately an ANYBIO fail and BLP1E. Queen of Hearts (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the existing references, including the 3 added by মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন since the start of the AfD, were all occasioned by his becoming Wikimedian of the Year, and although one of those added, like the pre-existing Diff reference, is by Wikimedia itself (the Bangla reference), the others demonstrate extensive press coverage and together they give a fair amount of information about him, some of which we weren't including. I was able to expand the article into a decent bio, considering his age (his birth date is referenced, which I made clearer). Also, doing a bit of WP:BEFORE while trying to decide which way to !vote on this article, I found an extended news article that devotes a lot of its space to him while not being about the award at all, and a mention in a 2021 WHO news release. That tips me over the edge, I believe he's received enough coverage in reliable sources for his career as a Malaysian Wikimedian to merit a freestanding article. Especially so since the 2 sources I added use variants of his name, starting with Mohd, and since I am unable to search in Bahasa Malaysia let alone other Malaysian languages or Bangla. Those who can may well find more; and some of the coverage may not be online, or not be indexed where I can see it from the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expanding the article. The name in searches thing doesn't surprise me because I learned a little about how Malaysian names work when talking to Taufik. Apparently his father's name is literally Rosman. Also, his award was so much of a bigger deal than mine. As far as Canada is concerned, I'm a nobody. But he had TV reporters take a bus ride from Malaysia to Singapore to cover this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was better coverage offline or in other languages. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fundamentally this is still a WP:BIO1E situation. Moreover, in my opinion we must apply more stringent notability standards, basically on IAR grounds, to biographies of individuals whose main claim to notability is for being Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia as a whole and all of us here have a degree of COI in relation to such biographies and there is an element of self promotion for the project when they are kept. Nsk92 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year: Let me say I greatly appreciate their contributions, but there is not inferred notability from winning the Wikimedian of the Year award. From my searches, I don't believe there's sustained coverage on the individual and all the coverage was related to that at the time award. As such, I believe it makes the most sense to redirect it to Wikimedian of the Year. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WMotY is in no way "well-known" or "significant" outside of our own community. This does not pass ANYBIO, and the subject is not exempt from standard GNG sourcing. The sources are local news about the award alone each with largely the same content, not substantial coverage of his biography and I believe the WMotY page covers this content adequately. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yngvadottir's additional sources. The page meets GNG, the topic is notable, especially in his home nation, and editors are implying that Wikipedia and Wikimedia are less important than they actually are and then using that opinionated reasoning to lessen the accomplishments of the page subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/weak delete. Congratulations on the award, but I think some other things are needed for an article. Good luck! Nadzik (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a BIO1E. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, no sustained coverage and the award is nowhere close to the threshold for ANYBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have about equal numbers o participants arguing for Keep, Delete or Redirect (which I think is a good ATD if this article is not Kept). As an aside (I usually get in trouble for these), in my time on Wikipedia and AFD in particular, I've noticed that editors set a much higher bar for articles on individuals who happen to edit on one of the projects than they set for individuals in other areas. It's really tough for a person who also edits to have an article that is not nominated for deletion even if there are decent sources establishing their notability which would otherwise be accepted for non-editors. I think there is an over-compensation for any COI or bias that might also be present. That's just an observation, not a "vote" on what should happen with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not many articles covering this person, so seems to fail GNG. Source 1 is the best and it's a marginal RS per Source Highlighter. Others are about activities, not the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: You don't consider SIGCOV about the individual's activities to be relevant to an article about an individual? Just trying to make sure I understand your argument here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the other articles were focused on the person, rather on Wikimedia activities/conferences and things, where this person is mentioned. I was hoping to see more stories about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. The Wikimedia award isn't enough to establish notability on its own, although I agree with what [User:Mscuthbert|Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert]] stated above regarding the bar for award notability being far lower than awards like the Academy Award or Congressional Medal of Honor. Congratulations to Taufik and I hope he accomplishes even greater things, but for now, this is WP:BIO1E. Mooonswimmer 16:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedian of the Year. Xegma(talk) 17:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slippery Slope, redirecting the last two Wikimedian of the Year winners would be an unneeded ride to the bottom. Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and the Foundation are notable enough for the yearly award winners to deserve an article, even if the world at-large hasn't caught onto that yet. In Rosman's case, his national media did, which gives the page enough sources to meet GNG. Removing Rosman and Clover from the ranks of notables purposely underestimates, and thus denigrates, the project's proper place in civilization's rush of culture occurring in the 21st century. Please consider stopping here and reversing course. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be BLP1E, but The Straits Times, Free Malaysia Today, and the slightly lesser coverage in the New Straits Times are all quite solid sources, so I'm not convinced by the coverage/source quality arguments above. CMD (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [12]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The WalesOnline source is essentially a promotional interview. Nothing else presented or found remotely meeting RS. BusterD (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Marr Williams

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and not found sources to add. The article has no footnotes, and the only external links are IMDb and an interview. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Info is even thin on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. I didn't find anything about him in a basic search (and going in 7 pages deep). Lamona (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. I looked him up, and his roles were so insignificant that most of them didn’t even have last names. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aviv Elor

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

Typical promotional article about a business founder. Every source cited in this article is affiliated with the subject in one way or another, or is not about the biography subject. Citations either stem from Santa Cruz Works (his company is a member of their accelerator program) or coverage from University of California, Santa Cruz sources, where he went to school. Other sources are actually about his sister, Amit Elor, who is an olympian and do not mention the subject of the article. I've searched in the usual places and haven't turned up anything but more stuff from the UCSC newslatter. This person doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, so the article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. MrOllie (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical entrepreneur promotion stuff, ref-bombed with half-relevent, semi-reliable sources. Nswix (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A legitimate researcher, but not passing notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2024 (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. Once we discard the clearly canvassed (sock?) votes, we land on a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 12:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E. A. Jabbar

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

There are no reliable sources, almost all sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Kerala. Youknow? (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about the best I can pull up [13], a blog post from a RS. Sourcing now in the article is of the same quality; the Times of India is a marginal-reliability source per Source Highlighter. With nothing better found, it's not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a well known personality in rationalism in kerala. See his debate itself has covered in national news papers [[14]]He is also a well known author [[15]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC) — 2600:4040:4527:3200:B820:9D4B:4640:990E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Popular in this filed - rationalism in Kerala. Mostly people from this category might not have frequent news appearances like of celebrities. [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.13.213 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NBIO and WP:GTEST (news search), imo. Called a "Renowned Atheist and Speaker" here, is featured in the Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala article. Tag with Template:BLP sources (more citations needed) instead of deletion. Helps balance out the encyclopedia in this topic area. 5Q5|^✉ 11:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to M._M._Akbar#Debate_with_E._A._Jabbar. Page is WP:CFORK. 14 sources on the page. Source 1 is WP:ROUTINE news about subject seeking police protection. Source 2 is about debate between rationalist E A Jabbar and Islamic preacher M M Akbar. Source 3 is again news with passing mention. Source 4 and 5 are same about the debate. Source 6 duplicate of source 1. Source 7 is YouTube on the debate. Source 8 is also about debate. Source 9 duplicate of source 2. Source 10 is also about debate. Source 11 is YouTube blog of the subject. Source 12 is duplicate of source 7. Source 13 and 14 are user generated Facebook pages. No sources have any significant coverage on the biography of the subject or any other except for the debate. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article primarily cites TOI, which is not a reliable source to establish notability. I agree with Oaktree’s decision to delete the article. GrabUp - Talk 07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: simple google search with his Malayalam language name itself gives a lot of reliable sources [19]. Also Malayalam Wikipedia does exist for a long time. [20]

Wikipedia need to be balanced. The person whom he had debate with M. M. Akbar has English references than him just because he is an Islamic scholar and this person is an atheist. On Indian atheism topic he is notable. So for English reference better tag with ‘need more English references’. Do not delete the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.59.127.107 (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. All IP votes geolocate to Virginia and close proximity to Washington DC and are likely same person. RangersRus (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advice to IP which approached my talk page: Sorry if a IP is indulging in socking no point in providing advice at user talk page, hence here. Overzealous attitudes can be unhelpful and counter productive. I suggest the IP to voluntarily distance from topic area and first substantially improve acquaintance regarding checks and balances of various Wikipedia:Policies - it takes hard study work. Last but not least avoid WP:CANVASS, WP:SOCK, if any. Bookku (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.MAL MALDIVE (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : failed WP:GNG, This is a YouTube promotion ( WP:NOTPROMO ), Like self writing, there are many YouTubers like this in Kerala and he is only one person, so there is no need for an article --Spworld (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What a mess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: There is some coverage but it is mostly routine and hardly significantly about Jabbar himself. C F A 💬 04:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree more citations need to be added. The article passes WP:SET and satisfies GNG. He's well known in his domain, which itself is a growing domain globally. Rasnaboy (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's full self promotion, running the debate and running YouTube. YouTube lacks notability quality and sources are limited Ptmlp (User talk:Ptmlp) 09:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi @WikiShovel, hope you are fine. I think this AFD hijacked by some SOCKS! can you check this? please, Regards Youknow? (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear notability established. Important figure, and the article is supplemented by popular news. Zero reason to delete, and accusations of sockpuppetry are unfounded. 90.205.88.148 (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note ⚠︎: It is the unsigned IP WP:SIG of the speaking users that is supported. Feeling a doubt whether it is all the same person (WP:SOCK) or their people, Most are unsigned ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, this Afd is divisive, with various allegations of sockpuppetry and a consensus unlikely to emerge. As such, to help determine Jabbar's notability, I have prepared a {{Source assess table}} to help determine Jabbar's notability. I don't expect this table to be too long, considering the current sources in the article are mostly from one major publication. Note that this only reflects the sources in the article as of September 3, and does not account for any futurre additions.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Clintonfan1022
https://www.youtube.com/eajabbar/about	Subject's own YouTube page	In this context, the source is being used only to confirm Jabbar's total views and subscribers.	Obviously, his own YouTube page is going to be about himself.	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/rationalist-seeks-police-protection-over-blog-threat-in-kozhikode/articleshow/53581885.cms	I don't see any promotional wording in the article, so it doesn't appear to fall afoul of NEWSORGINDIA.	WP:TOI states that the Times of India sometimes had a poor reputation for fact-checking. This article is related to politics and religion, and is not supplemented by other reliable sources, so I think Wikipedia shoud err on the side of caution here and not use it for determining notability.	The article is dedicated entirely to Jabbar, and his request for police protection.	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/tracking-indian-communities/to-believe-or-not/	The author doesn't appear to have any connection with Jabbar.	As above. This also appears to be a blog post, rather than a conventional article. The author's profile has no description, and I couldn't find anything that seemed like it could be them. Furthermore, the paragraphs where Jabba is mentioned are largely his own words.	? As mentioned, the article is mostly a quotation of his own words, and doesn't expand on that at all, aside from a brief introduction.	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/kys-rebuts-knms-attack-on-neo-atheism/articleshow/80237935.cms	No indication of not being independent.	See the first source.	The article is mostly about a debate involving Jabbar, and not Jabbar himself.	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/tracking-indian-communities/god-doesnt-need-us-to-save-him/		This is another blog post, written by the same person.	The article is dedicated to Jabbar.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

N.B -- The article has 7 sources as of writing, but two are used twice. There's no indication in the article's current sourcing that it passes WP:GNG, and therefore I recommend deletion. Clintonfan1022 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable, Clintonfan1022, that your first and only edit is putting together a source analysis table in an AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, additional sources: As I said above I believe E.A. Jabbar passes WP:GTEST ("Notability – Decide whether a page should be nominated for deletion."). All of the sources below include his name prominently or a mention and none of them are presently used in the article as a reference. There are many more possibilities in the Malayalam language.

Indian biographies are not my normal editing area, so I include these for any interested editor. Tag it with Template:BLP sources (more citations needed). 5Q5|^✉ 11:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the matter order mentioned in the link

1-[21]. About EX-Muslim in India.

There are many names in facebook groups and youtube groups in India, what is the connection with these article? Only a small mention is in this link

People have left Christianity in America and they are posting videos on Facebook and YouTube. Will they pass the notability quality as an article??

2- [22]. About EX-Muslim in Kerala India, Liyakkathali, President of Ex-Muslim Online Association in Kerala, said in this link

It's about It is not this article.

3-[23]. In the wake of the terrorist attack in Paris in 2016, there was a threat of violence from civilian terrorists in Kerala.

The incident did not happen. There is a small mention in this news that his name was mentioned in their list.

There is no source of notability to base this article on

4-[24]. This link explains the differences between Islamic law and Islamophobia, the subject of the debate which took place in it was Ex- Muslim opinions , not a significant mention of this article, And a report that looks like a sponsored news

5-[25]. Sponsored link , Magazine . No significant mention

6-[26]. blog post look like Sponsored blog

7-[27] (pdf). pdf about 2014 Kiss of Love protest

8-[28]. Mentioned in this link His own YouTube link Spworld2 (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bartolozzi

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

Not yet notable per WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. In a WP:BEFORE search the best I could find was the short Indy100 article on a hoax about his supposed death last year. The rest is social media, an article in WP:THESUN about the same hoax [29], and sponsored content pieces like these: [30], [31], [32]. Wikishovel (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and New Jersey. Wikishovel (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Fails WP:BIO. Sources seem full of self published. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2024 (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 Kuwaiti protests (2011–2012). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Abul

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

He is not notable at all; it's only his trial that sparked controversy around him. فيصل (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kuwaiti protests (2011–2012). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems fine, part of a larger event, but not terribly notable as an individual by themselves. Oaktree b (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

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

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much a promotional article [33], so the statement stands. Others are items this person published under their own name, and are a primary source. No articles strictly about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't commenting on the person named in the deletion, but the authors that wrote the paid pieces. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [34] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [35] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [36] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [37] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.

The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.

I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.

1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece

2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.

3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.

Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Liz! Your input helped me assess the sources better. With AfC and AfD processes, the article has significantly improved with mostly credible secondary sources that meet WP:NACADEMIC#7 in my view (thanks for highlighting Sohom!). I focused on Wikipedia:BLPRS-compliant sources that aren't based on press releases, particularly relevant in the Indian context (Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA). Here are a few: The Telegraph, The Hindu, and Indian Express highlight the author’s work on caste; Economic Times and Mint cover his work on regional inequality. The one-to-one Times of India interview is as a notable hate speech activist, and his October 2023 Indian Express Op-Ed, though a primary source, is relevant for his role as an LGBT academic from Global South (an underrepresented group on Wikipedia, here). Pinknetwork123 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to pass academic notability with very few publications. Wonderful that they advocate for change, but just not enough non-puffy coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are invariably not notable and this one is no exception. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The article has undergone a lot of revision since it was nominated. Here is the source assessment for the current version with 23 sources.
- Direct independent coverage from secondary sources for criteria WP:NACADEMIC#7 (reliable) 11 sources: 1 (Hindu), 2, 21, 22 (Indian Express), 6 (NDTV), 7, 20 (Times of India), 10, 11 (Telegraph India), 12 (New Indian Express), 23 (Bloomberg)
- Significant mention in independent coverage from secondary sources (reliable) 3 sources: 3 (Economic Times), 4 (The Mint), 20 (Outlook)
- Direct coverage from secondary sources but could be press release. (partially reliable) 2 sources: 13 (Times of India), 18 (Hindu)
- Primary sources (less reliable) 7 sources: 5 (Op-Ed by author - Indian Express), 8, 16 (Profile, Report - Chicago Booth), 9 (Paper by author - PLOS One), 14 (News - IIMB), 15 (News - King’s College), 17 (Report - US Congress)Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, criterium 7 of WP:NACADEMIC is clearly met with extensive and diverse media coverage in more than one occurrences. Meeting one of the criteria is enough for academic notability.

JamesKH76 (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to mention the extensive and diverse media coverage that Prateek Raj has received for his substantial impact outside academia, apart from the promotional, Op-ed, routine coverage of reports presented to governments and interview sources. To be precise, please highlight his substantial impact . Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm on the fence, but reading through the references I would say WP:NACADEMIC is probably satisfied (also per Sohom). There are a sufficient number of independent, reliable sources providing coverage, albeit some not spectacularly robust. GhostOfNoMeme 21:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also like to add that the nominator's obvious undisclosed paid editing aspersion seems a tad unnecessary and hardly in keeping with assuming good faith of our fellow editors. It hardly sets the stage for a productive discussion (not that AfDs are exactly known for their convivial atmosphere...). GhostOfNoMeme 21:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you expect good faith when the author has admitted to editing Wikipedia without logging in, to the extent that they are able to come up with a 20k byte article? Are you saying they’re unaware of their COI, yet have managed to produce an article that follows all style and formatting guidelines? They still haven't disclosed their COI on their user page, even after acknowledging it in this AfD. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think passing academic notability is a rather generous interpretation of the sources; they mention him but aren't about him. A few mentions isn't quite what we need to prove academic notability Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, maybe I am being too generous. I'll look back over the references when I have the time and consider amending my vote or just striking it. GhostOfNoMeme 02:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted by other editors as well, I think the subject not only has notability, supported by wide coverage in serious and reputed secondary media sources as listed in the article, none of which are even closely promotional (listed multiple times above), he is also salient on a front that I believe Wikipedia cares about: The addition of the nth soap actor on Wikipedia may not add to the diversity of knowledge base, but the addition of a noted LGBTQ rights and anti-hate speech Indian academic, covered by highly reputed sources, does (link to Wikipedia's page on Wiki Loves Pride). Many readers like me, may like to know about rare Indian business school intellectuals like him who work on subaltern topics and speak for subaltern voices. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this process there's been a bunch of protesting by the page creator User:Pinknetwork123 about the way they are being treated, a twenty edit contributor seemingly "newsplaining" policies to longtime editors. The editor's only contributions are to this page; IMHO this BLP work is very promotional. In defense of the nominator, if I'd come across this page in this condition, I'd have labelled it as likely COI (or autobiography) myself. On the merits, there's nothing in RS demonstrating this subject meets GNG, ANYBIO or NACADEMIC. Arguments to the contrary lack supporting evidence. Most presented sources are interviews or lack independence. As an aside, IMHO, User:GhostOfNoMeme is being overgenerous. BusterD (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, IMHO, User:GhostOfNoMeme is being overgenerous.

Yeah, having finally had the time to re-review the references (as I promised I would days ago but promptly forgot...) with a fresh perspective I'm inclined to agree. Leaning towards a Delete, all things considered. GhostOfNoMeme 17:30, 14 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 00:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Al-Mazeedi

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

I don't see that the person meets the notability criteria; I couldn't find reliable sources that talk about him.-- فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't qualify for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find sources in English to meet WP:BIO. I would reconsider if there are sources in Arabic but there's no Arabic version of this article. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are literally zero verified sources about this living person. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2024 (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. If someone wants to actively work on this to improve it, I'm happy to draftify. Star Mississippi 02:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Vada Vala

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

Simply fails WP:FILMMAKER. Sources are not helpful toward establishing notability on this subject, the ones from WP:BEFORE are not helpful either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 3 notable films directed (and WP:CREATIVE with 2 written). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. None of his work is widely cited and significantly well-known that have been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Only exception is film Samandar that has barely two reviews and I could not find any more. The subject has not won significant critical attention for his work. The sources on the pages lack significant coverage on the career of the subject and are more on actor'debut, title track, unveiling of teaser, claim of audience reaction, unreliable source like filmytown.com and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it needs more sources. Xegma(talk) 14:04, 2 September 2024 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Narayan

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

Simply fails WP:NDIRECTOR. Article does not speak for itself and sources from here and WP:BEFORE do not imply notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: does meet WP:DIRECTOR with two notable films directed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:DIRECTOR from long interviews. I've learned from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eashvar Karthic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DareshMohan (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now looking like a probably No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NDIRECTOR through Maradona (2018 film) and Nadanna Sambhavam. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:DIRECTOR and as per those two films. Xegma(talk) 13:41, 3 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waris Islam

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

Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Theatre, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claims of notability and vaguely promotional article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vera Monroig

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A mayor of Adjuntas needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO to merit a standalone article, Monroig does not pass any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Puerto Rico. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination above, and because this is essentially one big BLP violation En Español, wrapped in a burrito of OR. He was convicted of some unmentionable behavior towards an employee, but that’s the only sourced data in the stub. Having a single source, even if reliable (which I don’t concede), is by definition original research, which Wikipedia has never published. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, he's been involved in lawsuits [38], but nothing terribly notable from what I could understand of it.. Sourcing used in the article now seems unhelpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2024 (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. No rebuttal offered to the detailed source analysis showing a lack of sufficient sources to establish GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansolet Rossouw

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

Not a notable model. No references that are non-trivial and non-promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to which references are "trivial" or "promotional" as last I checked, News24 is a South African news website, not PR Newswire. Marie Claire is a fashion magazine. V is a fashion magazine. CR Fashion Book is a fashion magazine and so on. None of them are providing trivia. They verified the work she's done and according to the sources… it's notable. Trillfendi (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking (again) as the original creator where the "trivial mentions" in particular are here. Because according to the many sources I've been able to find that substantiate independent notability, the work in her career especially on the runway is notable. Being on the cover of Vogue in any country as a model, is notable, let alone multiple countries. Most of these metrics were decided years ago when reassessing WP:NMODEL. Sources ranging from actual newspapers in South Africa (where she and her story were literally on the front page) to actual fashion magazines, I just don't see the perceived failure of GNG. Nobody has given a clear answer on it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's look at the sources currently in the article:

[39] is just a data-base entry in a fashion database. It doesn't establish notability, and the only thing it's supporting is the name of her agency
[40] is an interview with her, sans any third party analysis of her or commentary on her works.
[41] mentions who she is, her height, Instagram, and agency. There are two additional sentences about her. It doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV.
[42] has two sentences about her. Again, it doesn't rise to the level of SIGCOV
[43] has her name as part of a list. It doesn't even have a picture.
[44] I was expecting to have to gloss over this one, due to the source being in Ukrainian. However, it's literally just pictures of her as part of a spread- she's credited as a model, but the source itself is unusable for any information about her. And, unless there are sources independent of both her and Vogue talking about it, it doesn't make her notable.
[45] is just an interview.
[46] is an interview with some limited commentary.
[47] is an interview with two and a half paragraph's worth of independent commentary in the beginning.
[48] is fine. The author (Marisa Crous) is in direct contact with her, but I'll AGF on editorial control and input. (It's News24)

The following aren't listed, but I've looked them up as part of my WP:BEFORE.

[49] has two, mentioning she was part of a fashion show and listing some gigs she'd had. The rest is just photos, unfortunately. It's not really SIGCOV.
[50] says its about her becoming a covergirl for NARS, but it's actually about a NARS product line.
[51] is about another fashion show. It has another few lines about her. Being generous, this rises to SIGCOV. Again, it's a News24 source by Marisa Crous

So, all in all, we have two sources that could help the subject pass WP:GNG- but both sources are written by the same author for the same newspaper, so they can't really said to be independent of each other. The relevant SNG would be Wikipedia:NMODEL//WP:NENT, which would allow her to pass if she'd had significant roles in multiple notable productions (The Vogue cover shoot is just one), or if we had sources showing her contributions to modelling were particularly unique, prolific or innovative- which, again, we not seeing. I think the promotional comments are harsh- while none of the cited news articles are hard-hitting journalism, they just seem fluffy. If the two sources were written by different authors, and there was a little bit more to them, I'd have maybe gone with a keep vote. Perhaps a bit WP:TOOSOON? No prejudice against re-creation if better sources are found. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2024 (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 Uttar Pradesh Police. History will remain at the redirect, so if those interested in merging wish to do so, that option will still be available. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Kumar (IPS)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Nothing anywhere near even 1 GNG reference. One is just a personnel list and 4 are covering the same item...announcement of appointment as acting head of Uttar Pradesh police. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure he's a fine police officer, but as far as notability and inclusion in an encyclopedia, the information does not meet WP:GNG. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not look like a BLP1E to me. I am seeing continuing coverage not just a single burst around one claim to fame. In particular. Some of the sources have limited coverage but I think there is enough to meet WP:GNG and searching in local languages would probably bring up even more. User: dsrprj (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: dsrprj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- Note that this is completely irrelevant. The article creator is perfectly entitled to express an opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  Yes he is but it needs to be known that this keep vote comes from creator who would obviously vote to keep the page. RangersRus (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, it is irrelevant. The nominator typically votes to Delete, the creator will often (but not always) vote to Keep, it doesn't need notation. A note shouldn't be posted indicating that their comment should be ignored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. DGP of Uttar Pradesh is hardly a minor role. Heads a force bigger than many national police forces. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But rename to Prashant Kumar (police officer) per standard disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Since page also fails WP:SIGCOV and not much to go on in sources, I think Redirect to Uttar_Pradesh_Police#List_of_UP_Police_Chiefs might be another option or merge to Uttar Pradesh Police.RangersRus (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Uttar_Pradesh_Police#List_of_UP_Police_Chiefs or Merge to Uttar Pradesh Police. Sources are mostly about the subject being nominated as new acting director general of police and nothing more. If we compare with Kiran Bedi, highly notable, then the subject has not made any significant impact or achievement that is worthy of notice like that of Kiran Bedi. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am also ok with Redirect or merge. RangersRus (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure why it is at all relevant to compare this article to that on someone else who went on to achieve even higher office. Are we expected to believe that if someone is not as notable as Kiran Bedi then they're not notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not looking for anyone to have achieved higher offer or running a side by side comparsion but it is an example of some sort of notability expected from the subject who has not had an impact and made any significant achievement to be considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. While most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of his local policy appointments~~, he meets WP:ANYBIO, criterion 1, as a winner of the President's Police Medal for gallantry.~~ Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: I said this in another comment to a voter that since the page fails WP:SIGCOV and not much to go on in sources, I think Redirect to Uttar_Pradesh_Police#List_of_UP_Police_Chiefs might be another option or merge to Uttar Pradesh Police. Thought on it? RangersRus (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I still think the award warrants keeping under ANYBIO.~~ I do agree with Necrothesp that the title should be changed if/when the article is retained. Looking at that list, btw, most of the holders of the office are wikilinked. I'm didn't and I'm not going to make a WP:WHATABOUT argument, but you'd need to look closely at all of those bios if you thought this one was problematic; they all have similar levels of WP:ROUTINE coverage. At any rate, my !vote was and remains based on ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran through some of the wikilinks on the other officers on the page and they are well sourced with good significant coverage with life, career, education, decorations and that is all the kind of notable coverage I am considering to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Example Sulkhan Singh. The page nominated for this AFD fails WP:SIGCOV and even the birth date though sourced but cannot even tell out of the many Prashant Kumar in the source, which one it is? that is why I thought maybe a redirect or merge would be better. RangersRus (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: RangersRus (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~.

I want to echo every single word User:Necrothesp ::(Administrators) said. Dsrprj (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC) creator of the page voted twice.[reply]

You need to stop this disruptive behavior by removing the strike comments and adding your second vote again. You can only vote once. Please do not remove again. RangersRus (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus Since your ping brought me back to this AfD, I should add that you are coming very close to WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. It's appropriate to warn an editor who is !voting twice or request them to strike, but you don't need to strike other editors' !votes yourself, even if improperly made. The closers are very capable of interpreting the discussion and discarding multiple !votes. And even if you did strike the duplicate !vote, you shouldn't to strike @Dsrprj's associated comment. That should be left up to them to decide. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: I didn't mean anything much in my comment. Earlier, the creator of the page reverted my comment that I made with a strike and a note and I wanted the creator to not do that. RangersRus (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBASIC. The individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include things related to his job ece his public statements, cms earning his master's degree. which is well-attested to by sources. My only lingering concern would be WP:BLP1E, but I don't think he meets either the first criterion or the second criterion (he was certainly high-profile in his role as head of police), so I'm comfortable supporting a keep here. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:6DB5:4E1E:E854:79CD:AC15:7C77 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One comment said that we was the "winner" of a particular award....the linked article says that it was one in a batch of 827 awards being given out. The noted SNG criteria says that if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor".....they "are likely to be notable" and that meeting that criteria "does not guarantee that a subject should be included." IMHO, the award misses the mark in both. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On digging into the President's Police Medal in response to North8000, it does not seem to be a rare award. In 2024 the medal for gallantry was awarded to nearly 500 individuals. I've changed my mind about WP:ANYBIO and thus about notability overall. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is merge or redirect to the Uttar Pradesh Police then, It should be better. --- ᗩvírαm7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 15:41, 4 September 2024 (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. I don't see a consensus here. Thank you for putting together the source assessment table. I encourage editors to improve the article so it doesn't make a return trip for a 2nd AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peller (comedian)

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

A Stub-class assessed article, Not notable to be on mainspace, from the references provided, article fails WP:SIGCOV, no in-depth information as regards to weather it should be kept on Wikipedia as a stand alone article, there are little references from secondary sources, seams very promotional and I think it should be deleted, all I see is mentions and references about social media “Tiktok” which has nothing to do with Notability on Wikipedia. Getreallycool (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Reading Beans 08:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2024 (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/2024 August 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 04:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage, and that is because the person has not yet achieved any solid achievements. Per Nom, WP:TOOSOON. Nihonjinatny (talk) 07:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The entry passes the general notability guidelines per these sources here.

- Okanlawon, Taiwo (2 June 2024). "Five things you need to know about Peller". PM News. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- Akinyemi, Femi (17 April 2024). "Peller: Teenage sensation taking digital world by storm". Nigerian Tribune. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- Okanlawon, Taiwo (30 May 2024). "Meet Peller; TikTok newest sensation". PM News. Retrieved 14 August 2024.
- Alabi, Taiwo (13 February 2024). "The TikTok Titans of Nigeria: Top 5 Creators Making Waves". TheNEWS. Retrieved 14 August 2024.

I want to note that no form of WP:BEFORE was made by this apparently very new user before nominating an article for deletion. There argument that it is a stub article has nothing to do with notability nor does being a TikTok personality prevent one from being notable as noted in their nomination. Best, Reading Beans 07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An "aspiring top streamer" per the the Nigerian Tribune source used in the article confirms this is TOOSOON. The rest are "meet the celebrity" articles... For someone taking the world by storm, there is a lack of coverage outside of Nigeria. Only new coverage I can find is that this person bought a Mercedes [52], which is nothing notable. I wish them well, but we're not quite at notability yet. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I wouldn't consider all of Reading Beans' sources to be WP:SIGCOV, but this one and this one are and contribute to a bare pass of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After a WP:BEFORE, this does meet GNG. They're multiple sources online that significantly covers the subject. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on newly found sources would be helpful. By the way, nominator has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second source looks fine, I'm not sure if it's a RS... Still feels TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don’t like replying !voters but I don’t think you’re doing any WPBEFORE here. PM News is a national daily newspaper in Nigeria and your stance about the subject being TOOSOON when there are significant in-depth coverage from reliable sources is something I still do not understand and that is because our opinion differs. Anyways, here’s another source from ThisDay—a national daily newspaper too. here. If you want to make a search about him to find more sources, you can use this this. Best, Reading Beans 05:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom, it’s TOOSOON as Oaktree b said. It seams the page creator has a possible COI, secondly the page creator has other editors who gives him back up, I demand an admin should review the relatable similar contributions between the page creator and most of the user who has edited this page. 105.113.12.201 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC) — 105.113.12.201 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak keep: Article (sources therein) and the ones presented by Reading Beans above meets WP:SIGCOV in both independent sources as well as reliable per WP:NGRS. I am concerned about WP:ENT, which it meets slightly. However, a great WP:STUB is allowed on Wikipedia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am seeing "No SIGCOV" when my Google showed coverage in Nigeria sources, reliable per WP:NGRS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a subject has a Similar name to someone on the web that has news coverage but certainly not this TikTok comedian, fails WP:ENT, article isn’t well written to add. 105.120.129.249 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)— 105.120.129.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus or specific comments on sources and whether they are adequate. This is more useful than general talk about "sources" without identifying which ones provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, having completed a source analysis. Sources given above by commenters are included; sources marked as reliable or unreliable are per WP:NGRS unless otherwise indicated. I found another source which I have included as well.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:StartGrammarTime
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/06/02/five-things-you-need-to-know-about-peller/		A list of five facts about Peller in one sentence each; the entire source consists of eight sentences/136 words.	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/peller-teenage-sensation-taking-digital-world-by-storm/		Focused on Peller, good length and detail	✔ Yes
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/05/30/meet-peller-tiktok-newest-sensation/		Another good source focused on Peller	✔ Yes
https://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2024/02/13/the-tiktok-titans-of-nigeria-top-5-creators-making-waves/		Brief coverage of Peller alongside other performers	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/06/01/peller-the-teenager-who-went-from-tiktok-fan-to-social-media-star/		Short article with not much information	✘ No
https://leadership.ng/tiktok-sensation-peller-joins-city-plug-talent-ahead-of-pellers-palava-release/	There is a two-sentence quote from Peller, but I don't believe this is enough to make it non-independent	In my opinion borderline, but enough to be SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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 2004 Madrid train bombings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Zougam

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

WP:BLP1E. Merge content where appropriate into 2004 Madrid train bombings, then redirect the page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment judging from the Spanish article, it's likely that if the main article was brought to FA level comprehensiveness a biography should be written on him per size split reasons, given that he is one of the key figures in one of the deadliest terror attacks ever. So, if this is merged, I would not oppose it being split out again at some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he does have (not counting life sentences), the third longest prison sentence of all time. I feel that is perhaps a claim to notability. From what I'm looking at an article could definitely be written on him - BLP1E is for low level crimes, not ones that kill nearly 200 people. The other two conditions of the policy are the person being a "low profile individual" (he is not) and that the event not be a SIGNIFICANT historical event in which the role of the person is well documented (he is). So he does not fail BLP1E. With more notorious cases there are often the sources to write both, and the reason he is the one with an article is because he seemed to be one of the more prominent figures. Same reason we have an article on Mohamed Atta. So either keep or merge for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Delete the person. Polygnotus (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mlaka Maliro

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Can't find sufficient sources to establish notability in any context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~Redirect to~~: Music_of_Malawi#Lucius_Banda,_Evison_Matafale_and_Mlaka_Maliro I found lots of GNG. WP:NMUSICIAN states that:

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart: in this case, subject had the album titled Dzanja Lalemba that was the bestseller 14 years ago countrywide. Subject is also the pioneer of Malawi Contemporary Music and one of the country's notable musician [53]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label: subject has released 13 albums under the renowed and the first band in Malawi, the Zembani Band, owned by Lucius Banda [54]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-soldier-set-for-stage-reunion/, [55]https://mwnation.com/mlaka-rolls-back-hands-of-time/ . I found this that talks about subject. I also found records in printed books, see here, and this in Dutch , this too, etc. To me this provides GNG that can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any uninvolved thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2024 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly Ballroom (band) (3rd nomination)

People proposed deletions