Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Deletion sorting

Note: this page is purely an aggregation page of transclusions and not in the same format as other Deletion Sorting pages. "Generic biographies" should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People, which is transcluded directly below.

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|Deletion sorting|~~~~}} 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.

Purge page cache

watch

People

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Economics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thafnine

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or YouTube videos. A WP:BEFORE search finds one article [1] which does not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Dunn

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

This BLP has only one source and I haven't been able to find anything Signicant. The best thing I've found is [2] which isn't great Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Theatre. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read both of the relevant Google hits, one of which says that his character was one of the "major villains" in Arrow, but he was only in season 1 (mostly in flashbacks) except for 1 episode in season 8. The other source says that he apparently stopped acting after his last Arrow appearance. Neither has significant coverage of the actor, and I don't see any reviews of his performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just to clafiy something here for potential closers, flashes backs are heavily used in Arrow in season 1 they are arguably more used then the modern day events. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack WP:RS to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Pal Lamba

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

The sources in the article, at least the ones in English (and most of them are in English!), talk about Lamdas arrest of a notorious rapist. A WP:BEFORE revealed more of the same plus social media accounts. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Police, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every year, hundreds of IPS and IAS officers are appointed in India, and most of them receive media coverage. They are often highlighted as successful individuals, especially those from poor backgrounds. According to this, it would seem that all of them should qualify for Wikipedia, Sorry. Baqi:) (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'Mario Legend

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and definitely WP:GNG. Mentions that verify his work but no significant coverage. Most references are coming from a single publication in a WP:BEFORE search which is a tabloid without any mention of editorial oversight. CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, Baqi:) (talk) 08:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters Willard

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Julia as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelle of the Saracens

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

I was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Medicine. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing with WP:SIGCOV found. Also per my source assess table below. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads	Held by university libraries	Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy.	✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia	? Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred.	Adelle is never mentioned.	✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy"		Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua	Held in university libraries	Never mentions Adelle	✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science	Held in university libraries	Barely mentions her	✘ 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}}.

Delete. According to this (Italian version here), there was no Adelle. She comes from a late foundation myth for the Salernitan school. There were four founding doctors: the Greek Pontus, the Hebrew Helinus, the Saracen Adela and the Latin Salernus. In the paper linked, the tale is taken as allegory of knowledge converging from the four corners of the Earth on Salerno, an acknowledgement of the culturally and linguistically diverse origins of its medicine. She is mentioned twice at Schola Medica Salernitana as "Abdela", which is not correct, but reflects (I think) the idea that Adela/Adala is a corruption of an Arabic name like Abdul. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Sunatori

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTPROMO Promotional content, contains "puffery" and promotes Magnescribe pen. Wikipedia:Autobiography written like a CV, describing the subjects work history and achievements. Wikipedia:Notability MagneScribe invention and various other products not notable, only article found online was https://www.cracked.com/article_15768_as-seen-tv-10-most-laughably-misleading-ads.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbbv (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I declined the G11 CSD tag on this article primarily because it has existed since 2007 (it was recreated 2 months after the first 2007 AFD and declined for G4 speedy back then) and suggested the AFD route. It is a BLP which lists only primary self-published citations. My online search found no independent Reliable Sources with any significant coverage of this person. It fails the WP:GNG guideline for WP:SIGCOV. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage in Gnews or Newspapers. Sourced to patents and mentions in newspapers. I don't see any coverage we can use. Appears to be promo. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insanely promotional, may be notable but honestly needs to be hit with the WP:TNT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and is filled with promotional content, with a lack of reliable sources to support it. I apologize for this oversight. Baqi:) (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host, resume service, patent registration, or LinkedIn. Patents are primary sources by definition. Bearian (talk) 09:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Raghbir Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and is a case of WP:BLP1E at best. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator. If articles are created in this manner, then every Jathedar would end up with an article. In this particular case, the coverage is limited to the time of his appointment, with no additional significant coverage beyond that. This suggests that the subject is notable for only a single event (WP:BLP1E), which does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

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

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam_Arnold

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating person again for deletion as this webcomic creator has not been active for a number of years and there are more notable comic creators that do not have wikipedia pages. There are even more notable people with this name that do not have wikipedia articles. Gomanga1 (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Webcomics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a very good deletion argument. मल्ल (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – The deletion argument doesn't hold water, but looking through the sources used in the article, I cannot find a single secondary source that says anything about Arnold except listing him as the writer. Nothing in my books eiither. I can't even find out where he's from or what his inspirations are based on these sources, there's not even an interview. Using exclusively primary sources for biographical information is a problem. Aoi House seems to be the primary topic here, with Vampire Cheerleaders also having only one review. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Kapoor

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject clearly fails to meet the WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and WP:NACTOR (notability for actors) standards. Coverage is limited to routine mentions, and most sources lack reliability per WP:RS (reliable sources). Additionally, many of the news articles appear to be paid content and include disclaimers indicating as such. Baqi:) (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current sources in the article are generally unreliable, except for a Bollywood Hungama video and a Zee News article. However, the Zee News article is about the song “Tu Rooh Mein Samaya” and does not provide significant coverage of the subject. Additionally, I was unable to find significant coverage from reliable, independent sources during my search. Therefore, the article fails to meet WP:GNG, and since the subject has no lead roles in multiple notable films, it also fails WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 14:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR who has not played significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little to add: a non-notable film without major coverage, sources that are churnalism and BrandMedia masquerading as legitimate, and two music videos are insufficient to pass NACTOR.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Etefa

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

I tried draftifying the article, but it was moved back. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but it failed. The sources in the article aren't quite formatted correctly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ethiopia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 12:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct there is no problem with the citation or reference keep it up Pit09 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: until such a time as the references are properly formatted, inline, and are references to actual sources not just the name of a newspaper. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Antunovic

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

Article has been tagged for notability since 2012. This lawyer has participated in a couple of notable trials, but that does not make the subject himself notable per se. Muzilon (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No significant coverage. My own searches yield nothing other than discussions of his involvement in cases and some interviews. Barring something extraordinary about his representation he doesn't inherit notability from the cases. Oblivy (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I had a dig around and found some solid coverage. In 1999, he was the subject of a profile piece in the Evening Post titled "The Defense", related to his defence of Scott Watson.^[1] He also received some coverage when he criticised the courts for remaining open to jury trials during covid.^[2]^[3] I also found an example of himself—rather than his client—making headlines for his comments made in court.^[4] There are articles about his work where his involvement is not merely a trivial mention, for example in this article he makes extensive comments about a breach of name suppression orders.^[5] In another article from 2011 he comments on the role of the legal aid system as an expert, and is described as a "senior criminal lawyer [...] well-known for his work on high-profile murder cases".^[6] David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the effort seeking out sources which might support a keep, but this falls under what I described above with him getting discussed for his involvement in cases. The 1999 article is one piece of significant coverage. The Covid protest stuff is slightly less clear but I see it as him generating coverage about a single event. Based on this, particularly the 1999 article, I'm not inclined to change my vote but perhaps I'm at weak delete (if there is such a thing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oblivy (talk • contribs) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Murdoch, Wendy (5 June 1999), "The Defense", The Evening Post – via Proquest
^ Nightingale, Melissa (2020-03-17), "Coronavirus: Lawyer criticises courts for continuing jury trials", NZ Herald, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Did This Lawyer's Coronavirus Concerns Lead To The Jury Trial Suspension", LawFuel, 2020-03-18, archived from the original on 2023-10-01, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Judge ticks off Watson lawyer over opening address", NZ Herald, 2000-06-30, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ "Defence lawyer calls suppression breach 'outrageous'", Otago Daily Times Online News, 2010-05-25, retrieved 2024-11-03
^ Morri, Deborah (2021-06-18), "Public defenders or private: battle lines", The Dominion Post, retrieved 2024-11-03 – via Pressreader

Rituraj Kishore Sinha

AfDs for this article:

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

This page is not about an elected candidate at either the national or state level, so it fails to follow the WP:NPOL guidelines. Also, he fails to qualify for a page according to WP:NBIO, or WP:ANYBIO. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Jharkhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. I cannot find subject's work as entrepreneur and politician that has made any significant impact and achievement, to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's too early at this point, and the article fails to meet both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is too dependent on primary sourcing, and not nearly enough on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources, to claim that he would pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pass WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage LefterDalaka (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna al Politico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations

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

A stand-alone article is totally unwarranted in this case given how this individual was never convicted. These types of article creations are completely frowned upon by WP:BLP policy. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or redirect to Sean Combs#Sexual misconduct allegations, lawsuits, and arrest. Not sure if a merge would be appropriate given he hasn't been convicted or the trial even started. Procyon117 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep after seeing the thread play out. Procyon117 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Crime, Events, Sexuality and gender, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect for now. Probably salt further editing until he's convicted. Tavantius (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Seeing the more persuasive policy-based reasons for keeping, I vote keep. Tavantius (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sean Combs is a public figure, and so not covered by WP:BLPCRIME, but rather by WP:BLPPUBLIC. For public figures in high-profile criminal cases or lawsuits, BLP does not frown upon covering the cases -- whether they end in conviction/liability or not. We have many, many articles about celebrity trials. Combs's court cases undoubtedly meet WP:GNG. It's not a BLP issue, or a GNG issue, it's a WP:PAGEDECIDE issue. In this case, there is so much WP:RS specifically about these court cases (and certainly much more to be written as the cases progress) that including them in the parent biography article may be WP:UNDUE for the biography article. In any event, just on length alone, the sub-article about the court cases is long enough to merit a WP:SPINOFF. I see no reason to delete, or merge. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is a result of a long split discussion. Though that discussion was about the the entire legal issues section, and the sexual allegations is a subsection. This subject is notable and worldwidely debated, as shown by reliable sources. The article can indeed be expanded with more content, as there are more things to be added. Web-julio (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:PUBLICFIGURE provides pretty clear guidance that reliable coverage of embarrassing but reliably sourced content belongs on Wikipedia even when a trial has not concluded. With that being said a stand-alone page is excessive. If the material is too long it should be trimmed of repetitive material and unnecessary detail. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep this article Cyberpower7 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)~~ Following a discussion at WP:DRAMABOARD, this user has been blocked for unhelpful, low-effort spamming of discussions and failing WP:CIR. Barnt Toust 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the consensus at Talk:Sean Combs#Split legal issues into its own article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't find the arguments for deletion made so far persuasive. BLP doesn't forbid or discourage this type of article, and the fact that someone has never been convicted of a crime is no reason to consider the allegation not notable. On the other hand, there is a good body of reliable information about the accusations made against this artist. If this article was in a very bad state regarding BPL standards or the subject was less notable or a non-public person, then I would probably be in favor of redirecting. Badbluebus (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Clearly worthy of a standalone article given the vast coverage of the allegations by sources that meet WP:BLP and WP:RS, and as mentioned before came as a result of consensus from a talk page discussion, so the creation of the page is not without precedent. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom's statement that 'a stand alone article...is unwarranted...(as they were)...never convicted' is completely taken apart as we have an article about Jimmy Saville's allegations and they were never convicted. I see no BLP issues. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I don't see any BLP issues either, as long as high-quality sources continue to be used. And there is precedence for these "types of articles" as well. Woody Allen only has one allegation and we have an article devoted to that single allegation. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Levivich. In fact, BLP's Public figures pretty much mandates we cover such topics if they are notable enough. It only take 2-3 (my rule of thumb) good RS to justify passing mention, and 3-4 (with sustained coverage over more than a couple days) to justify a dedicated stub article. For non-public persons we lean the other direction and sometimes do not cover them, even if 3-4 RS mention them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here, and that "BLP vio" card isn't even relevant here based on the policy-based justification explained above. User:Levivich wrote the most convincing argument based on policy, which altogether justifies inclusion. Barnt Toust 14:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has notability outside of Combs himself and has had wide coverage for quite a while. The article seems about as neutral as one discussing sexual allegations and the related fallout can get. ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I do not agree with OP's rationale that "These types of article creations are completely frowned upon by WP:BLP policy" this seems to be within the very narrow range of such article creations which BLP actually smiles upon (if such a stern and serious policy could ever be seen to smile) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the topic article is widely known and has received extensive media coverage for some time, and affects many people other than Combs; If we have an article about a single allegation against Woody Allen, why not one for the many accusations for Combs? --Maor X (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". TarnishedPath^talk 11:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Levivich. If the coverage was only on scandal TV shows, I might be inclined to keep this, ethereal are plenty of reliable sources and the Me Too movement is not going away soon. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Rios

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

Noting that notability, once established, doesn't vanish over time, I have strong doubts that Rios was ever notable in a Wikipedia sense. The article was created during the Wild West days of Wikipedia when articles were almost added willy nilly. I have done a WP:BEFORE, the more so since the alleged references in the article are pretty much useless, and can find nothing useful about her. There's quite a bit by her. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. मल्ल (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The cited sources don't discuss the subject, most of them don't even mention her. The article fails WP:ANYBIO, and WP:V. A quick search doesn't yield any useful results. I doubt that the subject is notable. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most mentions I bring up are about the sexuality of a train driver that caused a crash (which doesn't help notability) as mentioned in source 6. I don't think this person is notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Minor coverage by reliable sources in the past two decades. No claim of notability outside of awards within her own movements. Yue🌙 21:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mass

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

This individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Law, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Maybe the thinnest BLP I've ever seen here! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything that tells me this attorney is still active. This attorney has a very lengthy 2011 internet page about himself - personal background listings that have not much to do with being an attorney. The kind of person a town would be proud to have. But his legal "Experience" section is very scant and doesn't tell us much except others he previously worked for or with. An internet search doesn't bring up anything more recent. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mass is still active (the fellow's not yet fifty), and is a political figure in the rural county in which I lived for several years. Further, the article used to be a lot more extensive before rampant page blanking by anon IPs. With that, I doubt many people beyond the city limits of Greenfield, Massachusetts have heard of him, nor that he could meet the GNG. Ravenswing 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People in politics aren't "inherently" notable just for existing, so the article's current form is obviously deeply inadequate if it just says that he exists and fails to even specify what political position he ever actually held in the first place — Ravenswing is correct that it's been longer in the past, but that history has him serving only at the municipal and county levels, which is not a free notability pass in the absence of much, much more reliable source coverage about the impact of that work than the article has ever shown. So there's no prior version of this that could be reverted to as a solution, because nothing that was ever in the article before satisfies the requirements of WP:NPOL either. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. I did check old versions WP:BEFORE nominating, as this is obviously a gutted article. I also concluded there was no value in restoring any older versions, and the gutted version actualy portrays the subject in his most favorable light. JFHJr (㊟) 23:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed: Mass' most prominent role as an elected official was as a city councilor in Greenfield, which is well under NPOL's requirements. Ravenswing 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Ravenswing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable local lawyer, I don't see any sources for this person. The pages histories have been deleted and re-created so many times, I gave up trying to figure out what a longer version of this article showed... Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator) WP:SNOW this process please, any available admin. Let's not waste anyone else's time on this over 6 more days. JFHJr (㊟) 23:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If one actually types words into Google, one finds that Mass and his wife are now the owners of the historic Greenfield Garden Cinemas,^[1]^[2] a plausible redirect target per WP:ATD-R. He received a "40 under 40" recognition from a regional business magazine^[3] and his various civic appointments have received local coverage,^[4] although unfortunately it appears that link rot or paywalls have obfuscated many other news articles from over 10 years ago (essentially a new dark age). --Animalparty! (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think it a pretty implausible redirect, actually. The page has minuscule views over its entire history, the Garden Cinema page doesn't even namedrop Mass, and local namedrops ≠ "significant coverage." Ravenswing 16:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and relate to the "dark age" part of @Animalparty!'s comment. There's a tendency for previously free articles to become dead or paywalled over time, or available only by subscription to proprietary archives, e.g. Proquest. I used to get very frustrated about this re WaPo, but now it's all subscriptionwalled. I've begun manually free-archiving new material in my creations for this reason. If you're here long enough, you see sources vanish. For situations other than this AfD, I try to archive decent sources in prior versions, which are sometimes removed just for being dead. I just didn't see any of that for this subject. YMMV. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Farragher, Thomas (November 14, 2019). "Saving the Garden movie house in Greenfield". Boston Globe.
^ Olson, Kris (15 April 2021). "Lawyer, wife reopen theater complex bought just before pandemic hit". Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
^ "Isaac Mass". BusinessWest. April 23, 2013. ISSN 1049-9822.
^ "Greenfield lawyer Isaac Mass appointed to Massachusetts State Ballot Law Commission". masslive.com. 15 March 2012.

Ruben Papian

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

No significant coverage, as only two 'news' style sources seem to exist. The first is a 138-word article discussing a product he's selling [3] and the other is a promotional article in Lepota & Zdravlje [4] All the other sources are his blog, dead links, and one listing of a conference appearance.

The actual text is full of gems like "In 2004 Ruben devoted his time to understanding esoterica and hidden abilities of space and matter" and "In 2015 Ruben discovered metaphysical abilities of wood cells^{[citation needed]}" Wizmut (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Armenia. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the article used to be worse than it is now, it is irredeemably promotional with sizeable WP:V issues. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE, NOT enough intext citations UzbukUdash (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks adequate RS citations. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Morrison (drummer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and subject specific guidelines. No secondary sources exist, only his biography and portfolio. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Australia. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to James Morrison (jazz musician)#Morrison Brothers. Two relevant references are given there, including this one, so the claim that No secondary sources exist is dubious. But while I'm hopeful that this article should and will be reinstated in the future, I don't have time to do the relevant research right now. It would be mainly and perhaps entirely print sources, so unfortunately it's a valid nomination. Happy if others would like to do the relevant research. Andrewa (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect. I see the sources you're talking about, but I don't think they establish notability. The article seems to be about the band's performance, with passing mentions to him. If I'm wrong, please correct me; AfD is not my forte. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian White (author)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. From what I can see, no secondary, non-self published sources exist — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United Kingdom. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ireland and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Chidozie Ogbonna

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

There is, as a matter of fact, no source to establish claims of significance or notability for the subject of this article. Sources are either primary, are closely related to the subject or are the subject's own opinion. From cursory search, nothing especially different and useful was found. Here lies my concern of critical undisclose paid editing from the author of this article or a close relation at best. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article. I understand your concerns regarding notability and potential conflict of interest. I'll provide additional, independent sources to establish the subject's significance. I declare no conflict of interest or paid editing affiliation with the subject. I'll revise the article to enhance quality and neutrality. Please offer guidance on improving the article.

Thank you very much for the review. Danielehisaiguokhian (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hulme

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much here towards WP:PROF; the single book has two coauthors and not much citation activity visible on GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above - no evidence for meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Created by an SPA, there is also no presence of the subject on Scopus, and the citations in the article are largely primary. Possibly draftify could be an option for the incubation of the article, just in case there may be the sources out there. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Kumar

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. In addition to that, the citations given are insufficient and do not possess the required quality and reliability. Although she may have won a beauty pageant, it is not a major national fashion or beauty event. Contrasting WP:INHERENT. Also, being married to a businessman who has a wikipedia page of his own does not automatically establish notability by association WP:INHERITED. The notability of her husband's page is also open to debate, but let's not get into that.

This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at NPP School. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Television, Beauty pageants, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award; if other users disagree, a redirect to Gladrags_Manhunt_and_Megamodel_Contest#Winners (where she is listed) should have been considered anyway.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Given the notability of the awards is challenged (rightly so or not, not sure [same nom]) see below and AfD about the awards, keeping my keep but changing my argument: no more ANYBIO but a modest BASIC/GNG pass, in light of the sources presented by Jeraxmoira. (Not opposed to a redirect and merge to Anupam_Mittal#Personal_life, where she is mentioned (with a picture), as a lot of the existing coverage mentions her in regard to her marriage and private life).Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[fwiw, I don't think Anupam Mittal's notability is doubtful][reply]

Keep meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest and represented India in Miss Intercontinental (The winner of Gladrags Mega model represented India at Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003) and ended up as a semi-finalist. She was also a contestant in Bigg Boss and got evicted after 6 weeks. You will get to see a lot of news about her. Added some old references.

Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't rely too heavily on Gladrags Manhunt as a significant award, especially since it itself depends on a single, unreliable source. A search through Google News reveals that the event lacks significance on its own and does not demonstrate notability. Secondly, being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable. We need better sources that are in-depth, significant, and independent. Charlie (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we rely on a contest that is a national contest? Also, Gladrags sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Aanchal represented India among the top five contestants in the Miss Intercontinental. I also agree that being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable, but at the same time, it is very difficult to survive 6 weeks on a reality show like Bigg Boss, she must have done a significant job in the show. She also won the celebrity segment of quiz show Baazi Kiski hosted by B-town actor Ashutosh Rana on Zee TV. Jitujadab90 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, Gladrags is primarily a promotional contest and lacks reliable coverage. I have already provided a Google News search result link that clearly explains my concern. Also, being a participant in an international event is quite different from being a winner. If you are able to add substantial information to help the page meet the Heymann standard, please feel free to do so. Charlie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you think of these sources? [5] [6] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:CITEUNSEEN, the first link from Tribune India is credible, and the article is authored by a staff writer but the coverage appears in Saturday Plus, a supplement rather than the main newspaper. In the second link, Rediff, while also reputable as per CITEHIGHLIGHTER , focuses on being someone's girl friend, which led to its coverage, so I would prefer to skip it. Charlie (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that coverage from a supplement paper and a source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend does not count towards the GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am implying coverage from a supplement paper should be given careful consideration as it may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability. But, the source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend shouldn't be counted. Charlie (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that backs up your statement? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! To partially accept the first source, I will refer to WP:SPONSORED where it clearly states that "merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources". For not accepting the second source, I will take support of WP:INHERITED. Charlie (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have your answer in the statement you mentioned. Unless you can prove that the source published on November 13, 1999, is a sponsored one, it is completely acceptable for GNG. WP:INHERITED states, "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy". Deletion discussions are based on policies and guidelines, not essays.

And fwiw, your interpretation of WP:INHERITED is completely incorrect. Please read the subsequent paragraphs below the example arguments. WP:INHERITED is not applicable here, as no one is arguing that she is notable for being Yuvraj Singh’s rumored girlfriend. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While essays are not official policies or guidelines, many offer valuable insights and are worth considering. Policies and guidelines may not cover every possible situation, so numerous essays provide interpretations or commentary on community norms for particular topics and scenarios. We may hold differing views, and each perspective has merit. so let’s respectfully agree to disagree. Charlie (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous reliable sources available, starting from her winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest up to her recent marriage and childbirth, which can be used to write a well sourced article. WP:INHERITED discusses an instance of a subject assumed to be notable only because it is related to an existing notable subject, which does not apply here. We have coverage that goes back to 1999, from different events in her life. Even if we consider all the coverage from Bigg Boss as one, we still have substantial coverage starting from her pageant victory up to her entry into Bigg Boss, which easily meets GNG. The 2012 deletion discussion was argued on the basis of subject being notable for one event, which is also not applicable, as we have coverage beyond that. Apart from this, Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest has also survived two AfDs, which means the pageant victory should be considered as significant award or honor, thereby passing WP:ANYBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty finding relevant sources on Google search, or perhaps I might be overlooking some like I missed the 1999 Tribune Supplement. Would it be possible for you to provide a source analysis table to aid in? This would be incredibly valuable for me as well as for the assessor regarding my recently concluded NPP training, as my rights application is still pending. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a source analysis here. I believe the main issue lies with your nomination, as you cited WP:INHERITED which is commonly used in AfD arguments, not nominations. A recent example of inherited notability could be Alakh Pandey. In this case, Aanchal Kumar is not solely notable for marrying Anupam Mittal, participating in Bigg Boss or winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest rather her notability comes from all three factors, at this point. Redirecting Aanchal Kumar to either Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest or Anupam Mittal would result in a significant loss of content, so that's out of the discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Though I was hoping for a source analysis table, but thank you nonetheless! Charlie (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeraxmoira,@Jitujadab90 and thank you, please note that the nominator has also nominated Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest for deletion (one day after this). Mushy Yank (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She did severals of notable work and have good sources. Camilear (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Partin

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN No establishment of notability. Only 1 secondary source, and it's about his election. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Virginia. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NPOL's presumed notability cause he hasn't been elected to state-level office (only local level), which makes it fall back upon WP:GNG and the "Major local political figures who have received WP:SIGCOV" bullet point. And there's no evidence of this either on the article or in my research - only things I could find are WP:PRIMARY bios/profiles on government pages (per WP:BIO primary sources don't establish notability), passing mentions in articles mainly about legislation and [7] which is just about him being a candidate for Mayor and based off an email he sent them. Molecular Pilot 08:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this article to my draft space for further additions, we can delete the main article Paytonisboss (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not allowed to move the article into draft while this discussion is underway. Bearcat (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not know my bad Paytonisboss (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're truly convinced that it might be salvageable with more work, then we do have the option of moving it to draft (or your user sandbox) as the final conclusion of this discussion. So if you want that, we can certainly do it, but we have to let the process run its course first. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes i would like to continue my work on this page as a draft and look for nobility but if i cant find any am i able to delete the draft myself? Paytonisboss (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage enabling us to write a substantial article about their political impact. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, the only GNG-worthy source isn't enough all by itself, and per MolecularPilot there really just isn't much else out there that would count for more. Bearcat (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with you guys the nobility is not there, the sources dont have much nobility all by themself and according to primary sources theres no secondary sources to back up the primary sources and the article seems a little opinionated now that i do a 2nd look of it most of the sources are based off the opinion of the person the article is about and theres very little nobility in the guy the article is about therefore i think it needs deleted. I also beleave that the article isnt able to be supported for nobility whatsoever.Paytonisboss (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wajid Ali Syed

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

Fails WP:GNG and cannot be considered for WP: CREATIVE for Journalists. It seems all the articles published for the subject were put together as sources on his Wikipedia page. The sources focused on different walks of life rather than the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources mentioned in the article are not related to the subject of the article. The sources mentioned are mostly the news articles written by the subject himself. These sources do not establish notability. TNM101 (chat) 10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This BLP is based on self-published sources and clearly fails GNG. Fwiw, the creator Wikiwookie543 (talk · contribs) has created several BLPs that strongly suggest they are engaging in UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Saqib. Fails WP:GNG. 103.82.120.88 (talk) 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC) — 103.82.120.88 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Chester Ismay

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions but nothing in-depth that focuses on him. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything to meet WP:PROF here. There's a moderately cited textbook with academic publisher with a single coauthor, but we'd really be looking for at least two such to make it worth searching for reviews to support notability under WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One book isn't going to pass WP:AUTHOR as above. Neither his citation record nor the other biographical details in the article suggest a pass of any of the WP:PROF criteria. That leaves WP:GNG but none of the sources in the article are the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of Ismay needed for that, nor did my external searches find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and criterion for the inclusion of an author page. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but we almost never keep untenured college teachers. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jairam Kumar Mahato

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

Fails WP:NPOL even WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Jharkhand. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not elected to any national or state office, this individual fails to meet WP:NPOL, and no multiple significant coverage sources were found, hence they do not meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 10:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I created this article. Sorry to say that it could not meet the requirements but could you wait until 25 Nov 2024. This is my humble request to you to not till this article till this date. Genius64868 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genius64868: Can I know what’s the reason behind this?? GrabUp - Talk 17:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, In India the state of Jharkhand is going to conduct assembly elections and the result get out on 23 Nov 2024. So he contested for 2 seats of Giridih district of Jharkhand. And he most probably won both seats by 65 to 80 percent according to some India most dignified news media like India Times and The Hindu. So please wait till 25 November. Genius64868 (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Genius64868: In that case, you can create this article again. I don’t think we can wait that long; the AfD maybe closed and the result of this AfD may be declared on November 6. GrabUp - Talk 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It my humble request please hold this account to that date or give any idea about incline citation to escape the following deletion. Genius64868 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting political notability and simply founding a party or being an activist isn't notable. The sourcing isn't very helpful, the NBT article is more of a series of brief answers than an article about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I created this article. Sorry to say that it could not meet the requirements but could you wait until 25 Nov 2024. This is my humble request to you to not till that article till this date. Genius64868 (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Launching a brand-new political party is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:NPOL, but this article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I created this article. Sorry to say that it could not meet the requirements but could you wait until 25 Nov 2024. This is my humble request to you to not till this article till that date. Genius64868 (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections. If he does win a seat on November 25, then that will become the time that an article about him can be created, but he does not get to have an article just for being a candidate — so it's not "create an article now and hold off on deleting it until after we know whether he wins or loses the election", it's "he has to win the election before an article can be created in the first place". Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Norberg

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

Yet another hyperlocal politician in the walled garden created to boost Carmel-by-theSea who fails WP:NPOLITICIAN as mayor of a tiny town, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article is filled with fluff and neither demonstrates nor verifies notability. Even the NYT reference is a passing mention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing notability, this is more of a play-by-play of the person's life, career and death. Sources are pretty much is discussed in the nomination. I don't find anything esle. Oaktree b (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is another article on a non-notable mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea, a town of about 3,000 people. The sourcing is hyper-local or sourced to their own autobiography. The article is part of what some editors have called a "walled garden", the purpose of which was boosterism and WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oaktree b, I don't know if you saw that someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a bit more in the article now, but I'm not sure if it makes this person notable. Being in the War, acting, politician. Seems like an interesting life, but this still feels like an extended CV, nothing really for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, this is part of a "walled garden" of Carmel promo, this ANI will provide more context:[8] (final ANI discussion), which led to the creator's site ban.The editor had a long history of COI and undisclosed paid-editing, poor sourcing, self-published sources, COI sources, and deliberately misrepresenting sources to make subjects appear notable. Additionally, there was LOUTsocking. The editor who deleted some of the material, u|Left guide|Left guide, was working on clean up efforts removing hyperlocal sourcing, paid-COI sourcing, self-published sources, and questionable sources. These were not some random drive-by deletions. The problems went on for many years before the editor was community blocked/banned. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I just read the thread over at ANI, what a situation that was. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions made to the article left it ungrammatical and were done very poorly, leaving a highly misleading picture of the article for reviewers at AfD. Let people review the article with the sources, and we'll see what the result of the AfD really is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outlands_in_the_Eighty_Acres#History: mentioned there; merge necessary content if possible. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re dir can always be created later, but deleting it first gives a level of protection against surreptitious resurrection by COI editors, a real concern with articles around Carmel-by-the-Sea topic demonstrated by multiple block evasion attempts by a certain editor. Graywalls (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, which is all that counts here, not the state of the article as it currently stands, nor how it got here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with immediately preceding comment. Tim riley talk 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep - a perfectly notable subject Jack1956 (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Jeff

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. References are bios, links to released songs, and some unreliable sources. In fact, many of the references listed are with titles that are not actually stated in the reference. A WP:BEFORE found nothing that would add up to notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. CNMall41 (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 197.239.8.10 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the self-published and self-described biographies, as well as interview/promo pieces in the reference section, I'm not seeing any reliable coverage from my searches of the subject (and from searching for the subject's keywords). The only reference in the article which seems to be not self-published, is a source which interviews/promotes the subject's charity acts. At this time, Jeff does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there: delete. Athel cb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something now@Athel cb:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: ~~and restore immediately the content!~~ This is not how things should be done. On top of this, Wynkoop is a notable architect. I understand the nominator has good intentions but this is a procedural keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I have restored the content. While BLARing and redirecting the page could have been acceptable (maybe not the best solution, but procedurally acceptable at least), the mere blanking of the page was disruptive, especially as the one !voter here does not seem to have looked at the history of the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:
fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability
Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.

Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.

Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

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

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Australia. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~(Provisional) Keep vote~~, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability for musician (I can't find any traces of a major award)Tesleemah (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:MUSICBIO#6. Prominent member of Mortification, Paramaecium and Horde (only member). The later is an obvious merge target if people want to ignore the notability guidelines which seems to be the norm these days. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So totally different to how you characterized it above. So let's look at what it actually says, "unless they have demonstrated individual notability" such as by being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." which directly satisfies the relevant SNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). He was in multiple bands, but the article on Mortification is the only one with any meaningful information on him and it seems to be his most prominent role, with a lot of the sources that discuss him mentioning that as his most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (~~which he was a member of longer than Mortification~~) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why delete. We have a verified passing of a notability guide, and if you choose to pretend that doesn't count we have a good alternative to deletion and no one has raised any pressing BLP issues there is no actual justification for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mortification (band). This is an extremely common outcome as an alternative to deleting where, as in this case, the person’s sources are terrible, but they did tour internationally in a band. His solo band projects might also have the same fate. Bearian (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Drummond Anderson (1886–1968)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I haven't been able to WP:V the facts on the page and not seen much to suggest that this colonial administrator meets the notability standards for inclusion. I would be interested to hear what others can find. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People) Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If as claimed, is a knight, would be notable under Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors). Djflem (talk) 20:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 (knighthood) and (essentially) 3 (portrait held at National Portait Gallery). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, references have now been added so that all information can be verified. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

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

Lack of any real notability, apart from having won the lottery and being a moron. Lack of citations makes this even worse, as there's hardly anything to say about this guy. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a bit tricky because it does seem like there's a lot of "lasting" coverage, but most of it is just rehashing the same tabloid article going back many years and isn't quality. It seems like the only coverage in reliable sources is very clustered around his troubles with the law - I'd argue that if it's this, rather than the act of winning the lottery, that makes him notable, he fails WP:PERP. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only because it is shot thru with deprecatory bits... all true, all ref'd, but in the spirit of WP:BLP we don't want to do this, and you kind of can't delete all of it or you don't have an accurate article. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably say keep it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People). Even the lottery wins is uncited Tesleemah (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a spectacular idiot satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Once notable, always notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is very important, or to phrase it another way, no less important than many many others. Who are we to culturally filter what is kept? The number of actors/writers articles I pass by here who clearly curate their own pages, running them as C.Vs, and they all stay because they find some NYT books section reference to stave off deletion. This guy? He gets binned? Michael, his response to wealth, and the infamy it generated at the time in newspapers, is significant in U.K. early 2000s culture. It remaining is important in evidencing the wider implications for how money, culture, and class influence society. Wikipedia is damaged by loss of articles like these, and all the more so because people with poor socio-economic positions are simply pushed out of existence (literally, here), while those with means remain (and thus dominate). SFC9394 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times dedicated 1,133 words on Carroll stating he is an object of "national fascination". There's been a documentary about the subject on mainstream UK television that itself has received critical attention from reliable sources. There's quite a lot of further coverage available. I see no reason why the subject fails to meet WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of tabloidy coverage, but there is also stuff that is not tabloid at all. The fascination with him went beyond the surface level, and he does clearly meet WP:BASIC PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus here. Please do not focus on the worthiness of the subject and what meaning having this article on Wikipedia portends to some classes of people. We are primarily interested in whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated in reliable, secondary sources. Your personal opinions on the subject should not factor into your assessment of it. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he became one of the most prominent type-specimens of what can go wrong when someone wins the lottery and is unable to derive any lasting benefit from the event (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/19/curse-of-the-lottery-what-happened-next-to-four-winners). It wasn't just a brief flash of tabloid scandal, or even just sustained tabloid Schadenfreude; the coverage is across a broad spectrum of press, and connected to the social phenomenon of the lottery and what it does to lives. I appreciate the OP's concern about our reflecting tabloid muck-slinging; nevertheless, I think we need to keep the article, because we can at least summarise the entire coverage in a balanced way, which serves our readers (and Carroll) better than they'll get from a crude Google search. Elemimele (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (in reduced form) to Lottery#Outcomes_for_big_winners. There's very little there and some anecdotes about winners would be helpful. Much of the detail in this AfD'd article has little to do with his lottery win and is not, in itself, signficant. Lamona (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur H. Marshall

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

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Was not able to find additional reliable sources. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DJ Cane:, please see current sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/

https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ

https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ

https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/

I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON

Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep per WP:HEY. I’d love for someone else to add the sources found to the article. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Latter Day Saints, and Arizona. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he’s an heir presumptive to a sect of a sect, with heresies within heresies. The coverage is speculative at best. We are not a place for propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to him being mentioned in numerous News articles from the likes of Fox News, The Salt Lake Tribune. BBC News etc. as being the current leader of a controversial church/cult. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You commented this last time but have yet to provide any examples of significant coverage about the subject. Being mentioned in numerous News articles (emphasis mine) does not indicate notability. C F A 💬 21:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints#Reconsolidation efforts since 2022 where he's mentioned. WP:ANYBIO not satisfied. Nothing substantial about the subject found in sources - only mentions, which taken together do not constitute sufficient coverage for WP:BASIC. Rupples (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Paley

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

No independent article which discuss about the subject in depth, fails WP:GNG. doesn’t received any special achievement or any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as the article creator, I'm not particularly invested in this one. I basically created the article as an (unsolicited and unrewarded) favour for his then-webmaster because I thought a wikilink from Ilizarov apparatus would be better than a link to his website there; see the conversations at User talk:Szlimblengthening and my early-2009 talk page archive. I only ended up with the relevant articles on my watchlist due to unhelpful edits. I don't think I would have created this article under the same circumstances today, at least without doing a very deep WP:BEFORE check first. Graham87 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with this !vote counting as a delete, in case that makes things easier. Graham87 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe not, per below. Count it as nothing. Graham87 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With an h-factor of 66 with the top two papers being solo author with 2041 & 1766 cites he passes WP:NPROF#C1. An award or two would help, but I think the case is clear enough plus there are not a gaggle of authors in the other well cited papers. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvad

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and India. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for a writer who has gotten coverage - but in unreliable sources. The India Times was once a good source, but now it’s deprecated. The added sources are a wall of puffery. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JZyNO

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

Subject charted but WP:NMUSICIAN does not guarantee notability. It still comes down to sourcing. There is nothing I can find in-depth about the subject that would be consdiered reliable. There is also a lot of press and churnalism such as this and this which are regurgitations of the same thing published on the same day but different publications. The Billboard reference only verifies the charting which was done on a collaboration with another artist. CNMall41 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Liberia. CNMall41 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, so glad this made it here Thank you so much CNMall41. Before going into sourcing and notability, I have started using my alt account for reviving (mostly African) articles I feel like the subject is notable and deleted under WP:G5. After this, I'm moving on to reviving Pabi Cooper.

With that being said, yes, I do agree that only 2 source are the same which is what publications like MSN and allAfrica do, they "re-publish" what's already out there and credit the publisher. The subject did chart on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs,^[1] and again on the UK Afrobeats Singles Chart.^[2] Keep in mind that he is credited as the primary artist on the song per media notes.^[3] JZyNO has been subject of the news multiple times here,^[4] and here,^[5] just to mention a few. He was also nominated for multiple Liberia Music Awards.^[6]^[7] and Telecel Ghana Music Award at the 25th edition (2024).^[8] This nomination is based on the two identical sources, charting collaboration (not sure what's wrong with that tho), and sourcing lacking depth. The cited references above are enough to sum up clear WP:SIGCOV as they are in depth and the subject do pass WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. Starting to wonder if the nominator performed WP:BEFORE. dxneo (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that having a page you created sent to deletion can be frustrating, however please WP:AGF. Saying that you "wonder if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE" is a veiled accusation that I lack the competency to properly review a page for notability. This is not away to get your contention across in a deletion discussion. I will respond to your notability points in a minute once I look through the sources you provided. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination, charting does not grant inherent notability for a musician under WP:NMUSICIAN. The wording is "may be notable," not "is" notable. For the awards, they are nominations, not wins so not even relevant for WP:MUSICBIO. The first two sources you pointed out only verify charting. They are not significant, just verification. Three is from Apple Music so this cannot be used for notability. The fourth and seventh are the two I pointed out that are WP:CHURNALISM. Five is an interview and six and eight are just verifications of his award nominations. I see no significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my apologies for that earlier statement. However, respectfully, it really looks like you are not familiar with WP:MUSICBIO as it states that "8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." So I don't know what you mean when you say "nominations are not relevant." You then said "charting is not inherent," what's there to inherit when it's his song? (rhetorical question) Those sources are in-depths, this is not a GA standard article, it's somewhere between Start and Stub-class, hope you understand. Apple Music source is for verifying that the subject is the primary artist. Those reliable sources clearly discuss the subject where he's from and so on,which is what's most important. (SIGCOV) Trying to dismiss the sources by saying "they are just…" is not the way to go, because I was radequately eferencing every statement. Again, the subject clearly pass WP:GNG, as they have been the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I realize it is frustrating, but please be WP:CIVIL. Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award." So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin. I said that charting does not give inherent notability. You keep saying the coverage is significant but have not shown how. Saying it "clearly passes WP:GNG" is a fallacy by assertion at this point without being able to demonstrate how interviews, churnalism, and simply verifications are considered significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't know why you keep saying be CIVIL, as if I'm using foul language, this is a discussion and I'm participating. Not everyone can be nominated for the Grammys, and thousands are notable without a Grammy nomination. However, every country/region got their major awards. Example, in South Africa, we have multiple awards organizations which are considered major, something like South African Music Awards. Every region got their own alternatives. U.S. got Grammys, Canada got Junos, and so on. Hope you understand. dxneo (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So he has won an award, and went on to lead the nomination list with 7 nods, that's amazing. dxneo (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nomination to me. "Artist of the Year" (Singluar) shows him second so more like a nomination. Regardless, it is still only verification, not significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed any of the concerns brought up in my last reply. Once you are able to do so I will be happy to opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, let me try to break it down maybe we will understand each other. I will also quote the guidelines so that no one has to go back and fourth trying to verify.

In your own words you said "Are the awards he was nominated for one of those mentioned? If not, the WP:ONUS would be on you to show they are considered a "music major award."" WP:ONUS states that "not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." With that being said, I would say that nominations are accolades, and accolades do improve the quality of the article as #8 of WP:MUSICBIO states that "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions," where as the subject is the direct recipient here.
Again, in your own words you went on to say that "So yes, those nominations are irrelevant. I also never stated that "charting is not inherent" so do not misquote me as it could mislead the closing admin," but earlier you said that charting does not grant inherent notability. So I have two questions. First, why did you say the nominations are irrelevant when MUSICBIO says otherwise? Secondly, since charting is a requirement to pass notability per MUSICBIO, why do you want to strike it out?
Moving on to WP:GNG which includes WP:SIGCOV. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. this source covers the upbringing of the subject in detail, football, how he got into music and how he moved from one country to another. Yes, you may argue that it was an interview, but information is most reliable when it's coming from the primary source and artists are often interviewed including high profiles like Rihanna and I bet that you'd never second guess a Rihanna interview, so why question this one? And in this case, the interview comes from a secondary reliable source (BBC). This source tells you his full name, when and where he was born, including his ancestry. With those two sources you can sum up SIGCOV.
Subject of multiple secondary reliable sources. The subject is Liberian with Ghanaian and Nigerien ancestry. However, he was the subject of the news in South Africa, which states that he has won 4 out of 7 awards. He was covered by Billboard in the US, and again by Vanguard in Nigeria, not to mention his native publications.

All of the above mentioned sources are reliable (and highlited green) So, last question, which WP:GNG requirement was not met here? dxneo (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to me as mate. As far as the WP:WALLOFTEXT, I will sum it up like this - You quoted policy which states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." I will concede the references address him directly. What you have not provide evidence of is how they cover him "in detail." The mentions are verification, the others churnalism, another an interview. At this point, the discussion is becoming ad nauseam. I will leave it for closers to determine.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. dxneo (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

^ Zellner, Xander (2023-11-15). "10 First-Timers on Billboard's Charts This Week: Matt Rogers, Mark Mothersbaugh, Kelsey Hart & More". Billboard. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
^ "BUTTA MY BREAD". Official Charts Company. 2023-11-25. Retrieved 2024-10-14.
^ "Butta My Bread by JZyNO on Apple Music", Apple Music, 7 April 2023, retrieved 2024-10-15{{citation}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ "Singer-songwriter JZyNO debuts with 'Butta My Bread'". Vanguard. 3 July 2023. Retrieved 14 October 2024.
^ DJ Edu (16 February 2024). "JZyNO: Liberian singer on Butta My Bread success". BBC UK. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "MTN Liberia Music Awards announces nominees". Vaultz News. 27 September 2021. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "JZyNO, UMG Artist becomes first Liberian musician to gain global attention". The Sun. 4 July 2023. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
^ "TGMA 2024 winners list: Stonebwoy beat King promise and odas to win artiste of di year". BBC News Pidgin. BBC News. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-10-14.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Arts, Music, Africa, Ghana, and Liberia. dxneo (talk) 02:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Giant walls of text just discourage participation from others. Both of you need to calm down and let others participate so we can come to a consensus on what to do. Editor(s) who wish to keep the article - can you please give a concise explanation of your WP:THREE? Sergecross73 msg me 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject of this article meets criterion 1 and 2 of MUSICBIO. He is a Liberian artist who has received some coverage in Front Page Africa, which can be seen here, here and here. He has also recevied coverage in Pulse Nigeria, This Day newspaper, Vanguard, and in the BBC, despite the latter source being a primary source. Moreover, he has been discussed in the Lusaka Times and Nairobi News. He won and has been nominated for the MTN Liberia Music Awards, which is considered the biggest music award show in Liberia. He was nominated five times at the award's 2020 edition and won two awards in the 2023 edition. As previously stated, his song "Butta My Bread" charted on the Billboard Afrobeats song chart and the UK Afrobeats singles chart. Per this article, he is the first Liberian artist to gain global attention and is currently signed to Universal Music Group. Per the BBC article, his song "Butta My Bread" has received 160 million streams and is Liberia's biggest Afrobeats song. His song charting on two national music charts along with the sources I have mentioned here should be sufficient for a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you described is what would be considered inherent notability in my opinion. Again, the notability guideline does not say he "is" notable for charting. It says he "may" be notable. The sources are all verification of claims, not significant or in-depth about the artist. We also need to be careful about using sources like this since they are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's it not reliable when it was never assessed at WP:RS/N? dxneo (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works. A soruce does not have to go to RSN to be determined unreliable. Similar to how a reference does not have to go to RSN to be considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient here to meet WP:MUSICBIO, including charting, and secondary coverage, and a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a ~~national~~ international radio network (i.e. BBC World Service). Also I disagree about the WP:RS BBC article being classed primary; yes it includes quotes, but also includes secondary text and analysis and biographical information under a journalistic byline. ResonantDis_tortion 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other sources (other than the claim of BBC) that you would consider reliable and covers the subject in detail (not just verification of claims of charting or award nominations)?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just let other editors assess the subject 'cause would BBC and Billboard "claim" someone charted when they didn't, and why would those awards be claims? [rhetorical question] dxneo (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the question was posed to the editor making the vote. Unless you are able to speak for them, please stop muddying up the discussion with WALLSOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'd like to see more evaluation of the sources presented in this discussion since we have some disagreement. I will say at this point that I see no support for deleting this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment - Here you go, @Liz:. Would be happy to evaluate any additional source you feel is in dispute. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mynewsgh.com - No byline and site has no editorial oversight listed. Likely churnalism or a paid placement. Regardless, it is a rehash of what the subject posted on Twitter so in addition to being unreliable, this specific source in no way could be considered WP:INDEPENDENT.
All Africa, this is a churnalism piece that was reprinted from FrontPage Agrica (see below).
FrontPage Africa, using an archive link since the original is no longer published on that website. Written by "FPA Staff Reporter" which is not bylined. However, other news articles such as the first one on the home page are bylined. This usually indicates it is a placement and given the tone it is more likely a press release.
BBC, great interview but it is just that....an interview. Not independent. All but five of the 17 paragraphs contain quotes. No independent journalism here.
Vanguard, while the publication has editorial oversight, this is yet another one that has no byline. Given this about selling paid article placements (yes, a separate fee so that it is not marked "sponsored content"), I would not see this as independent.
Billboard, good publication but this is only verification that he collaborated with another artist and that song debuted at No. 50 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs. There is two sentences about him so not in-depth or indepdnent journalism. I will point out again that WP:NMUSICIAN does not make someone inherently notable for charting. The wording says "may be notable" but they still need significant coverage. Simply having a mention in a reputable publication does NOT show notability.
Official Charts, again, just shows chart positioning.
BBC, just lists his name as a nominee right below the actual winner of the award.
FrontPage Africa, forgot to add this which was brought up above. Completely unreliable as written by a "contributor" as opposed to other articles you can find on the site with full bylines. More paid placement. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot IOL. Product of WP:ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot that piece of churnalism which states - "According to a statement sent to media, this newest musical venture sets the stage for a “lively and immersive experience”." Not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again, WP:ANYBIO does not say a person "IS" notable for meeting one of the criteria. It says "LIKELY." --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done defending this. Charts are obviously for positions. According to you, all of the above-mentioned reliable sources are not independent. Now the awards and nominations are not to be considered? I'm so done. dxneo (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, stop nitpicking and commenting on every single post. You cannot refute the fact that the subject had a song chart on multiple prominent charts. Charting is major criterion of MUSICBIO. You do not have any evidence to support the claim you're making about some of the sources being "paid placements". You're speculating and making false assumptions in an attempt to justify your position. For your info, Front Page Africa is a major newspaper outlet in Liberia, one of only three in the country. The fact of the matter is that this particular article is independent of the subject. Although it does contains weasel words, there are zero quotes from the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 06:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I am allowed to respond despite you saying not to. I am discussing, in good faith, both mine and other's contentions in the discussion. If you don't like it, ANI is that way. I never said he didn't chart so don't infer that I did. As far as the reference you shown, it is in fact churnalism. If you want to see the rest of it, you can go here, here, and here. While Front Page African may be a reliable source, that particular source is a churnalised press release so it can't be used for notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed my !vote in the light of what appears, for no obvious reason, to be a rather strident AfD discussion. The article subject has had a significant segment on national level radio, has charted in multiple countries, and has also been nominated, or won, awards at a national level in 2 countries. All of these are "ticks" per WP:MUSICBIO that are verified by sources which are very much independent of the subject, and are cited in the article. We appear to have, at minimum, enough for a Start-level article. Consequently a presumption of notability may be made and I stand by my keep !vote. ResonantDis_tortion 16:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect you taking the time to go through everything. I just want to say that "presumption of notability" is not notability. We have presumed notability based on those ticks but I still do not see the significant coverage (only verification sources). MUSICBIO says "may" be notable for these things, not that they "are" notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The award won seems notable, with 10 years of history. Some coverage in Ghanian media [9], nothing in Liberian media. The BBC interview helps. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore (Andrew Jackson captive)

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Discrimination, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how a child that lived for 6 months is notable. There is no claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I read the article and looked over the sources. They're either books or paywalled, so I have not read them, but they're good quality and the topics look direct. I'm confident in the presumption of notability. I'm more concerned about neutral, encyclopedic wording than about notability. In addition to that, I feel including enslaved people, whose stories are undertold, in this encyclopedia is something we should err on the side of doing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charley (Andrew Jackson captive) at a new page titled Creek members of the Andrew Jackson household or similar, which should obviously also refer to Lyncoya Jackson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer keep but I have no objection to this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, does Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household make sense? Going by our article, it doesn't look like we have any real evidence for Theodore's origins. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment makes no arguments regarding notability and claims that a max 3,600 word article would violate WP:SIZERULE—obviously untrue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley (Andrew Jackson captive). -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though I have trouble seeing how consensus will be reached if people don't include more policy-based reasoning, particularly regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

Academics and educators

Jeffrey Gramlich

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

I could only find one non-primary source talking about this person, so in addition to the other issues with the page I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Economics. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Dennis

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Politics, Engineering, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [10] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [11]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. E Eng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) E Eng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting the book is only being published this month so it could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as far as reviews go. For this reason, if it can't be kept, I would support a redirect for now per @Cakelot1:'s suggestion. Starklinson (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jostin Francis

AfDs for this article:

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

Recommending this article for deletion. The person has no particular wiki worthy notability. He is a psychiatrist.

The page mentions that - "Known for Various presentations public speeches and debates done for Kerala Freethinkers Forum and many other science groups of Kerala". This isn't something that qualifies as notability. Freethinkers itself isn't particularly notable on its own. And being a member of it isn't any remarkable achievement.

And has received an award named Media Special Appreciation Award' which is of no particular value whatsoever. Every professional would  have received some form of award in their career.

The person was in news for trying to abuse a female patient https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/02/08/psychiatrist-wayanad-medical-college-student-sexual-abuse-suspended.html

Also see the External Links section of the wiki page. They link to his FB page, Business Contact page and Personal blog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostin_Francis#External_links

This article doesn't belong in wiki. This definitely has the look of a self promo article.

Bobgali (talk) 14:42, 28 October 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 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E for the sex scandal. No other notability. This BLP appears to be an attack page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "widely acknowledged" writings have left no trace in GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources for the subject consist primarily of promotional articles offering suggestions, tips, and recommendations on medical well-being. Additionally, there is a verifiable and reliable source related to a sexual offense case. However, beyond that, the subject lacks significant notability, thereby failing to meet Wikipedia's WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that hasn't happened even since the first AfD in 2017 because the subject isn't actually notable (reviews in specialist journals carry very little weight, as noted in the previous AfD) and as a result no one cares to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. It just continues to exist for the subject's benefit, written by the subject and/or people close to them (i.e., at Shimer/North Central) using sources from the subject's personal blog and other completely unreliable citations. I predict that if the article passes this second AfD it will just be nominated again in the future when someone else notices that it is entirely based on unreliable sources. 2404:4408:476B:4500:E867:645B:3954:A301 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to improve it, though gutting articles during an active AfD is often disruptive to the process. I don't agree that reviews in specialist journals don't count, surely they are the best way of assessing reception in the specific field. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Taek-Gwang Lee

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

Edit: I change my vote to keep, based on one of the comments below.

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Can't find any notable coverage of their work in news media either. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and South Korea. seefooddiet (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His work is every where(books, lectures, articles). It is on Jstor, Google scholar, Google Books, Print like The Guardian has mentioned him. He is writing on Deleuze and Guattari's philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet This is his google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=oAEdHDkAAAAJ&hl=en

This his Jstor search result: https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Alex+Taek-Gwang+Lee&so=rel

He has edited a book with Salvoz Zizek https://www.versobooks.com/products/196-the-idea-of-communism-3?srsltid=AfmBOoqosEfP3Y6T5G2tDhErrlHwpEeUJFbFSsTUrhNnnkZoF9LoIJWV

He is extensively writings on French and German Philosophy and Korean Culture. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that you have made a mistake. I request you to please reconsider your decision. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

He is a known philosopher who is writing on Deleuze and Guattari, Korean Culture and other cultural topics. His publication is everywhere. WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePerfectYellow (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. Having a Google Scholar profile or having previously published books or articles doesn't help, otherwise every academic in the world would qualify for a Wikipedia article. seefooddiet (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think reputed and highly discussed books an topics are basic for academia. There are series of reputed portals who have discussed about him and give his references for saying things. Publication like The Idea of Communism 3, which he coedited with Salvoz Zizek and Salvoz also mentioned him in his writings(https://slguardian.org/we-already-live-in-the-end-of-the-world/). His writings on Deleuze and Guattari and Korean Culture are not just ordinary. He is reputed Deleuzian scholar and member of various academic society. i have given the enough reference for that. And I am keep updating his work. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

google Scholar, Goolge Books and Jstor have been required as (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sources that he wrote or published himself do not contribute to his notability. It has to be other people writing about him in a published format. ) On this, scholar writes their books. Although, the reception of their works is important. So, he has been recognised many places for his writings on new Marxism and philosophy. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tell us the exact sources, you want. Scholars have cited his works a lot. So, i am also using these. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am rewriting the work and reception part by using third party references. Will update this tomorrow. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you're making efforts to improve the article. Respectfully, I'm still skeptical that it passes NACADEMIC. Some of the mentions you provide are trivial mentions (see WP:SIGCOV). They're brief one or two sentence mentions of Lee. The major criteria I think Lee may pass is possibly #1 (The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources), but you'd have to provide sources with more than just trivial coverage to show that. Otherwise a lot of what has been presented in this thread is just your word that he is impactful. seefooddiet (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seefooddiet I have rewrite the entire passage of 'work and reception' and have used all the third party references. Request you to kindly check. I have mentioned two important concepts which he drives: his intervention in the philosophical debate of 'concept creation' as he explained it as 'third world' and 'eschatological force' as he uses this phrase to describe the pain and trauma of Korean people from Korean war and conflict.

Other than this, I have also mentioned his ideas reception in media. He is also the member of respected academic societies and journals.

I request you to kindly check! ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, these are still trivial mentions, and most academics are members of various societies. It still doesn't meet NACADEMIC. seefooddiet (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS doesn't seem to be finding much in the way of citations? One authored book is mentioned, as well as an co-edited one, so WP:AUTHOR might be an easier route than PROF (but with a more senior co-editor on the latter I'm not sure how one might interpret any reviews). Open to persuasion but not seeing much here. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleuze and Guattris studies is an emerging academic field. Not many scholars have intervene in this. This is very much exclusive right now. But that doesn't mean this in not valuable. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we go with WP:AUTHOR , the point number 2 and 3 are perfectly suitable for him. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For AUTHOR #2 ("The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique") I think you would need to provide a reasonable number of unrelated academics who explicitly stated this. For #3, you would need to provide multiple book reviews covering at least two books, and even then there's only one authored book, and many discount edited books. To be honest, I worry that the subject has not yet gained sufficient traction in the academic community. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He ahs written many books on Korean culture and korean issues. I am listing here the links where his opinion from his writings and reviews of his book has been published.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/histories-of-violence-the-ghosts-of-civilized-violence/

https://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/culture/culture_general/4745.html

https://www.ijejutoday.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=230029

https://web.archive.org/web/20170824093816/http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/taek_gwang_lee.html

http://m.100news.kr/24621

https://brunch.co.kr/@critic/176

https://www.unipress.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=8152

https://brunch.co.kr/@minq17/254

There are many more. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced of this argument. Similar opinion to Espresso Addict. seefooddiet (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to understand your standpoint. I have shown what you have asked for. Kindly check. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can send you more reviews and mentions by the other media and authors. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll change my vote to keep. The first three links in this comment are possibly sufficient coverage. seefooddiet (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet I request you to kindly remove the deletion nomination from the Alex Taek-Gwang Lee page. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other people may vote. seefooddiet (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okays, wait, then. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this person meets WP:NACADEMIC. Seems to be some confusion that just because a person has published works means they're notable for our purposes which is untrue. Outside of their own self-published works, all I see is short bio blurbs by publishing companies and quick one line mentions in articles, none of which represent WP:SIGCOV which is a core pillar of notability. Article's prose itself help out either... nothing in it tells me why this person is notable. Going line by line through WP:NACADEMIC's requirements doesn't hit anywhere. RachelTensions (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider the Verso, Anthem, Bloomsbury Publication, Cambridge Scholars Publishing etc as a self-publishing agent? ThePerfectYellow (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective even taking all of that into account I'm not convinced of notability. seefooddiet (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia deals with collective intelligence and we all respect that. I request you to check all these from a fresh eye. ThePerfectYellow (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta ur Rehman Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

The situation appears to be unchanged from the last AFD: this academic is listed online (in primary sources such as his own books or copies of his conference papers) but has not received coverage within reliable and independent publications. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can’t believe this didn’t come to my attention sooner!! It's quite a shameful AUTOBIO. It was created by an Oman-based IP back in 2019 when the subject was a professor at Sohar University, Oman per his LinkedIn profile. Then it was mostly written by Ajman, UAE-based IPs such as 2001:8F8:1E23:7A12:1C9D:4C83:84C1:AA8A, 5.193.101.156, 109.177.94.190, 109.177.82.11, 109.177.87.49, 109.177.104.239 who are also likely associated with the subject, especially since the subject moved to Ajman as a professor at Ajman University in 2020. If one checks the logs, it’s evident that this BLP has been heavily edited from both Oman and Ajman - both places where the subject has lived. It clearly fails to meet GNG as well as WP:NPROF. it's totally promotional and the subject is clearly using Wikipedia for self-promotion. He also flaunts his Wikipedia page on his personal website [see footer]. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it stated in the Wikipedia policy that a notable person cannot mention a Wikipedia page link on their websites? 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he also meet GNG. He established Pakistan's National Cybersecurity Center and Pakistan's first undergraduate cybersecurity program. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I compared Prof. Khan's profile with the following Pakistani computer scientists. If the following are meeting the GNG and WP:NPROF then Prof. Khan's page is also meeting the required criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubashir_Husain_Rehmani#cite_note-tribune-9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Majid_Bhurgri

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhawani_Shankar_Chowdhry
Again, where is the secondary coverage? There are lots of secondary coverage about Mubashir_Husain_Rehmani. Seriously, all this talk is being documented, and will make incredibly harder to get your page back. Now you will have to appear in the BBC, CNBC and Al Jazeera to be considered again for a Wiki page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn! Contributor892z (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the editor has some personal grudges and is biased against this listing. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
personal grudges Seriously Mr. Khan, it’s not worth it. let’s chill! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who khan? I think you have something personal with Khans. I can understand. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's been enough years since the previous AfD that the previous WP:TOOSOON arguments do not really apply. But the only case to be made for notability appears to be through WP:PROF#C1; he doesn't meet the other PROF criteria and we have no evidence of GNG notability. Setting aside the quality of his publications, this is a high-citation field and the top-cited works on his Google Scholar profile [12] all appear to be surveys. I don't think the remaining ones have sufficient demonstrated impact to pass C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you from the same domain? How can you pass a judgement if the number of citations are not enough? Prof. Khan is listed among the world's top 2% scientists in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 WP:PROF#C1. He also serves on the editorial boards of more than eight high impact journals WP:PROF#d. He has delivered multiple keynote talks at international IEEE conferences WP:PROF#e. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is really notable, then why no secondary coverage? The WP:PROF#C1 criterion is indeed subjective and is just a shortcut to presume that there is notability under WP:GNG. Best way to prove notability beyond doubt is to have evidence of WP:SIGCOV, which the subject fails to have. To be highly cited under WP:PROF#C1, in my experience I have seen that 3000 citations across the entire career in computer science is still not enough without secondary coverage. Probably still needs to triple that amount, with at least a couple papers with more than 1500 citations each. I agree that it would be better to include quantifiable information in WP:PROF#C1 and make it less subjective, but I doubt this will ever happen. Contributor892z (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to count for the academic notability criteria, he would need to be the editor in chief of a prominent journal. Serving as a member of an editorial board for a journal (or many such boards) is not enough. And Contributor892z is perfectly right, these citation numbers are not high enough for his particular field. Qflib (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World top 2% scientists is definitely not enough either. If you do a simple maths - there is 1.1 million BLPs in English Wikipedia and 1.35 billion English speaking people in the world, you conclude that to be notable you need to be at the top 0.08% of your field of expertise. (Actually, if you consider that some of these BLPs became notable for bad reasons, e.g criminals, big failures, etc, the true number is even lower than 0.08%). Probably the fact that he is top 2% explains the lack of secondary coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein Could you provide one or two notable academics in this field for comparison? Also, I assume "senior member" of IEEE is, in practice, a giant step below fellow? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely at least a step below fellow. By "the field" do you mean computer science in general, or cybersecurity/blockchain/cloud computing? That can be kind of a spammy area so harder to tell by citation counts. And if I name people who are outright stars it wouldn't be a fair comparison. But ok, going down the Google Scholar listings for someone matching similar areas and more borderline but clearly on the keep side of the border, let's go with Yang Xiang [13] [14]. The top couple of papers by citations are surveys again (this is not unusual; surveys get better citations) but the tail in his citation counts is significantly longer and heavier. More to the point, we don't have to rely only on citation counts because he is also an IEEE Fellow and an editor-in-chief, passing multiple other PROF criteria. We don't have an article on him already (suggesting that maybe his case is more borderline than some, or maybe he is less self-promoting than some) but I would definitely count him as meeting our standards for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- Yang Xiang is obviously considerably more heavily cited from the GS profile, and the IEEE fellow is, of course, an autopass. Perhaps in such tricky-to-assess areas we should just go on the IEEE assessment, or perhaps EiC on a well-established journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree that he does not meet WP:PROF and there is also no secondary coverage to show evidence of WP:GNG. The article was also poorly written and does not meet WP:NPOV by any means. Seems to be just a case of using Wikipedia for self promotion. Contributor892z (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Khan's work has been cited by thousands of independent researchers in their publications.

For ref, check https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=j5x2DasAAAAJ and https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55602487700. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not secondary coverage. Read WP:SIGCOV Contributor892z (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation count were high enough for this research specialty, C1 of WP:NPROF would be enough for notability without meeting WP:SIGCOV. But only a few thousand citations is not much for this field, I think. Qflib (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how Wikipedia is used for self promotion in this case. Prof. Khan's personal website ranks first on Google search for his name. This page is not even in the first five google search results. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the intention is to only get a Google knowledge panel, don’t use Wikipedia then. Get a profile with Google Books and that will do it :-) Contributor892z (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per discussion above, I am convinced the subject does not meet WP:PROF by citations (or any other route), and I see no evidence of GNG being met either. There is one book with two co-authors, which -- even if reviews were to be provided -- would not be enough to meet AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He does not meet NPROF which is I think the closest. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Buddhism, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:

- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).

- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Possible redirect to Nana Kwame Bediako where subject is already mentioned. I wouldn't object to adding a few words to characterise Kriese there. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Durning

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

WP:BIO1E the only reason this article exists is because of the allegations of sexual abuse: [15] no notability otherwise and coverage is more about the Catholic Church's role than Durning himself Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE for now UzbukUdash (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable and WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as this person does not appear to be notable beyond the allegations, which in this case is not enough to exceed WP:NCRIME or WP:PERP. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 22:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

AfDs for this article:

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

My nom concerns from the first AfD discussion still hold. This subject fails WP:NPOL and still fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. From cursory search, nothing useful was found too. Also fails WP:NACADEMIC as far as I am concerned. There are no credible claims of significant/importance here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Albania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. I can't find anything notable about the topic on the article nor online, and most news articles about them are months to years apart. Deuxde (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nisma Thurje as an alternative to deletion. The political party seems to be somewhat notable, but I'm not seeing much notability independent of that for Shabani. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now Cyberpower7 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is too dependent on primary sourcing, and not nearly enough on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources, to claim that he would pass GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
pass WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage LefterDalaka (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are numerous reports in the Albanian media. euronews al shqiptarja Cna al Politico al telegrafi reporter al Τhere is no reliable Albanian journalistic website that does not host news and comments about him. He is certainly an important Albanian political figure whose article will be deleted only because there are no sources for him in English - LefterDalaka (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LefterDalaka, sources do not have to be in English. I looked through the sources provided in the article before !voting. I also looked through the ones you posted here, also. The Euronews and CNA do not appear to be independent of each other. All appear to be rather glancing coverage. I'm having trouble determining reliability of the publications, but I see some tabloid type concerns. What do you think the WP:THREE best sources for WP:SIGCOV are? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware that Euronews and Cna are somehow linked. Do you know something I don't know?😊 Actually I brought these sources to highlight one's encyclopedic nature by combining them all together and not just one. Let's say he is a person who is included in the Barometer, he appears on TV channels on various issues, he is now the chairman of a party, in general he is a completely recognizable and influential person in Albania. LefterDalaka (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not seeing anything here that would meet WP:PROF. No publications appearing on GS at all? With a PhD in 2020 would seem likely to be a case of too early career on that front. No opinion on press coverage in Albanian. Would be happy with redirect/slim merge to Nisma Thurje if no other source of notability emerges. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hulme

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United Kingdom. Hitro talk 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing much here towards WP:PROF; the single book has two coauthors and not much citation activity visible on GS. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above - no evidence for meeting WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Created by an SPA, there is also no presence of the subject on Scopus, and the citations in the article are largely primary. Possibly draftify could be an option for the incubation of the article, just in case there may be the sources out there. ResonantDis_tortion 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Lichters

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

A likely autobiography of a non-notable academic. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV (news searches turn up zero results, for example) to pass WP:GNG. Nor is there evidence of a WP:NACADEMIC pass; his h-index of 9 is quite low for a full professor in business/economics, indicating that he is not particularly influential within his profession and more of a WP:MILL academic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Business, Economics, and Germany. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF at present, might be too early career, though surprised subject holds a chair. I note there's also an article at de. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article on German WP was also created by “MLichters”. Also worth noting that the subject doesn't hold a named chair but rather is a department chair. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Everything @Dclemens1971 said. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. The article reads like a CV Earlsofsandwich (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Ismay

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Plenty of mentions but nothing in-depth that focuses on him. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability for GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything to meet WP:PROF here. There's a moderately cited textbook with academic publisher with a single coauthor, but we'd really be looking for at least two such to make it worth searching for reviews to support notability under WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One book isn't going to pass WP:AUTHOR as above. Neither his citation record nor the other biographical details in the article suggest a pass of any of the WP:PROF criteria. That leaves WP:GNG but none of the sources in the article are the sort of in-depth independent and reliably-published coverage of Ismay needed for that, nor did my external searches find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and criterion for the inclusion of an author page. Easy call to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but we almost never keep untenured college teachers. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakiv Pavlenko

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

Article by a novice editor of an academic with unclear notability and which has too many unsubstantiated claims. H-factor of 28 with 2574 cites so does not pass #C1. Page contains both significant WP:MILL (e.g. giving a seminar) and unsubstantiated claims such as "published more than 300 papers". GS shows 141 total, many uncited conference papers. Editor claims that he qualifies under #C2 which I am very dubious about since at most the Ukrainian State prize comes close. I tagged the page with notability questionable, and asked for verification of claims. Appsoft4 ignored request, so now it needs a wider discussion of notability (or not). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the author has strong views on this article but has been temporarily blocked from editing. In the interest of fairness, please consider this diff, which they indicated were their views on the AFD. OXYLYPSE (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is not completely unnotable under PROF, the citations appear reasonably healthy. As the subject recently died, it is possible that more obituaries will be published (there is one in memoriam already in the article) which will provide GNG. There's a uk article that appears to predate the subject's death and was apparently not created by Appsoft4. Perhaps draftification is an option? Although the creator appears to have been quite disruptive, imo blocking them from participating in this AfD is not really in the interests of assessing whether or not the article subject meets our threshold. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were warned and asked repeatedly to stop removing the AfD tag and blanking this AfD but refused. They did so at least 10 times. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine you are a newbie who has written/translated an article on someone who has recently died, whom you strongly (and not irrationally) believe to be notable, and someone brings it to AfD. Blocking them such that the AfD will be settled in their absence feels... cruel. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that it is not impossible that he may end up passing NPROF. Not on citations, as it is not a low citation field and many of his papers have multiple authors. Maybe #C2, although I am not convinced. It might be good for an independent editor to cut the MILL, sources & irrelevant material and add other independent material for us to look at. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to copy a comment here for Appsoft4 (the blocked creator of this article), and they offered the following rationale for keeping:
... why precisely Pavlenko meets one or more of the bullet points in WP:PROF and/or what reliable independent sources there are, such as obituaries, prize citations, reviews of his work or similar...
Here is a list (maybe even incomplete):
- Yakiv Pavlenko was given by one of two highest awards at the national level for the field of astronomy by The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NASU):
  - NASU Prize named after Mykola Barabashov [uk] (given to Yakiv Pavlenko and in 2009, presented in 2010): https://old.nas.gov.ua/EN/Competition/Pages/About.aspx?CompetitionID=033
    Source: https://old.nas.gov.ua/UA/Competition/Pages/Persons.aspx?CompetitionID=033&Year=2010
  - (Seconf one is NASU Prize named after Yevhen Fedorov [uk], but Yakiv Pavlenko never nominated for it.)
- Yakiv Pavlenko was given by the highest award at the national level for the field of science and technology by The Government of Ukraine:
  - State Prize of Ukraine in Science and Technology (given to Yakiv Pavlenko in 2014); since 2021, award was renamed to National Prize of Ukraine named after Borys Paton [uk]:
    Source: https://www.kdpu-nt.gov.ua/en/content/derzhavni-premiyi-ukrayini-v-galuzi-nauki-i-tehniki-2014-roku-oglyad-0
- Obituary was published by the Yaroslav Yatskiv [de], a notable Ukrainian astronomer, a directory of MAO NASU [de] (Yakiv Pavlenko was a Chief Research Fellow and headed one of its departments), an elected member of the Presidium of NASU and the Chief of the Ukrainian Astronomical Association [uk] (Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of NASU and UAA too).
  - Source: https://mao.kiev.ua/index.php/ua/81-in-memoriam/866-in-memoriam-pavlenko
  - Curriculum Vitae: https://mao.kiev.ua/staff/yp/TXT/yp0031.txt
  - LinkedIn: https://ua.linkedin.com/in/yakiv-pavlenko-6244a3b
- Research work includes more than 300 publications according to ORCID (on Google Scholar, used to reason adding Notability and AfD, ingoring WP:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics caution on Google Scholar, only 141 are listed, and on ResearcheGate only 272 are listed) — this may be not a direct notability proof, but it describes that adding Notability and AfD templates was not legit in the first place.
  - Source: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7615-4028
  - Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EmsP1AgAAAAJ
  - ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yakiv-Pavlenko#publications
- Article about Yakiv Pavlenko is published in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine.
  - Source: https://esu.com.ua/article-878326
- Yakiv Pavlenko's discovery of 5 new exocomets was published by valuable scientific news media.
  - Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ukrainian-astronomers-discover-exocomets-around-another-star/
- Yakiv Pavlenko co-autored few books, and one of them awarded by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), a valuable non-government association for the field of astronautics, recognized by United Nations.
  - Source: https://iaaspace.org/members/awards/#Awards-Book
  - The IAA Basic Sciences Book Award (2016) certificate: https://mao.kiev.ua/biblio/mono/IAAsertificat.jpg
- Yakiv Pavlenko was a member of International Astronomical Union, European Astronomical Society, Ukrainian Astronomical Association [uk] and «Science At Risk!» digital platform.
  - IAU: https://www.iau.org/administration/membership/individual/1253/
  - EAS: https://eas.unige.ch/members.jsp (Yakiv Pavlenko's membership level is not public on website, but he not listed as an actual elected Council member https://eas.unige.ch/council.jsp, no info on the past Council members, though)
  - UAA: https://ukrastro.org.ua/ (website is in maintenance mode)
  - Science At Risk!: https://scienceatrisk.org/expert/pavlenko-yakiv-volodymyrovych
I suppose its enough to proof the notability. Appsoft4 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to copy his arguments here Unfortunately much of this is WP:MILL for academics (memberships), or not relevant (who wrote the obituary). He does not pass WP:NPROF#C1, or 3-8. To me the isuue is:

Do we consider the State Prize to pass WP:NPROF#C2. If yes, then we clean the article and keep it. If no it gets deleted.

Ldm1954 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. I am somewhat persuaded by the notion that the subject is a notable scientist in Ukraine, if not internationally. The entry in the Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine could, I think, be considered to pass WP:ANYBIO #3. The obituary certainly would seem to go towards GNG, the Sci Am piece possibly, if Pavlenko were the key author on the exoplanets work, and the three together might be considered to meet GNG. Altogether I'm leaning keep, particularly swayed by the ANYBIO#3 argument. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some very quirky expressions and stylistic oddities for an english reader in the text of the article, (that is not encyclopediac) despite some off putting aspects that would lend to a sense of promotional - it is (barring some conclusive evidence of copyvio or similar problem) just notable, in the realm of probabilities, but requires quite a lot of editing. JarrahTree 03:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JarrahTree. Which sources would you consider significant coverage to show notability here? I will take a look and withdraw the AfD should they be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing the deputy chairman of a sub-ministerial government body, moderator in a Presidential debate, and major interviewee in a viral film. Not necessarily sufficient on their own, but together they definitely support a presumption of notability. Referring to the sources:
- Kompas is a major Indonesian newspaper, basically the Times of the country. The quoted article is an interview with the subject, which as per the article linked was also in the print edition. I'm also seeing a response to accusations related to the film (Indonesian), discussion of his views on legal issues,
- Detik is another solid source, and already cited in our article. There are still more sources like his response to accusations of partisanship,
I'm also seeing a few lower-quality sources (still RSes, but not as established) through a quick Google search. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pulled open KompasPedia, and it is published by Kompas. Coverage is sufficient to show GNG, IMO. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are sources I saw but they are not about him. An interview is not independent and the others are him giving an opinion on legal issues. Where is the significant coverage about him?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over the quality of the sources but I'm not ready to close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, England, Canada, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [16], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [17]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- book reviewed by the NYTimes, cited as an expert in the field by Washington Post, and published as author by Harvard Business Review and Financial Times. There's promotion and fluff in the article, but I am happy to put the standard of external notability at a single book reviewed in the Times. It's not a slam dunk, but I think it's a keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three book reviews (source 14) are more than enough for author notability. Could use a re-write, but this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Oaktree b. Meets WP:GNG. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 19:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [18][19]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "weak" from my delete, as I find the delete votes below more compelling than the keep votes. For GNG, I still find the one NPR piece to contribute somewhat to notability, but the rest seems to me like passing mentions, and I don't think it is enough. No sign whatsoever of NAUTHOR notability, minimal (and arrested) progress towards NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [20]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [21], [22], [23]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [24], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:NPROF, and there is no significant of her or her work that would satisfy WP:GNG. The accumulation of several quotes as an expert in good outlets is a start, but I don't see it as being enough to overcome the lack of other significant sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UzbukUdash (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UzbukUdash, AFDs aren't a vote, please present an argument to support your opinion, based on policy and your assessment of the sources. Otherwise, your opinion is likely to be dismissed by the discussion closer. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. There isn't any WP:SIGCOV and many of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. The NPR podcasts fall into the category of WP:PRIMARY and thus do not contribute to WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

Hans Roland (via WP:PROD on 4 November 2024)
Georges-Claude Guilbert (via WP:PROD on 2 November 2024)
Matt Beat (via WP:PROD on 30 October 2024)
~~Ben Caldecott (via WP:PROD on 27 October 2024)~~

Actors and filmmakers

Sebastian Dunn

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

This BLP has only one source and I haven't been able to find anything Signicant. The best thing I've found is [25] which isn't great Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Theatre. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read both of the relevant Google hits, one of which says that his character was one of the "major villains" in Arrow, but he was only in season 1 (mostly in flashbacks) except for 1 episode in season 8. The other source says that he apparently stopped acting after his last Arrow appearance. Neither has significant coverage of the actor, and I don't see any reviews of his performances. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just to clafiy something here for potential closers, flashes backs are heavily used in Arrow in season 1 they are arguably more used then the modern day events. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack WP:RS to meet WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Fong

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

I have been unable to verify any of the information in this article other than some of the film credits. Searches via ProQuest, NewspaperArchive, Google Books, and plain-old Google have turned up no significant coverage of this person. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Hong Kong, California, and Nevada. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack references to meet notability per WP:GNG, they fail WP:SNG too Tesleemah (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely unsourced, created by suspected sock PPdd on May 23, 2011. Looks like a lot of this was written by Martin Fong himself. The entry on him at IMDb was written entirely by him. Quite possibly the entire article has been created by socks of Martin Fong. The many edits of User Lifesucksdie123 were exclusive to this page - no other article. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareef Muhammed (producer)

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

Apart from producing a upcoming movie, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy for an article. All the sources are about his upcoming movie. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject look promising, he is only notable for one event (Producing "Marco" Movie)which is not enough to create an article for him here. Tesleemah (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Producers are mostly covered by the media in the context of the projects they invest in, which makes it difficult for them to meet GNG requirements.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one film in subject's credit, fails WP:NPRODUCER. No significant coverage on the biography of the subject and the sources are poor with only passing mentions. RangersRus (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject has only one unreleased project and is supported by weak sources, failing to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, producers aren’t automatically notable. We routinely delete articles about production personnel because they are so run of the mill. Furthermore, in India, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about business in India requires a close eye. Bearian (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Da-bin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and South Korea. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Windborne Rider i think you are the one who failed to read WP:NACTOR carefully Aidillia^(talk) 14:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles in the main cast of notable productions; roles in the main cast can be considered significant; so that I consider deletion unnecessary. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Dal Soon's Spring and Unpredictable Family. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roshni Kapoor

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject clearly fails to meet the WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and WP:NACTOR (notability for actors) standards. Coverage is limited to routine mentions, and most sources lack reliability per WP:RS (reliable sources). Additionally, many of the news articles appear to be paid content and include disclaimers indicating as such. Baqi:) (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current sources in the article are generally unreliable, except for a Bollywood Hungama video and a Zee News article. However, the Zee News article is about the song “Tu Rooh Mein Samaya” and does not provide significant coverage of the subject. Additionally, I was unable to find significant coverage from reliable, independent sources during my search. Therefore, the article fails to meet WP:GNG, and since the subject has no lead roles in multiple notable films, it also fails WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 14:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor to unreliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR who has not played significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little to add: a non-notable film without major coverage, sources that are churnalism and BrandMedia masquerading as legitimate, and two music videos are insufficient to pass NACTOR.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radda Novikova

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

Russian film director. The importance of a serial (mostly) director is extremely questionable. The Russian Wikipedia article was deleted [26].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be kept because the director in question has a significant body of work, having directed multiple popular television sitcoms in Russia, a major media market. Furthermore, she has received international recognition, with awards that affirm her notability beyond national boundaries. There are plenty of references from major outlets, including Cosmopolitan and RIA Novosti. The fact that the Russian Wikipedia chose to delete the article does not diminish her achievements, as Wikipedia in different languages may have unique standards or biases—this is the English Wikipedia, which evaluates notability from an international perspective and should base its decision on the director's clear contributions to the industry and documented impact, not on the editorial decisions of other Wikipedias. It is also unfortunate to delete a page about a notable female director, as representation in media coverage is essential to recognizing the contributions of women in film and television, especially in an industry where they are historically underrepresented. Er nesto (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she does seem to meet the applicable guideline, WP:DIRECTOR with various seasons or the totality of notable TV series. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kazankova

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

WP:NACTOR significance is not shown.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One really significant role only but better-known as a freediver: https://www.deeperblue.com/marina-kazankova-attempts-a-4th-guinness-world-record/ https://www.sportalsub.net/en/guinness-apnea-carlos-coste-y-marina-kazankova/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6584917/Freediving-duo-set-Guinness-World-Record-longest-underwater-dance.html https://tribune.com.pk/story/1888204/freediving-duo-set-world-record-longest-underwater-dance https://nofilmschool.com/2015/06/highly-suspect-4-minute-music-video-shot-one-take-under-water-red-epic-dragon-6k Mushy Yank (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. Mushy Yank (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Alien Exorcism and The Time Guardians (Passes GNG through reviews here, here and here). May also pass GNG as there are sources here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Kumar

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG or WP:SNG. In addition to that, the citations given are insufficient and do not possess the required quality and reliability. Although she may have won a beauty pageant, it is not a major national fashion or beauty event. Contrasting WP:INHERENT. Also, being married to a businessman who has a wikipedia page of his own does not automatically establish notability by association WP:INHERITED. The notability of her husband's page is also open to debate, but let's not get into that.

This nomination is part of my training and assessment activities at NPP School. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Charlie (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Television, Beauty pageants, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award; if other users disagree, a redirect to Gladrags_Manhunt_and_Megamodel_Contest#Winners (where she is listed) should have been considered anyway.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Given the notability of the awards is challenged (rightly so or not, not sure [same nom]) see below and AfD about the awards, keeping my keep but changing my argument: no more ANYBIO but a modest BASIC/GNG pass, in light of the sources presented by Jeraxmoira. (Not opposed to a redirect and merge to Anupam_Mittal#Personal_life, where she is mentioned (with a picture), as a lot of the existing coverage mentions her in regard to her marriage and private life).Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[fwiw, I don't think Anupam Mittal's notability is doubtful][reply]

Keep meets WP:ANYBIO with a significant award Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest and represented India in Miss Intercontinental (The winner of Gladrags Mega model represented India at Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003) and ended up as a semi-finalist. She was also a contestant in Bigg Boss and got evicted after 6 weeks. You will get to see a lot of news about her. Added some old references.

Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't rely too heavily on Gladrags Manhunt as a significant award, especially since it itself depends on a single, unreliable source. A search through Google News reveals that the event lacks significance on its own and does not demonstrate notability. Secondly, being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable. We need better sources that are in-depth, significant, and independent. Charlie (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we rely on a contest that is a national contest? Also, Gladrags sends winners as national representatives to Manhunt International, Miss Intercontinental from 1997 to 2003, Miss Tourism International. Aanchal represented India among the top five contestants in the Miss Intercontinental. I also agree that being a participant on a reality show does not make someone notable, but at the same time, it is very difficult to survive 6 weeks on a reality show like Bigg Boss, she must have done a significant job in the show. She also won the celebrity segment of quiz show Baazi Kiski hosted by B-town actor Ashutosh Rana on Zee TV. Jitujadab90 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, Gladrags is primarily a promotional contest and lacks reliable coverage. I have already provided a Google News search result link that clearly explains my concern. Also, being a participant in an international event is quite different from being a winner. If you are able to add substantial information to help the page meet the Heymann standard, please feel free to do so. Charlie (talk) 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you think of these sources? [27] [28] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:CITEUNSEEN, the first link from Tribune India is credible, and the article is authored by a staff writer but the coverage appears in Saturday Plus, a supplement rather than the main newspaper. In the second link, Rediff, while also reputable as per CITEHIGHLIGHTER , focuses on being someone's girl friend, which led to its coverage, so I would prefer to skip it. Charlie (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that coverage from a supplement paper and a source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend does not count towards the GNG? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am implying coverage from a supplement paper should be given careful consideration as it may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability. But, the source discussing her as someone’s girlfriend shouldn't be counted. Charlie (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that backs up your statement? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly! To partially accept the first source, I will refer to WP:SPONSORED where it clearly states that "merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources". For not accepting the second source, I will take support of WP:INHERITED. Charlie (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have your answer in the statement you mentioned. Unless you can prove that the source published on November 13, 1999, is a sponsored one, it is completely acceptable for GNG. WP:INHERITED states, "Caution: This section is not a content guideline or policy". Deletion discussions are based on policies and guidelines, not essays.

And fwiw, your interpretation of WP:INHERITED is completely incorrect. Please read the subsequent paragraphs below the example arguments. WP:INHERITED is not applicable here, as no one is arguing that she is notable for being Yuvraj Singh’s rumored girlfriend. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While essays are not official policies or guidelines, many offer valuable insights and are worth considering. Policies and guidelines may not cover every possible situation, so numerous essays provide interpretations or commentary on community norms for particular topics and scenarios. We may hold differing views, and each perspective has merit. so let’s respectfully agree to disagree. Charlie (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous reliable sources available, starting from her winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest up to her recent marriage and childbirth, which can be used to write a well sourced article. WP:INHERITED discusses an instance of a subject assumed to be notable only because it is related to an existing notable subject, which does not apply here. We have coverage that goes back to 1999, from different events in her life. Even if we consider all the coverage from Bigg Boss as one, we still have substantial coverage starting from her pageant victory up to her entry into Bigg Boss, which easily meets GNG. The 2012 deletion discussion was argued on the basis of subject being notable for one event, which is also not applicable, as we have coverage beyond that. Apart from this, Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest has also survived two AfDs, which means the pageant victory should be considered as significant award or honor, thereby passing WP:ANYBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulty finding relevant sources on Google search, or perhaps I might be overlooking some like I missed the 1999 Tribune Supplement. Would it be possible for you to provide a source analysis table to aid in? This would be incredibly valuable for me as well as for the assessor regarding my recently concluded NPP training, as my rights application is still pending. Charlie (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a source analysis here. I believe the main issue lies with your nomination, as you cited WP:INHERITED which is commonly used in AfD arguments, not nominations. A recent example of inherited notability could be Alakh Pandey. In this case, Aanchal Kumar is not solely notable for marrying Anupam Mittal, participating in Bigg Boss or winning the Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest rather her notability comes from all three factors, at this point. Redirecting Aanchal Kumar to either Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest or Anupam Mittal would result in a significant loss of content, so that's out of the discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Though I was hoping for a source analysis table, but thank you nonetheless! Charlie (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jeraxmoira,@Jitujadab90 and thank you, please note that the nominator has also nominated Gladrags Manhunt and Megamodel Contest for deletion (one day after this). Mushy Yank (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She did severals of notable work and have good sources. Camilear (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitish Nirmal (actor)

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

Recreation of salted title: Nitish Nirmal, which was salted back in August. No immediate evidence of notability that I could find. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and Salt: The subject does not meet any notability criteria, the current sourcing is unreliable, no significant coverage sources were found during the search, and no significant roles in notable films, it fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Salt per both of the above, as it's just been speedy deleted G5. Completely non-notable, fails WP:NACTOR, and I could find only passing mentions of him for his minor roles. Wikishovel (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Shaw

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

Non notable individual. Article is sourced pretty much entirely to press releases or companies associated with the individual. Also contains an unsourced list of non notable minor festival award. Spanneraol (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources indicate any sort of notabiliy. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Radhakrishnan

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article created by a sock who was originally blocked for UPE. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Most of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The last AFD opened by TheWikiholic was closed as no consensus. However the editors I'm tla and Rydex64 (page creator) who voted to keep the article have been blocked for socking and UPE. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Internet, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per Oaktree last time. I don't see any arguments against these sources... Aaron Liu (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being cited as a "voice of reason" if you will, glad my contributions here help. Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this; now neutral because I do not know enough to evaluate Indian sources' connections to subjects. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still a keep, with the same sources I cited in my last discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your arguments on the last AFD, [ [29] this is the only good source in the article. To establish GNG, we need atleast three such sources. The rest of the sources including the local ones are mostly paid. Also as pointed out by Mims Mentor, aside from being a well-known reality show contestant, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy enough to warrant an independent article. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thilsebatti@Mims Mentor Is there some way we're supposed to find out whether a source is paid? Some here seem to be implying that the TOI articles are good but others say they're also paid.
(Also, there's no set number to determine GNG, and my personal number is 2.) Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content in the article appears promotional as it primarily highlights achievements, accolades, and public recognition, seemingly aimed at enhancing the subject's image. Many of the sources cited resemble paid news articles, as indicated by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Aside from a controversial elimination from a reality show, the article lacks any notable achievements, with the subject's popularity largely limited to a local fan base in Kerala.--Mims Mentor (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. RSP says "Editors should ensure that they do not use paid advertorials" for TOI, so is there a way supposed to check for whether a specific article is paid? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aaron Liu, Oaktree b. Most news articles from TOI and other reputable sources about the subject tend to have an "overly positive tone," catering primarily to fan-base entertainment. These references frequently emphasize the subject's role as a controversial contestant on a TV reality show, with little mention of any substantial achievements beyond that. This makes the content weak and unlikely to meet the WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG standards. Additionally, some references appear to be mere news versions of the subject’s social media posts, further weakening its credibility as independent sources.--Mims Mentor (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since "achievement" can be hard to determine, only the amount of unbiased coverage may determine notability. I am quite confused about Indian sources and paid coverage now. How can we determine whether a source is paid? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:It is evident that the subject does not adhere to the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR criteria. Only have some routine mentions, and the majority of sources are unreliable. Furthermore, a large number of the news stories have disclaimers without any bylines which means they are paid content. 111.92.70.85 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janicke Askevold

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

I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Norway. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would say she meets WP:NACTOR with her roles in My Way and China Salesman, two notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My database access has borked so I can't evaluate these properly, but there are lots of Norwegian newspapers that mention her here. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Miroshnichenko

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a PR platform. Refbombed spam for non notable individual. Has a massive primary sourced laundry list of so called awards but they are not major awards (or for the most part remotely credible). Last Afd closed no consensus largely on the validity of the Independent Music Awards (IMAs) (now deleted) but they are not a major award and are not even a notable award. None of the many listed charts are GOODCHARTS. Refbombed sources lack independent coverage in reliable sources. Curated by a single SPA who despite being blocked is still updating this PR. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Russia, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the International Songwriting Competition confer notability? The article for the award has a few citations to RS calling it "prestigious", mostly the Irish newspaper article... Not sure about notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol 'prestigious' is a word that barely exists outside press releases - if you see it in a news item it's a giveaway that the piece is probably churnalism. Things which are genuinely prestigious (Nobel, Emmy etc.) are never described as 'prestigious'. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAP is an Irish newspaper? Good to know! ascap.com/help/music-business-101/songwriting-competitions DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: winning non-notable awards doesn't help notability here. Other than the 2024 "win", this is still the same quality of biography we saw during the last round at AfD. I've read up a bit more on these "awards", they don't seem terribly important. Nor do most of the charted albums/songs hit on charts that we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article about Roman Miroshnichenko is included in The Great Jazz Guitarists encyclopedia, edited by Scott Yanow. --Yakudza (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep In duo with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, Roman Miroshnichenko has won the Best Jazz Award of the USA Songwriting Contest: serious world-class achievement mentioned in the top news of All About Jazz - the largest jazz portal in the world. Also, he is a Guinness Records holder, which is more than a notable award. Along with John Williams, Allan Silvestry, and Hans Zimmer, he was the nominee for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards. Not a big deal, too? He has recorded with the London Symphony at Abbey Road studio, just think for a moment. He is also a Recording Academy/Grammy Voting Member, where only outstanding musicians and experts are allowed. He is the winner of the Film Music Contest, the largest competition in media music in Europe. These are just undeniable facts that can make less fortunate colleagues nervous. All facts are in the public domain.

DiscursivePraxis (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The previous AFD did close a No Consensus which might be the case here, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I do agree that the article is very obnoxious and and been refbombed to hell(98 references!?). It could probably use some work to move towards a more neutral view, to read the article would make you think this guy is one of the best musicians in the world. But I do believe he barely passes GNG. Winning the international songwriting competition and the article in The great Jazz guitarists certainly help, although are not too well known. The fact that he has won so many awards speaks to his notability even though most are quite unknown. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 02:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Winning so many awards speaks more to his entering so many contests and to his skills. Ability does not make one notable unless it receives independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has truly made his mark on the music world. Teaming up with Grammy-nominated guitarist Mike Stern, he recntly won the Best Jazz Award at the USA Songwriting Contest, a big honor that even made headlines on All About Jazz, the world's largest jazz portal. His list of achievements keeps growing: he's a Guinness World Record holder, a Grammy Voting Member, and has even been nomnated for the Hollywood Music in Media Awards alongside John Williams, Alan Silvestri, and Hans Zimmer. He's also recorded with the London Symphony Orchestra at the iconic Abbey Road Studios and took home the top prize in Europe's biggest media music competition - the Film Music Contest. It's safe to say that Miroshnichenko's accomplishments speak for themselves.
DiscursivePraxis (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is voting twice not allowed, editors are not allowed to use block evading socks to vote. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandrashekar Bandiyappa

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

Procedural nomination. Contested Jimfbleak's WP:G11 deletion and reverted to a non-promotional revision. Potentially meets WP:DIRECTOR through his filmography. I would !vote weak keep, but I have no real opinion as I have not investigated this topic in any great detail. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Anarchyte (talk) 08:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR pass with 3 notable films that received critical attention. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Passes WP:NFILMMAKER where all his films got multiple reviews in reliable sources. This page still needs lot of improvement made with better sources and more coverage on the career. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the three films have critical review, we should have enough to pass notability for film directors. Two films were also nominated for awards, helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes criteria four of WP:NFILMMAKER as having significant critical attention.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly passes NDIRECTOR with 3 notable films. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:49, 5 November 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.

Shahram Pourassad

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

BLP lacking any proper sourcing, cut and pasted from draft. I wanted to draftify it but the draft still exists. Does not belong in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Nahavandi

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

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are well, I have added more references such as (Magazine, News and more refs) to make sure each statements are supported by mentioned references. Could you please let me know if this could help to not be nominated for deletion? any feadbacks or help in case if there are still some issue with this article would be appreciated, many thanks xx Lanak20 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to three sources that discuss him in detail? -KH-1 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here are the some sources that dicuss him in the details:

1 ) https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

2) https://www.magcloud.com/browse/issue/1933514 ( Moscow tonight / Party issue/ February vol2/ page 34,35,36,37 )

3) https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cm5er1zggp0o

some extra just in case:

4) https://www.mashreghnews.ir/news/1652987/%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%AE%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%AD%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%87-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B4-%D8%AC%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8C-%D9%BE%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%88-%D9%BE%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%AE%DB%8C-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C

5)

https://roozaneh.net/art-culture/biography/%D8%B2%D9%86%D8%AF%DA%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%85%D9%87-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AE%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%88%DB%8C/

Lanak20 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional profile, probably user submitted.
Can't access the full publication, unclear what coverage it provides of the subject
About a protest song, doesn't specifically mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a film review, doesn't mention the subject as far as I can tell English
What appears to be a promotional bio of a different individual - English

Still not seeing anything that would demonstrate SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate your feadback however:

It is not a promotional website, there is not a part of website stating user can create a profile or bio. the National Diversity Awards website is not a promotional platform where individuals can create their own profiles. It is a curated, third-party site that publishes detailed nomination profiles for individuals recognized for their achievements. Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies of living persons, such as WP (General Notability Guideline), accept third-party recognition and profiles published on award platforms as potential sources. This source provides coverage that is independent and detailed enough to establish some notability.
The February issue of Moscow Tonight, available on MagCloud, includes four dedicated pages about the subject. This source should meet WP guidelines, as it provides detailed coverage on the individual. The fact that the magazine is behind a paywall does not negate its validity as a source, especially since Wikipedia encourages the use of reliable sources regardless of paywalls (WP). To address your concern about access, I am happy to provide additional details if needed."
I understand there may have been a translation challenge here, as the article on BBC 'Persian' references the individual within the broader context of cultural movements. The piece mentions notable figures, including the subject, associated with influential trends in this movement. BBC Persian is a reputable source, and while the English translation may lack some nuance, the article reflects the subject’s role within a culturally significant narrative, which aligns with WP when viewed as part of their broader impact. I’m happy to clarify any specific details from the source in the original Persian to ensure accurate representation. This source, while not comprehensive on its own, does contribute valuable context alongside other supporting sources that I am preparing to further substantiate the article.
Mashregh News Article on a Protest Song (Bella Ciao and artists who sang) : While this article is not just a film review and may not solely focus on the subject, it is worth noting that WP allows for multiple sources that contribute to notability as a collective rather than needing to be individually comprehensive. This piece references the subject within a context that showcases their influence and relevance, particularly within cultural discussions, which contributes to notability even if indirectly.
Roozaneh.net Biography (Appears to Be a Different Individual): I understand the concern here. It seems this website might be confusing in English translation but i have added this as there is a connection to related page as in the article it was mention of music collaboration and some refers. I am willing to remove it from consideration and focus on sources directly pertinent to the subject. My apologies for any confusion here.

Lanak20 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to see more participation here besides the nominator and the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Neal

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be converted to stub. Passes WP:Notability 201.13.76.212 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Profile is notable and ascertains Wikipedia:NPRODUCER. Additional citations flag can help in finding and citing more sources in article.

144.168.11.31 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to align with Wikipedia criteria, with indications of notability within their field. While the article could benefit from further citations to strengthen its reliability, deletion may be premature. Applying an 'additional citations needed' tag would encourage improvement and enhance the article's quality without losing potentially valuable information.

94.20.88.143 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has now been blocked as part of a UPE sock farm duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments of the nominator and believe this article should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The LA Times article is the strongest source here. Most of the others are brief mentions or possibly not independent. This might turn into a "keep" if her book (not yet out) gets significant reviews. It's a shame about the creator - draftify would otherwise make sense. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleted as a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kole Akintujoye

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

I don't think this person meets GNG. They claim to have received a global recognition award but that award doesn't appear to be notable either. Most of the sources seem to be blogs and interviews Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Health and fitness, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill business person without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been edited extensively. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Satisfies WP:GNG at least as a filmmaker. --Altenmann >talk 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a clear-cut pass of WP:FILMMAKER here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 5 November 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.

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.