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

IAMNOBODI

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

All sources referenced are either not reliable or passing references. From my searches, the most coverage is passing references in lists of people performing at festivals or lists of remixes for songs. Nothing that amounts to significant coverage, so it fails WP:GNG. Also, the article appears to be AI generated. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Nigeria, and Germany. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Macek

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage of this musician in reliable sources. This musician's winnings from obscure music awards that are Los Angeles Music Awards and LIT Music Awards do not show notability either. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I didn’t find anything substantial in my WP:BEFORE search. The subject clearly fails WP:NMUSIC and also does not meet WP:BASIC. Baqi:) (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Optikz

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No significant coverage of this musician. The article makes the claim that this person's songwriting "gained international recognition" but there is nothing to support this claim. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is all in a local newspaper [1], plus the two sources from Guelph in the article. I don't see the person having met any of hte musical notability standards we look for... No charted singles, the awards are non-notable, no major releases on record labels. Being an opening act for someone else isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Items written by RH staff -rollinghype.com/aussie-canadian-talent-optikz-prepares-to-drop-champion-and-change-the-game-with-new-ep/, or this which is on the spam list -hiphopexclusives.com/optikz-the-australian-canadian-lyricist-redefining-resilience-with-champion-and-upcoming-ep/ , so you can't post the link in Wikipedia. Was preparing to "drop" his album in April, with literally no coverage since. Still nothing to show musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Shallcross

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

At first, I was hesitant to nominate this article for deletion primarily due to WP:NACTOR. Then I realize that WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG (or WP:N itself) matter more, especially per WP:BIOSPECIAL. I admire this person's third-place in The Bachelorette (US) season 19, but then I wonder whether that finish and his major role as The Bachelor in season 27 (US) would suffice anymore. The aftermath of season 27 can be already explained in The Bachelor (American TV series). Furthermore, he is well known for primarily his major role in The Bachelor. Thus, per WP:BIO1E, if not WP:BLP1E, and WP:BIOSPECIAL, should be redirected to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 27. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, American football, and California. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George D. Ellsworth

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

This article is mostly unsourced and does not establish notability, either of which would be a reason that it should not be in article space. This article was declined by an AFC reviewer, but then moved to article space. The author is entitled to move a draft into article space, but Wikipedia cannot have articles that fail both notability and verifiability. The one source is about the subject's grandson, and only says that the subject fought in the American Revolution, including at the Battle of Saratoga. The rest of the content is unverified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and New York. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Falls short of notability and a cursory search doesn't turn up any more sources. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and simply being a private in the War of Independence is not enough. (Also, his name is spelled wrong on his tombstone.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established.--Staberinde (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Intothat darkness 12:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A private would rarely be notable. This appears more of a family history project than anything for Wikipedia. Was in the army, did his bit and retired. Zero coverage in Gbooks or Gsearch. Another non-notable individual soldier. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG. The single source is about his grandson with only a WP:PASSING mention of him, also raising the issue of WP:NOTINHERITED.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comment that Wikipedia is not a memorial. Wikipedia is not an international graveyard might be a good essay idea. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Gada

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

Only 1 article links to this. 4 of the 5 sources are articles written by him. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, India, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR criteria - wrote a book, but I found no reviews of it. Qflib (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louton family

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

I've been unable to find any SIGCOV other than Rollin Grams's book Stewards of Grace, which is not an independent source, as he is a member of the family. Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Lists of people, Christianity, South Africa, and United States of America. Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV to support an article on this topic. Even if Stewards of Grace were independent, I would want to see evidence of other sources discussing the "Louton family" as a topic on its own, similar to other "known" families like the Kennedy family (for example). I was hoping that Stewards of Grace would cite works we could use to establish notability, but from a quick skim of the footnotes I don't see anything promising. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only RS identified by Cite Highlighter are 12 and 13... 12 is listed as a blog, so not helpful. 13 is an article about after-hours stock trading, not about a religious missionary family... This is a walled garden, we've already deleted a few members and few if any of the individuals are notable. As I said elsewhere, a bunch of non-notable individuals lumped together doesn't make them notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Louton

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

Low H-Index, most cited paper as first author has only 11 citations per Google scholar. No books. No strong assertion of notability in the article. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. Journalism doesn't appear to be notable. Membership in organizations, but none are particularly selective, nor are there important leadership positions or major prizes. Declined prod. It's likely that a merge to Louton family will be suggested, but I don't think the family is notable either. Jahaza (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Finance, Business, South Africa, and Rhode Island. Jahaza (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is a potential WP:BLPDELETE request at Talk:David A. Louton, but it is not yet verified. --Jahaza (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Louton family. Agree that Louton family is not likely to survive either, but it's an easy and obvious ATD until that article makes its way to AfD. Otherwise, I agree with the nom: no GNG, no NPROF. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Agree with Suriname0. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. If Louton family passes notability, then redirect it there (but it seems somewhat doubtful that it does given the weak sourcing). GuardianH 21:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now AfD'd Louton family as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louton family. --Jahaza (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lazatin family

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

This was a contested prod. Political family in Angeles City, Philippines. Most references, while WP:RS, pertains to individual family members. One talks about someone going up agsinst the family. One seems to be about the family per se, but looks to be self-published. Individual family members may pass WP:NPOL, but the family as a whole does not. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Software

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

This article was created in an obvious attempt to circumvent the very recent prior consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game) and the older consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Software (game developer), collectively establishing that Wikipedia should not cover this topic. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The article leans heavily on a Mashable article from 2024 that has no consensus for reliability, and a Sports Illustrated article from 2025 that is an unreliable source. The Game Developer source is a primary-sourced interview. Therefore, I think the sourcing is too weak to pass WP:NENTERTAINER, and he hasn't directed sufficient notable games to pass WP:NARTIST. It's possible he could still become notable in the future, but it should require approval from an admin to recreate such an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still too early. Most of the article relies on the recent controversy therefore it also does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (leaning towards): While I initially created the deletion discussion for the Heartbound games page, because it was clearly written with a COI as an ad-piece and lacked any notability and sources on the entire internet, as also then found in the discussion, I am more hesitant to immediately call the creator of this game not noteworthy enough, as even the Hawk Tuah girl has received an article. The problem and my reasoning for leaning towards deletion is this: The person in question has successfully fabricated his biography through constantly repeated and now found to be conflicting statements (repeating them everywhere until they were believed to be true) to the extend that there is now no verifiable sources for most of his supposed doing/work. In addition to that even through the deletion discussion for his game there was a fierce debate in his discord server as to how one could “change the narrative” and “create sources that support the [supposedly] correct viewpoint”. These efforts have muddied the water even more. So the only argument for noteworthiness relies on the viewing numbers of this streamer, I find that rather weak, but if this discussion finds another consensus than deletion, I would prefer the article to be shortened immensely to more relevant and highly verified facts (like the hawk tuah page) and then locked until further developments. Otherwise I do agree with above comments on this being a circumvention of previous deletions, which were supported by lack of notability and most importantly any *unbiased* sources.

TheDigamma (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than rumors and suspicions. In the assumption that he lied about his past, this is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and we rely on sources to vet the information as accurate. The only question here is "are there enough reliable sources" and the answer seems to be no. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:22, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my language. My thinking/argument was: for most persons interviews can be considered as somewhat reliable sources. For this person this is not possible, therefore a large number of sources that currently support this article are not reliable. TheDigamma (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Since the 2022 deletion, the article’s subject has won two awards for streaming content and gained notoriety for his political activism. Adding a section on his Heartbound game also contributes notability, and is a suitable replacement for having an entire separate article about the game.

I find the accusation of 'an obvious attempt to circumvent ... prior consensus' fails WP:AGF, and the conclusion that the previous threads 'collectively [establish] that Wikipedia should not cover this topic' infers too much. One thread is recent but establishes that an entire article on its topic would be excessive, but that doesn't imply that a subsection of another article wouldn't be an appropriate way of documenting it until/unless it gains more notability; the other is three years old and clearly predates significant events increasing the subject's notability. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Adding a section on his Heartbound game also contributes notability..." It does not. Notability is not inherited from things someone creates, and the game itself is non-notable anyway. Otherwise, please state which sources demonstrate WP:NBIO is passed, rather than relying on the argument of WP:FAME. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to then ask whether the awards he won count as "significant" under NBIO's definition. I am, personally, not convinced. The Streamer Awards page seems non-notable on its face, with the only SIGCOV being about the trophy being a hate symbol - not exactly stellar evidence of its significance. Unless the Streamer Awards can be determined as a major honor, this is doubtful - it's more reserved for obviously huge achievements like a Purple Heart, Emmy Award or Presidential Medal of Freedom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're new awards in a fairly new category of entertainer, and the only major awards for which an entertainer of that kind would regularly be eligible. One might as well write off all streamers as non-notable if one is going to go down this path. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that means all streamers aren't notable. Some streamers have received tons of mainstream coverage in reliable sources, which doesn't require winning awards to have. Awards can contribute to notability but certainly aren't required for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Zx. Not suitable here and NARTIST and NENTERTAINER are obviously not met. I also would hardly call Heartbound a significant enough game to go towards NARTIST. It is not a critically acclaimed or highly notable game - the article was literally deleted for it. By applying the logic that Heartbound contributes towards it, then basically any indie game developer would be able to get an article regardless of how notable their game is (even if it only received the bare minimum reviews to psss GNG). But that isn't how things work. I also would not consider the Streamer Awards to be a significant award. Furthermore, I personally would throw any sort of subject-specific guideline out the window in favor of GNG, because at WP:Notability, it clearly states "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia". So the subject doesn't pass GNG, does not have strong enough sourcing, isn't a sufficient topic for an encyclopedia... yeah, I'm comfortable with completely throwing any sort of NPERSON SNG out the window here. λ NegativeMP1 16:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough reliable sources to warrant its existence, which was the reason the previous articles were deleted. Sure, the Heartbound section may get removed, but the entire article? You guys are on crack. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources are reliable? TheDigamma (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources aren't reliable? We’ve got Eurogamer, IGN, the Times of India, the Verge, Mashable ... there are some other sites cited which I haven't heard of, but I'm not a huge gamer myself so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (personally — someone who knows more about what sources in this subject area are reliable could maybe point to any particular problematic ones). The article would probably stand up to fair scrutiny even with only those five, though. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the ones present the following are GR per WP:RSP and WP:VG/S: The Verge (2), PCGamesN (2), GamesRadar+ (2), IGN (1), Shacknews (1), Game Developer (1), Dot Esports (2), GamesIndustry.biz (1), Hobby Consolas (1), AUTOMATON (1), PC Gamer (1) and Gamepressure.com (2). 17 generally reliable sources, most of which mention or reference him in the title. (as Pirate Software, Thor, ex-Blizzard dev, etc.) Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of the collection you've mentioned I can poke holes in the following:

• Consensus appears to indicate that the Mashable article is not a reliable source, which also is in part an interview.

• The PC gamer article makes no mention of Jason Hall, only his father, and is being used as WP:OR to back up the Mashable article.

• The PCGamesN articles are both only used in brief mentions in the lead section that are used to say that he is a streamer and game developer respectively without anything pertaining to Hall's work.

• IGN article is used only once to cite Heartbound, which has been established as failing to meet notability guidelines.

• Both GamesRadar+ articles seem to literally just restate his own videos that he has uploaded. Additionally, the first one (regarding Hades) is not relevant to anything in his career.

• The Game Developer article is entirely an interview without dialogue between the interviewer, leaving it effectively written by Hall.

UppercutPawnch (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Heartbound has been established as not notable enough for its own article. This article should certainly mention it because it belongs to why the subject is notable, which means Heartbound needs a cite. 2. We’re talking about reliability here. What claim a source is used to back up is a different question from the source’s reliability. IGN’s reliability is not in doubt. Daphne Preston-Kendal (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This article was moved to the main space one day after the related article for Heartbound was nominated for deletion; Heartbound is a major section of this article and one of the major three (work history, heartbound, controversies) that has generally reliable albeit few sources. Since moved to main space, the article had and continues to have issues, mainly WP:NPOV and WP:V.

A majority of my edits were for style and MOS:EDITORIAL. However, I cannot reconcile that sources of dubious reliability, especially the Wikipedia:MASHABLE source, is frequently relied upon in the bio (the article is also an interview with the subject). Referring to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game), one source (Paek, Game Developer) previously assessed as not counting to GNG, and one partially compliant source (Jagneaux, IGN) have been again referred to in this loosely related article.

Otherwise, I agree that this article falls under Wikipedia:Sustained. Recent scandals are the source of a lot of information in this article, Heartbound was recently assessed as not notable, and the biography relies on too many sources with dubious reliability or interviews. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The move to mainspace was not made because of the deletion of Heartbound. I worked on the draft of this article, trying to find as much reliable sources as I could. After scouring the Google's news tab while constantly checking the WP:VG/S page for several days, I decided that I found what I could, removed unsourced info and moved the article to mainspace. So no correlation to the Heartbound deletion whatsoever, just bad timing. Dabmasterars (talk/contribs) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, let me clarify then that I don't agree with the accusation of circumvention, just that the Heartbound discussion included general discussions on reliability and the mention of sources that fall under WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, and that I believe this applies to this article where it is a major section. Nonetheless, I still stand by my assessment as a whole. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per comments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures. That the subject has fabricated his biography through constantly repeated and now found to be conflicting statements and that the article has contained some of these WP:BLP issues with NPOV, V, etc. is also a cause to TNT and begin again. GuardianH 21:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge SKG and only the Stop Killing Games sections into, well, Stop Killing Games. Gamepressure seems reliable (see also VG/S) and sources that section with a pretty important part of the initiative's history. Meanwhile, the WoW incident is borderline notable and doesn't contribute enough content to justify a standalone article for a living person whose details are fuzzy, and probably belongs better in the article for the OnlyFangs clan's leader. For the rest of the article, I find the arguments for TNT convincing. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Anything of note can, and has, been mentioned in the respective article itself. If done properly this page would be an amalgam of "See main article" links over and over again. He won an award? Mention that on the award page. He caused issues for Stop Killing Games? Mention that on the Stop Killing Games page. Once you get past that, there's nothing left to mention. Padillah (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SKG per Aaron Liu. I agree with the arguments above by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, TheDigamma, and TheAlienAdventures as to why this article should be deleted, though I believe the section on Stop Killing Games has enough notability to significantly add onto the article on that topic. I am hesitant to believe that this article is a circumvention attempt per Daphne Preston-Kendal, though I will note that I do recognize a few editors on this page that also seem to have participated in the development in the Heartbound article when I lurked during the AfD and I am concerned with biased editing in favor of the streamer due to negative comments made about this page in his personal Discord. UppercutPawnch (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire article seems to hinge on two events with one being more questionable on the notable side. This seems to be WP:SINGLEEVENT. Though of course with only with two events as opposed to one.

i could very well see the deletion of the wow controversy due to its quality and notability. Which would further bring into question the notability of this current wiki. LordOfPeepz (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt to prevent recreations in the near future. Yue🌙 07:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I don't think the recent controversy surrounding SKG or every other petty drama he's been warrants an article. Majoriminorionoj (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SKG per above 1timeuse75 (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge with SKG or Draftify. I would rather not delete and/or salt unless there is absolutely no choice. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 22:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Satyaprakash Saraswati

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

As far as I can tell, this is the same person whose article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati. I can't find evidence that he is notable, but perhaps others have more success. Fram (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and India. Fram (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Hinduism, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's written like a paean, which would be fixable, but there don't seem to be any references that one could use to write a better page, or to justify why a page is deserved in the first place. A whole lot of pseudoscientific tosh has circulated over the years about "Vedic wisdom", and we'd need top-notch sources to avoid propagating that kind of fringe chatter. Department chair is an administrative position, not an academic honor, and by itself it does not satisfy the academic notability guideline. Also, this article was created on 29 July 2025, and yet the references claim to have been retrieved on 18 April 2014. I don't know what the deal is with that. (Text copy-and-pasted from somewhere else? Unreviewed slopbot output?) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Slatz

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

For this very controversial BLP, notability seems to be entirely resting on a WP:1E student newspaper controversy. All other references are passing. Does not pass GNG from reliable independent sources outside of the 1 event, and this is very negative BLP which makes me further question it given how poor the sourcing is. We should not be writing an article on every controversial student newspaper columnist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage in Canadian media; she worked for Rebel News, which tends to be seen in a negative light here, to be diplomatic (they're of the same cloth as OAN and many others in the USA). That's likely the reason for the lack of coverage. Tangential mentions in the sources given, not really enough to show notability for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Oaktree b. MidnightAlarm (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this article is blatantly WP:BIO1E of a single controversial (yet minor) event. No significant coverage exists outside of trivial mentions-in-passing so WP:GNG clearly isn't met. I share the nominator's concerns about the poor sourcing considering how negative the article is. Keeping WP:NEXIST in mind I don't think the article could possibly be salvaged; a thorough search shows there simply don't exist enough reliable, independent sources providing anything remotely like significant coverage. A cut and dry case of non-notability. GhostOfNoMan 20:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ESC Gabe

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

A relatively niche (reporter for the Eurovision Song Contest) YouTuber and journalist who does not have much notable media coverage about themselves, most likely violating WP:Notability (people). Most sources are his own socials or interviews that the subject conducted. In addition, the internet "memes" section reads off like a promotional advertisement telling how "popular" the subject is. Most likely, the page was made by an excited fan of the subject. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 18:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the one article published by a reputable source mentioned here (an article from The New York Times) merely mentions him in a passing mention. This just simply is not a notable article by any means. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 18:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, two passing mentions in an interview don't meet WP:GNG. A search for sources doesn't reveal anything beyond similar passing mentions in Eurovision fan media. Great videos all the same, but doesn't meet the notability guidelines on here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails to meet several of Wikipedia's notability policies, including WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT, and this article is a clear example of an overreach in trying to establish overall notability when their reach is limited to a small bubble of interested individuals. See also WP:NYOUTUBE. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed above. Not WP:Notable. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listed above. Toffeenix (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no, don't delete, this article is notable enough for a youtuber, he has a big fanbase and is quite big among the esc community Niin kai (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESC community is far too small. Unfortunately, it does not meet the notability criteria. Wibbliams (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Niin kai: Please see WP:NYOUTUBE as a starting point for why YouTubers, with some exceptions, are generally not notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. A subject needs to meet either the general notability guidelines or the guidelines specifically for entertainers, and neither policy has been met by the subject of this article. Regarless of fan base or subscriber count they are just simply not notable enough to warrant an article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am the subject of the article. While I'm flattered that people went to the effort of making this, there are a litany of reasons why I am not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, much as I wish that wasn't the case. Escgabe (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am the original author of the page, and I realise how much of a stretch this article was. I think it's because I just wanted to see if Gabe would be able to get a Wikipedia page, but I now realise how the subject is not notable. I'm sorry for wasting the time of the Wikipedia moderators who had to review this. Wibbliams (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails ANYBIO and NYOUTUBE, plus the author has requested deletion. As was mentioned above, NYT only gives the subject a passing mention. @Wibbliams, there's nothing to worry about. If you legitimately thought the topic was notable at the time of creation, that's understandable and we do not hold that against you. I've been there myself. But I have a question: what was your line of reasoning for including their YouTube channel as a cited source in addition to linking it in the infobox? Not only is that not needed IMO, but it's also an SPS. Gommeh 🎮 17:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the person who added links to the youtube channel as far as I remember. Wibbliams (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a mistake on my part, Wibbliams added the channel link as a source when he created the article, and I added the link (along with the youtuber information to the infobox) in a later edit. It was just a goof that I didn't realise the source was there, even more embarrasing was that I kept checking the page. Regardless, my bad. Jamo62 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

she but yeah fair enough on it being an honest mistake

Wibbliams (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Amir

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

The claims to notability seem to be the title of "Research Fellow at Harvard University" and "Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient". I cannot find anything supporting either of those claims. Actually, I'm unable to verify almost anything in this article. The references which exist here are all user-generated (IMDb, U.S. Navy Memorial, and "harvard.academia.edu", which is not run by or affiliated with Harvard), or PR fluff (everything else). Trying to find better sources only yields more of the same.

"harvard.academia.edu" is user-generated, and one can find other distinguished scholars there such as Harvard's own Aaaaa Aaaaa, Jvhv Bhjgfkyfk, and Ppoooo Pooooo.
I'm unable to find an official list of the 2023 recipients of the President's Lifetime Achievement Award, but this apparently-unofficial site] has one (it may be incomplete because the subject is missing). If you search for the award on Google News, you'll find widespread and significant coverage from many sources for recipients who are listed here. I can find no such coverage for this subject.
I found a few articles on Medium, and then realized they're all written by the same user

There appears to be a lot of PR fluff when you try to find sources here. I can't find anything to support the notability claims per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. tony 16:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. tony 16:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RangersRus should not have accepted the AFC submission: The sources in the article are obviously highly promotional and not independent of the subject. The article lacks any legitimate claim to notability and is merely an accomplished young person's resume, almost certainly written by Amir himself. Reywas92^Talk 20:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told by other veteran reviewers when I rejected similar article that a fellow meets WP:NACADEMIC. On top, it showed on this United States Navy memorial site that the subject earned the prestigious Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, making him the youngest recipient of this honor. RangersRus (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word fellow has multiple meanings in the academic context. There are "research fellowships", which are short-term positions for junior scholars (including graduate students) to do research on some topic. This is very different from being an elected Fellow of a major society, which is a recognition for a stellar career. WP:NACADEMIC is talking about the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But also, even when drafts are on notable subjects, to be accepted at AfC they need to be based on sources that are reliable, even for forms of notability that do not also require those sources to be in-depth and independent. Here, the sources appear inadequate to support the content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, This is not a prestigious award. It's given practically automatically to anyone who logs a large number of hours of volunteer service [2] – many thousands of people have received it. A very nice recognition, but by no means given on a discretionary basis to the most notable people. This is also clearly not a reliable independent source either, the content is self-submitted and he obviously wrote his own biography there. — Reywas92^Talk 01:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy Memorial page is absolutely not an independent, reliable source. In fact, it should probably be included in the WP:DEPRECATED list. The "Service Memories" are self-written biographies. They are, according to the Navy Memorial site, self-submitted stories that are:
Reflections of war or peacetime service...These accounts may be typed or hand written accounts, photos, biographies, anecdotes, sea stories, poems, or even prayers.

In other words, Mr. Amir wrote this entry himself and submitted it to the Navy Memorial. The Memorial *might* have done a cursory check to ensure that it wasn't a case of stolen valor (e.g., falsified claims to service or military awards), though I doubt it, then posted it up. nf utvol (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing about this particular individual, the name is rather common overseas, so you get many hits there. The fact that most sources are either primary or almost made-up does not help the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are no critical reviews of his books, only sites to buy them. This feels PROMO... The award in the photo is him graduating from some Marine training event, with honors. Not sure that makes him notable, when the guy next to him holds the exact same thing... And is unknown to the Wiki community. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page strikes me as a WP:PROMO written by an IP editor that has only ever edited this page. Not nearly enough independent sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR, or WP:NAUTHOR. nf utvol (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the points raised above, all the books listed are self-published. They could still contribute to his notability if they managed to be reviewed regardless, but that's a big hill to climb, and I see no indications that the climbing has even begun. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On United States Navy memorial site, it is written that the subject earned the prestigious Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, making him the youngest recipient of this honor. and this source that shows the subject is Research fellow at Harvard. RangersRus (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google: No results found for "Mostafa Amir" site:harvard.edu". The source you link is a part of the Google Scholar profile that is edited by the subject and can say anything. (A colleague of mine edited it to list a named professorship with a comical name that did not exist...ironically now has a real named professorship but the profile still lists the fake one.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here contributes to notability. (Self)-publishing books is not enough; they need reviews. Being employed as a researcher at Harvard is not enough, even if true. Much also fails verifiability, an even stronger barrier to having an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A. G. Louton

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

Appears to be a non-notable religious person, coverage is limited to a description of events attended or handled by the individual. Nothing found outside of the obituary. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only do I doubt this person would satisfy GNG, but I also have concerns that the use of obituaries as sources may run afoul of WP:OBITUARIES, namely: they are often not intended to be neutral, but to eulogize (or, in more rare cases, actively condemn) the subject [...] [O]bituaries may emphasize aspects of a subject's life that are not particularly significant otherwise, such as philanthropy or charitable donations Gommeh 🎮 17:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This person is not independently notable, but the family has been the subject of some books and articles. Merge into the louton family page of which he is the patriarch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredthefighter (talk • contribs)

Edgar M. Louton

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

Subject appears non-notable. Zero sources found to show notability, Gbooks has nothing. Gsearch only brings up this Wiki page or mirrors, then peters off. No lasting notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure why you say zero sources to show notability as there are sources in the article. I also used WP:TWL to check newspaper archive and there any several mentions of this guy from the 1960s. However, it appears to me to be routine coverage as it is just announcements of his talk in the various towns he saw in his speaking tour. The talk appears to be basically that he went to africa and is going to tell people about it. I don't really think that makes him notable. I say routine coverage as they were not presented as reported stories with by-line but more like guest speaker announcements by the churches he was visiting. I don't really see stuff from the 80s to show that his beliefs were notable outside of the church he practiced in. Czarking0 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article don't show notability, they describe a pastor doing church things, that's rather routine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately this looks like a bit of a walled garden. That will need some more cleanup. I'm going to see what I can prod. Jahaza (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I propose this is merged into the Louton family article. The family biographer, Rollin G. Grams (also a family member), conducted an in-depth study of the family's influence as one of his academic projects, and the book very clearly documents the family's influence as a missionary power bloc in South Africa. However, agree with nom that the subject is not notable independent of his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredthefighter (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not even sure the family is notable. A bunch of non-notable people lumped together doesn't make notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Elshantaf

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

Upon reviewing and analyzing the content, it is clear that the article does not meet the required standards. The individual does not exhibit clear distinction, diversity, or uniqueness in any specific field.

Participation in an economic forum or a workshop alone does not necessarily reflect uniqueness or fulfill the necessary criteria.

In terms of political involvement, merely running on a legislative election list, without achieving success or gaining notable recognition, is not sufficient to classify the individual as distinguished or as meeting the required standards. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Palestine, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Profita

AfDs for this article:

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

For years, this promotional article has been used to spread false information. First of all, the person is presented as a "philanthropist," although he has never been a philanthropist. Also, the "Academic career" section is completely false, as this person has never taught at any of the listed universities.

Overall, the only two pieces of information that are actually true are the brief period as director of the Italian organization SIAE, and the current position as rector of a private university that he founded himself. In my opinion, these two pieces of information alone are not sufficient to consider someone encyclopedic.

If it is decided to keep the article, be very careful with the information it contains, because some websites copy content from Wikipedia, resulting in the amplification of false or questionable claims. Eritr (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eritr (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I vote for deletion?? DuckieDuckInfo (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DISCUSSAFD. In brief, you just have to write "Delete". Eritr (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahim Sopori

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

Promotional tone, AI content, nomination from @Pythoncoder:. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Poetry. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is in poor shape and needs substantial rewriting (currently in the middle of that), but AfD is not cleanup, and I have no reason to doubt the sources provided (unless someone with more knowledge can shed some light on them). Promotional tone is not a reason to delete. Jdcooper (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You! MateenSalimBhat (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The subject is clearly notable and meets the WP:GNG criteria, especially since this is not a BLP case. You can find in-depth coverage about the subject in reliable sources such as Greater Kashmir, Kashmir Pen, and [3] several others. If there's an issue with the tone, it can certainly be fixed, deletion is not the only option. Baqi:) (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Naughton

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

Secondary sources about his programming career don't show any significant coverage, only sparse mentions of him alongside many other Sun employees. Being part of the 13-people team that developed the earliest versions of Java does not make one worthy of a stand-alone article. He briefly appeared in the news due to a criminal prosecution, but not everyone who is prosecuted for a crime deserves a stand-alone page either. The defense used in his trial was scarcely "novel" or invented by his lawyer, because it had already been successfully used in 1995, 5 years prior. The crime was not unusual even for the time and the trial was immediately forgotten by the media after it ended. V. S. Video (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost notable as the programmer, the crime doesn't seem that notable either. Sources are brief mentions, as explained. I don't see much more about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ZDNet contributor piece from 2000 [4], I really don't know how RS that is. ZD Net was a big deal back in the day. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Computing, Internet, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete: The book he wrote could have saved this but it's also non-notable. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 12:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an obvious redirect target: Java (programming language). The article subject is mentioned in the History section. Pavlor (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There certainly seems to be in-depth coverage in reliable sources. AFAICT the ZDnet coverage (1 2), WSJ (3), and others (Google news) satisfy GNG. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all about his prosecution. People who are discussed in depth by secondary sources for only one event are usually not notable. V. S. Video (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grigorios Emmanouil

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference is a database and all I could find elsewhere were hits on an unrelated chess player. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the 1948 and 1952 Summer Olympics, meeting the athlete notability criterion under WP:NSPORT, and verifiable through reliable databases such as Olympedia and World Rowing.Aeon Sentinel (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT doesn't say anything about that. Unfortunately, your opinion therefore stands the chance of being disregarded Geschichte (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion doesn't have to be completely disregarded, it seems like the user is making a good-faith WP:NEXIST argument but was simply confused about current NSPORT not saying that sources are likely to exist any more (it used to pre-WP:NSPORTS2022). --Habst (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Olympic competitors (Dt–Eq) – As a new WP:ATD suggested by @Habst:, aiming WP:CHEAP. Svartner (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to a ATD, but would rather redirect to Greece at the 1948 Summer Olympics and use a hatnote to point to the other Olympics. These lists don't provide any type of navigational aid as it stands, Let'srun (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to either ATD, but I'll note there is an anchor at List of Olympic competitors (Dt–Eq)#Grigorios Emmanouil we should link to. Due to the usage of {{wdrloly}}, that can automatically detect that it's a redirect and provide a link to the subject's Wikidata item in the row for navigational benefit and interwiki links. --Habst (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lirwana Abdourahmane

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

Subject does not meet GNG. However, the article focuses more on the subject's arrest (which may be notable) than the subject's bio. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Law, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can this be rescued? Bearian (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's arrest has received significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources. This level of attention suggests the topic meets the notability guidelines. If the article currently focuses too much on the arrest, it can be improved and expanded. Ridzaina (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is covered by reliable international sources like Front Line Defenders, FIDH, and Jeune Afrique not just for his arrest, but for his role as a lawyer and human rights defender in Niger. His work with civil society and legal defense of protesters got wide, independent attention. The article meets notability because multiple sources talk about his activism, not just one event. Instead of deleting, the article can be improved with more detail on his career. Gwanki (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Petty

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

Possibility fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDB as the article is just his motorsports results with a low amount of sources.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Motorsport. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk)
Keep Richie, keep (maybe weakly?) for Mark. We don't delete based on what is in the article but what exists. Looking for Richie Petty, there's a decent amount of news articles about him. Some are in the context of his family but others are (primarily) focused on him: Ritchie Petty Unhurt In Crash At Speedway, Ritchie Petty sets his sights on big-time racing, King Ritchie?, Ritchie Petty Won't Let His Name Add Pressure to His Start in Racing, Ritchie Petty trying to follow in footsteps of Uncle Richard. Is non-exhaustive but maybe the best I found.
For Mark, there's a bit less sourcing probably enough to meet WP:GNG: Unknown Petty tries hand at driving, A new Petty set to boost family legacy, Wallace's late start proves costly, Petty name not magic for King's nephews pg 1 (this article also mentions Ritchie and is basically a full page about their family engine building business) Petty: Nephews laboring in obscurity pg 2, and Petty prince and sons get in gear (also mentions Ritchie). Skynxnex (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Skynxnex. He is notable be himself. Svartner (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Both per Skynxnex. Seems like sources exist, just need to be added. glman (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not a fan, but many people are, and collect such information. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Dhar Shukla

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

Nominating on behalf of IP, who was trying to add broken PROD templates. Their rationale was, "Sources are not independent, no biographical information, thai entry was deleted long time ago and no Hindi entry either. No other religious leader in Thailand is listed on Wikipedia in English. The links are very old from 2000, ai doubt he's still the leader. Can't find any good sources." Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Sushidude21! (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like very clear cut case. I support deletion. 121.129.93.118 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are about Things, not the person. At most, they are passing mentions, and thus not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Nasser Abulaban

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

Microceleb who appeared in the news due to a single crime, BLP1E. V. S. Video (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Entertainment, Internet, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, California, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject satisfies the criteria outlined in WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Multiple reliable outlets have provided sustained coverage, including but not limited to NBC News, CBS News, Fox 5 San Diego, and other national media such as Court TV. Furthermore, the case has inspired the documentary by G-Unit Film & Television for Peacock, signaling ongoing cultural and public interest beyond transient news.

This does not fall under WP:BLP1E because the coverage spans more than one article or news cycle, has lasted over multiple years, and continues to influence media narratives such as https://time.com/6991356/tiktok-star-murders-true-story-peacock/. WP:BLP1E is intended to address subjects whose only claim to notability stems from brief, uncontextualized mentions in the wake of a single event. The way I see it, that is not applicable here, where the subject has been the focus of entire features, that being his televised trial footage, and follow-up reporting across platforms showing the shape of social media as a whole.

Under WP:BIO1E and WP:BLPCRIME exceptions are made when the event has coverage or social significance. This is consistent with WP:CRIME, which does not prohibit articles about perpetrators of notable crimes so long as content adheres to WP:BLP, is properly sourced, and not written in a sensational tone.

The article does not violate WP:UNDUE nor WP:NOTNEWS, as the level of media attention received is both significant and ongoing. The subject has become a public figure by virtue of court proceedings, media exposure, and public commentary on the trial, thus meeting the test under WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

Furthermore when doing some digging I have seen that some articles about individuals known primarily for a criminal event could be found. Such as

For the page Murder of Laci Peterson, Scott Peterson, is moved to a subsection of the page, if it would be the case that Ali Nasser Abulaban is not notable, but his crime, then would not moving his page, WP:MERGE, WP:ATD-M or rewriting the format to reflect this be wise.

Concerns about WP:BLP are editorial, not grounds for deletion. If tone, citations, or neutrality are in question, they should be addressed via normal editing per WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXIT, not deletion. A subject’s criminal status does not preclude article inclusion per WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:WELLKNOWN, provided policies are properly followed.

— Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. Devopam (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip J. Corso

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

This article was the subject of a failed merge proposal, with !voters split between merge and delete. (pinging !voters in that discussion: @5Q5:, @LuckyLouie:, @PARAKANYAA:).
Currently, this biography has no inline citations and most of it appears to be WP:OR or regurgitations of the subject's own autobiographical claims, many of which have been debunked and discredited. There is a list of references, all of which are either WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE on Google Books, newspapers.com, Google News, and JSTOR finds this person mentioned numerous times in relation to his well-known book The Day After Roswell but no coverage outside of that context. Biographical information beyond that can only be sourced to UFO books and websites. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Day After Roswell unless more sources are found to support notability for him as a person. I opposed the merge discussion because it was entirely uncited so it was not actually a merge; especially since the merge was based on notability rather than editorial grounds, it felt in poor practice to do what is therefore a backdoor deletion without the full quorum of an AfD. I have not myself done a before check so may change my mind if properly biographical sources are presented or I do a search myself. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content to The Day After Roswell, per WP:ONEEVENT. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't delete and merge, for attribution reasons it then becomes a copyright violation. You either redirect, redirect and merge, or you delete if the target would be inappropriate (not in this case because authors are always appropriate redirects to the book they wrote). PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Day After Roswell. I also couldn't find any sources with substantial biographical information or that could indicate a claim to notability independent of the book. Information about the author could always be used to expand the "Background" section of the article about the book if properly cited; I agree with PARAKANYAA that none of the existing content should be merged. MCE89 (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Day After Roswell per WP:ATD-R and WP:B&R which will preserve the edit history. Any bit of useful background career info that might specifically relate to the topic of the book can be transferred following the editing guidelines at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Corso lacks the notability needed for a separate biography, just as Betty Hill, Barney Hill, Travis Walton, and Ed Walters also are only discussed in the articles concerning the UFO events that made them famous. 5Q5|^✉ 12:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current text is obviously awful, it's fine to merge and redirect. But I think an article on the subject could be made if we really wanted. Aside from his military career, Corso was notable in both Ohio politics in the 60s ([5],ref), and as a Korean War "POW/MIA" conspiracy theorist, long before he got into Roswell and UFOs. (ref) Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be clear / implicit, but to remove any doubt, I have no objection to redirect. Chetsford (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Tiwari

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

A promotional article for a non-notable author and businessman. Sources are mostly primary, poor and unreliable. Fails Wp:SIGCOV, Wp:RS, Wp:NAUTHOR and Wp:NBUSINESSPERSON.

Article creator is a Wp:SPA with possible COI indicated by their username. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Language, Journalism, Literature, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreement with the nom. Upon reviewing the article, it appears to have been either created or extensively edited by a COI editor. Low-quality sources and lacks any significant coverage that would meet GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Taabii (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Gilhuly

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

WP:BLP of a grass agronomist, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing any inclusion criteria. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist as people with jobs -- the notability isn't in saying that they did stuff, it's in showing that they received WP:GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about the stuff they did, to establish that it's been externally validated as historically significant by somebody other than his own employers. But this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by organizations he was directly affiliated with and/or employed by, and isn't citing a single GNG-worthy source at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Golf Association I am torn vs keep on this one. Google searching does not give many good sources past this.^[1] However WP:TWL has a lot of hits on him. Unfortunately it is either stuff he wrote or a lot of things like this here he is mentioned in passing.^[2]^[3] Overall I think he is an expert in his field. He fails WP:GNG however I could potentially see him being notable as a golf expert like similar to coaching rules under WP:SPORT or potentially as WP:NAUTHOR? I think he is widely cited by peers and he does write about golf. Only I don't know if it is a stretch to apply author criteria here? However, most of this work was done in his capacity at USGA. To me this syas we could add a few sentences about him there and redirect.Czarking0 (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K'Millian

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

Leo Moyo (K'Millian) is a Zambian R&B artist born on August 13, 1979. His most popular hits are ulebukisha" do you remember?"Kakabalika" ('The Sun Will Shine Again) - a song which tells the story of a pregnant woman who is abandoned, "Pa Ulendo" - a song praising a woman for her prayers and thoughts as he makes a journey to see her, "Nizakukonda", "Another Day" and "Uleibukisha". His album "Another Day" spent over 21 weeks as no. 1 in the Zambian charts, whilst "Kakabalika" spent more than 14 weeks at no. 1 on the Radio Phoenix Local Rhythmz Countdown.

The write up above looks like a G3, also see WP:NOT, but let’s look at this, the article lack neutrality, fails verification, there is no independent significant coverage cited on the article, fails WP:GNG fails WP:MUSICBIO, maybe if sources are added and article is re-written in a NPOV, I can reconsider, but for now let’s take a close look together. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 13:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 13:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. GeographicAccountant (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom ZedKuChalo (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Itō

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:ANYBIO. While the subject is described as an assistant professor and writer, no publications are cited to support notability. The article also mentions that the subject is a composer, but it is unclear whether this refers to musical composition or writing. The subject does not meet the criteria under WP:NPROF either. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 13:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 13:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't looked closely at its sourcing, but just noting that the jawiki article is much longer and better sourced: ja:伊東乾 (作曲家). The subject is apparently now a full professor, has written a number of books, and has won awards for both his writing and his musical compositions. MCE89 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find reliable source, add content, and improve the article, Do you think this subject has significant coverage? I’ll be willing

to withdraw if there is substantial improvement to the article. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a BLP, this must be sourced or must be deleted. There is no other. Bearian (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The sourcing issue can be fixed. Available sources include a current faculty profile [6] and cv [7]. And U. Tokyo is very selective, but we cannot keep based only on having a professor title there. The Japanese article lists many compositions due to him but we would need independent coverage such as reviews for notability that way. The language barrier may be an issue in finding them, if they exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not meet the notability criteria according to WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. It lacks independent, reliable sources and does not provide evidence of significant contributions to his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodboyjj (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Bonati (motorcyclist)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT, fails WP:GNG, There is no reliable source cited on this article, subject has not won any notable tournament or have been coverage on multiple independent reliable source. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Motorsport. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wolff (soldier)

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

Non notable WW2 soldier. Fails WP:BIO. Medals in and of themselves do not show notability. Single reference. Fails WP:V. Likely fail of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This dates back to Wikipedia's Wild West days where having articles at all was the goal, with WP:N and WP:V taking a back seat. My WP:BEFORE finds no useful references, though there is material available nothing meeting our strict criteria was found. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Brazil. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not speak Portuguese, but the corresponding article at pt.wp seems to have additional sources. In particular, this book published by the Escola de Comando e Estado-Maior do Exército (the Brazilian equivalent of the United States Army War College?) seems to provide a lot of significant coverage. Additionally, it states on p. 120 that he was arguably the most famous Brazilian soldier of WW2; while we'd do best to take such statements by a single source with a grain of salt, it indicates he could have additional coverage as a John Basilone-type figure; indeed he did receive what I think is the Brazilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor, the Combat Cross, 1st class. Curbon7 (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable, considered a war hero and patron of ESA [8], [9]. Svartner (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kashe Quest

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

Wikipedia:1E ? The media hasn't reported him since 2021. 日期20220626 (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She isn’t him and notability doesn’t expire. CNN, ABC World News Tonight with David Muir, The London Times, Good Morning America, People, Fox News, and many other sources deemed it notable that she joined Mensa as the youngest ever member, even appearing on Jimmy Kimmel Live and Live with Kelly and Ryan to talk about it. She’s in a different case because she was 2 at the time. Not 20. I don’t know what media reports you expect to keep up on a civilian child but she didn’t stop being a Mensan in the past 4 years. Trillfendi (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "I don’t know what media reports you expect to keep up on a civilian child" - I don't expect sources about a civilian child, and that's one of the reasons Wikipedia should be very wary in sustaining biographies of children. They would need extrmely many sigcov sources to justify a page. Wikipedia is not the Book of World Records either. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joining Mensa as the youngest ever member is obviously what made her notable. It wasn’t a “World Record” either as no source mentioned nor described it as such. Trillfendi (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems pretty WP:MILL to me, akin to "High School student accepted into all Ivy league schools" or "Child sells abstract art for 5 figures, deemed prodigy" human interest stories we get pretty regularly. Such examples would also not pass notability under WP:BLP1E. -- BriefEdits (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While the subject briefly received wide media attention for joining Mensa at age 2, this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. The coverage is event-driven and lacks long-term, in-depth analysis or continued notability. Per WP:GNG and Wikipedia’s caution with young children, this does not meet the criteria .Goodboyjj (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Schuffman

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

Non-notable former travel writer and current dive bar reviewer. Subject does not appear to pass notability, as subject does not fulfill WP:ANYBIO. Individual is verifiable in tertiary sources as a local figure, but for a WP:BLP individual does not appear notable. I have cleaned up the article, removed extensive sources attributable to subject's personal website and added reliable sources, toned down claims and promotional language. After this I've come to the conclusion that they are just not notable. Longstanding maintenece tags. Nayyn (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Travel and tourism, and California. Nayyn (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Bastone, Nick (2022-09-23). ""Broke-Ass Stuart" celebrates 20 years in San Francisco". Axios. Archived from the original on 2022-09-23. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "Stuart Schuffman — better known to locals as "Broke-Ass Stuart" — is a self-described performer, activist and trouble-maker. But foremost, Schuffman told Axios in a recent interview, he's a writer. And for the past 20 years, he's lived in San Francisco and chronicled his adventures. ... Schuffman first arrived in San Francisco in the summer of 2002, for a summer internship with the entertainment group Bill Graham Presents, and living in a shared room on Haight Street with his friend Mani."
2. Whiting, Sam (2024-07-28). "Broke-Ass Stuart counteracts 'doom loop' with pro-S.F. literary magazine". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-08-09. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "Broke-Ass Stuart got somebody else to pay for publication of his first literary magazine, and he got a third party to pay for the beer. All he had to do, in his role as editor-in-cheap, was stand at the entrance of Jack Kerouac Alley and absorb the credit from a crowd that overflowed the alley onto the sidewalk of City Lights Books and onto Columbus Avenue. ... Stuart, who has built a small industry out of his ability to survive on the cheap in one of the world's most expensive cities, had time for a side project because he is not running for mayor this time. The field is too crowded already, so he approached the Civic Joy Fund, a nonprofit arts and small business organization that is trying to drive economic recovery in the city."
3. Gentile, Dan (2021-08-24). "San Francisco's eternally young, broke and beautiful media icon tells all: How Broke-Ass Stuart turned a zine into a career". SFGate. Archived from the original on 2024-08-15. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "The compliment was aimed at Stuart Schuffman, better known as the personality and primary voice behind the digital publication Broke-Ass Stuart. ... In the mid-aughts, he was just a guy who moved to S.F. after graduating from UC Santa Cruz’s American studies department. That degree scored him a sweet job working the counter at a candy shop, one of many odd jobs ranging from hat store clerk to librarian. When a customer gave him a business card that listed travel writer as their profession, Schuffman was inspired to start writing himself. The result was “Broke-Ass Stuart’s Guide to Living Cheaply in San Francisco,” a 33-page zine which he distributed via “bus pass and shoes.” The zine made it into 30 retail shops, then evolved into an arts and culture blog in 2008, then a six-city travel show on IFC that aired in 2011, a stint writing for Lonely Planet, a long-running S.F. Examiner column that he recently shifted over to SF Weekly."
4. Vaughan, Joel W. (Summer 2015). "Love Notes and Other Disasters". Broken Pencil. No. 68. p. 50. ProQuest 1700690458.
  The article notes: "Love Notes and Other Disasters Nonfiction/poetry zine, Broke-Ass Stuart, brokeasssstuart.com, $5. Broke-Ass Stuart begins this compendium of work with a stage-setting introduction: ... The zine is an ode to San Francisco in the same way Gatsby is an ode to New York, only Fitzgerald wasn't so concerned with making his reader think he was cool and writerly. Stuart is often clever, notably in "Living in San Francisco Means," and makes memorable commentary in "Rent Control in San Francisco is a Golden Handcuff," but mingles his insights with cringe-worthy self-affirmations"
5. Roisman, Jon (2015-05-22). "Broke but happy hustler celebrates 2nd bar mitzvah". J. The Jewish News of Northern California. Archived from the original on 2023-05-28. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: " Stuart Schuffman is living on a shoestring in San Francisco - and you can too. He's happy to share the wealth of knowledge he's acquired on how to live frugally and yet still enjoy the Bay Area's thriving arts and entertainment scene. Just go to brokeassstuart.com. The 34-year-old initially launched his website to sell his creative magazines (or "zines") and T-shirts when he arrived in San Francisco in 2002. Since then, he's expanded his site to become an arts and culture destination, especially for millennials. ... Schuffman grew up in San Diego in "a kind of Jewish neighborhood," attended a Reform synagogue and had his bar mitzvah at the typical age of 13. ... He has published three travel books, had his own travel show ("Young, Broke and Beautiful") on IFC, and has written "for every rag in town." Schuffman claims more than 17,000 followers on Facebook and nearly 16,000 followers on Twitter."
6. Caramanica, Jon (2011-06-24). "Finding the Offbeat Off the Beaten Path". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-06-26. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "Where Rhett and Link look upon their subjects with genuine affection and thinly veiled amusement, Stuart Schuffman views his with awe. His show “Young, Broke & Beautiful,” which follows “Commercial Kings,” is a travel show that skips the center for the fringes, taking him to the sorts of places that would give those Frommer’s guys the willies. (Mr. Schuffman has written a few frugal city guides of his own.) Every city has its oddball denizens, its dirty, screaming bands, its delicious greasy spoons known to only a select few. Mr. Schuffman addresses his cities through that lens. In the premiere he tackles San Diego, where he grew up, visiting a childhood friend who’s now a D.J., wiping out at a skate park and checking out the revolution-theme murals at Chicano Park."
7. Abcarian, Robin (2015-10-30). "Not everyone in San Francisco loves the tech culture". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-07-27. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "Stuart Schuffman, aka Broke-Ass Stuart, is a blogger, author of books on living frugally, and self-promoter par excellence. He is explaining why he should replace the city’s incumbent mayor, Ed Lee, when voters go to the polls on Tuesday. ... Five underfunded candidates are challenging Lee. Schuffman, 34, is the best known of what must be considered, at best, a protest slate. His slogan on campaign posters that have popped up all over town: “Go for Broke.”Schuffman, whose previous elective experience was vice president of University City High School in San Diego, is a Democratic socialist who wants more affordable housing, more public toilets, higher taxes on developers, fewer tax breaks for tech companies and more civic engagement by the people benefiting economically from the tech boom."
8. Barton, Chris (2011-07-17). "Overrated / Underrated". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-07-27. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "‘Young, Broke & Beautiful’ on IFC: Traveling on a budget is clearly the way to go these days, but as handy as some tips are by blogger-turned-TV-personality Stuart Schuffman, his show falls short on the payoff. A tireless self-promoter, Schuffman simply can’t stop repeating his unprintable catchphrase describing his mode of travel, and with predictable stops at tiki bars and steampunk gatherings, his tastes aren’t as edgy as he thinks."
9. Dickey, Megan Rose (2024-07-24). "SF literary magazine seeks to counter "doom loop" narrative". Axios. Archived from the original on 2025-07-27. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "Stuart Schuffman, perhaps better known as Broke-Ass Stuart, has heard enough about the "doom loop," so he decided to counteract the narrative by leaning into San Francisco's "wonderful literary tradition," Schuffman told Axios."
10. Kukura, Joe (2022-10-13). "Broke-Ass Stuart Celebrates 20 Years of Being 'Broke-Ass Stuart' In San Francisco". SFist. Archived from the original on 2025-07-27. Retrieved 2025-07-27.
  The article notes: "Local bon vivant Broke-Ass Stuart broke the mold with two decades of hustling as a travel writer, TV host, and mayoral candidate, and celebrates 20 years of his SF penny-pinching shenanigans with a Public Works party Thursday and a new zine. It was 20 years ago when a young San Diego lad fresh out of UC Santa Cruz named Stuart Schuffman arrived in San Francisco, and would slowly transform into the local celebrity persona known as Broke-Ass Stuart."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Stuart Schuffman to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Quinn (radio presenter)

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

A WP:BEFORE fails to find WP:ENDURING and WP:SIGCOV establishing notability of this WP:BLP. Longstanding issues have been tagged by editors for years with little improvement. Nayyn (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Nayyn (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no sources covering the subject. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMOTION - Peter Quinn appears to be a fictional character played by actor Rupert Friend in Homeland (TV series). Friend created this article more than a decade ago as self-promotion. — Maile (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 - Certainly promo (and same argument still essentially stands), but I think you've got the wrong person - this is mostly likely real, different, Peter Quinn [10][11]. GoldRomean (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find some sources, but none independent. As said above, article is mostly WP:PROMO. GoldRomean (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this.— Maile (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not believe the subject is fictional. There are secondary sources covering the subject, such as Who's who in British radio. 1996, Independent Radio : the story of independent radio in the United Kingdom, Local radio, going global, and Radio Guide 42. I've not yet seen sufficient coverage needed to build an article, but this is 1977 we appear to be talking about so it may well exist in some form or other. ResonantDis_tortion 15:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only get four hits for Peter Quinn between 1975 and 1977 in Broadcast. They verify that Quinn was a presenter for Radio Trent when it started (prior to that, he was with United Biscuits Network) and was scheduled to work on Voice of Peace. By 1978 he was at Beacon Radio but doesn't seem to have lasted long there, with hits only during the year. Quinn's existence is verifiable but not notable. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Merlo

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

Subject lacks the necessary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The only reference currently merely lists his result from the single Olympics he competed in. A redirect to Argentina at the 1948 Summer Olympics, where his WP:BLP1E is listed, may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Argentina. Let'srun (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Argentina at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Sailing where his name was mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above; fails WP:SPORTBASIC. GoldRomean (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Clara. Svartner (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiphanie Lemaître

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

Tennis player who fails GNG and SIGCOV. Her few wins have all been at very low level, her highest world ranking in singles is above 400 and doubles is above 300, all the sources included in the article are database type stuff or published by her universities so are not impartial and they're only pen picture things anyway. All I can find is passing mentions in further university published stuff. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Sports, Tennis, Europe, and France. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much a mirror case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daria Lodikova (2nd nomination). My searches (in French sources as well) brought nothing but passing mentions, quotes or match recaps - fails WP:GNG. Per WP:NSPORT/FAQ, which WP:NTENNIS is also a part of, says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it". She did make a doubles main tour main draw debut, but it's only because of being gifted a French home tournament wildcard, rather than actually qualifying or being ranked high enough for it herself [12]. And again like with Lodikova, no titles beyond W15s or W35s, so there's not an angle for Lemaitre to be notable here (at the moment, at least). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After further review, I concur with Jovanmilic97, also noting WP:NTENNIS. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NTENNIS—best rankings far below the top-150 threshold—and WP:GNG, with only routine databases and university roster blurbs providing coverage, none of which constitutes significant, independent secondary sourcing. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shia members of the National Assembly of Kuwait

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

trivia list فيصل (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. فيصل (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Kuwait. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only source I could find about this group is [13]. However that is only for the ones serving in 2016, and is only one source, it needs more than that. History6042😊 (Contact me) 19:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no encyclopedic value. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2025 (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 redirect‎ to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Léon

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG based on there not being any significant coverage present. The only reference currently is a database and all I could find elsewhere was [[14]], which pretty much notes that little is known about this subject. Let'srun (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Let'srun (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and there are simply no additional sources easily available to add to the article. Electricmemory (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I came across this source, but it doesn’t appear to be reliable. I don’t have knowledge of the French language, so I’m unable to assess it fully. However, someone with expertise in French might be able to help. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, as the link you posted is the same article I noted in my nomination above (and it is in English). Did you mean to post a different article? Let'srun (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to France at the 1948 Summer Olympics#Rowing – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Svartner. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:47, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried searches in the BNF Gallica, there was an author in the 1890s with the same name... Tried Olympics, 1948, athlete, no luck [15], very non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Svartner

Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Svartner, as readers of Wikipedia may well look for this person. It's a good idea for there to be a target for a reasonable search term, even if the person isn't notable. Schwede 66 23:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Khanna

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. The references provided are mostly WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Agent 007 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Visual arts, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Dolphish (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some references appear to be appropriate and reliable, such as The Hindu and Hindustan Times, among others. Baqi:) (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The references all used in article are largely sponsored content. Please check WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, the link above is not The Hindu but Forbes India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2025 (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.

YoungHoon Kim

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

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

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

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

Potential WP:BLP nightmare, considering the maze of claims and counterclaims already in the article. Not sure this shouldn't be considered a BLP1E as well, but that's probably stretching it a bit. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Korea. Jumpytoo Talk 17:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like the only claim to notability is a (disputed) extremely high IQ score. Not even getting at the underlying problems both with IQ as a measure of adult intelligence or with people who claim IQs over 160, SarekOfVulcan's statement that this seems a BLP1E situation seems apropos. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Simonm223, which neatly sum up my thinking. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are probably half a dozen reasons to justify deletion ranging from the aforementioned BLP nightmare to WP:BLP1E to some combination of mass WP:COI and WP:UPE. I'd cite WP:SHITSHOW if it existed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3 and 20 talk about him in RS. Source 20 explains he was on a TV show in Korea as a teen (9 years ago) and that was a "follow up" story, I'd argue that shows lasting critical notice. Notable for being "a person saying they've had the highest IQ" is new in AfD, but it's arguably a celebrity-level of recognition. Coverage in several RS, rather than a bunch of tabloids. I don't exactly think he has any particular skill of note, but seems to be good at self-promotion, so that's no different than many other "celebrities". Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
20 looks reasonable, but 3 looks like they put an in-house byline on a press release from the World Mind Sports Council. And the single reference to "World Mind Sports Council" in Wikipedia is... guess where? I admit this could be a translation issue, as the "World Memory Sports Council" shows up in a few more places. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, simply for the fact that they quote a TV show, with screenshots given... I can't confirm it isn't a RS, but I'm not an expert on media in South Korea. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Oaktree b Qifzer (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many red flags to list. Miniapolis 23:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2603:6010:C500:1C23:E038:7CEE:50A3:F023 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. MANY sources have verified Dr. YoungHoon Kim. The reason this article is biased against him is because of Leftists on X who dislike his views. Wikipedia is losing its credibility fast because of biased editors and writers. This needs to change. 74.214.181.93 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC) — 74.214.181.93 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
[ DELETE ] Multiple sources have verified YoungHoon Kim credibility. I believe YoungHoon Kim is notable. I recall seeing significant coverage of him in reliable, independent publications. So, delete this article ASAP. Harshwar (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)— Harshwar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That sounds like a keep vote if you find lots of coverage... Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect these !votes are more of the same chatbot trash as User:Iky1004 was feeding us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cause it meets sources, is a new one for me. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to back his background outside the event have been found yet. There are still some red flags that would compromise notability. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is perceived to be controlled by leftists, with little or no credibility. 102.89.68.132 (talk) 06:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)— 102.89.68.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete it. His certifications are sus. I think he's a fraud and doesn't merit an article. SkepTock (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC) — SkepTock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) As above _{so below} 05:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noting that Kim has urged people to !vote to delete this article (possibly so that a new one, more to his liking, can be created in its place?). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link of him leading his fans to the deletion process. Qifzer (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(possibly so that a new one, more to his liking, can be created in its place?)?

You wouldn't be comfortable people peddling lies instead of reaching out and verifying some of the information presented. This goes against his rights. 102.212.236.182 (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)— 102.212.236.182 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He doesn't have a high IQ? That's literally all the article talks about. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:BLP, we give careful consideration to people's privacy and, although we (obviously) don't accept people's desire to have information about themselves on Wikipedia into consideration, we DO take their desire NOT to have information about themselves on the site. --My tightness (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth - Kim isn't allowed to use Wikipedia for his own vanity, and given his attempts at trying to control the page (legal threats, sending meatpuppets that are incapable of communicating without a chatbot, the ISO-standard right-wing complaint form above by the IP) I am of a mind that the page should be XCP'd at minimum so that he will need to either go thru the drafting process or autocon-bust on a more awkward title if he wants an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. Well said. SkepTock (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC) — SkepTock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, and WP:SALT. There is nothing inherently notable about people making ridiculous claims about themselves, and once you discount non-independent sources, WP:GNG doesn't really appear to have been met. Further per WP:IAR, we can do without the legal threats, interminable bot-generated bullshit etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the most AGF sense possible, deletion is an appropriate outcome of the recent AN/I filing in that a living person (or their delegate) has said they feel that our article of them is critical to the point it's impactful upon their well being but, within our policies, we would have little latitude to remedy that situation while also maintaining our neutrality policies. In such a situation I think the kindest course of action is to delete the page. And since the subject is of very marginal notability, doing so is in keeping with our policies anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of Wikipedia policy in regards to taking into account the views of a BLP subject where notability is marginal, and the individual expresses privacy concerns. I personally don't however attach much weight to the views of a subject who instead actively seeks publicity, but only on their own terms. They aren't asking for privacy, they are asking to control what is published on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. And we cannot allow that. But likewise we can treat their complaint as being approximate to a privacy concern. If the options are either a page the barely-notable living person controls or nothing then nothing is, in fact, the only option available to us. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Them controlling the page was never an option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. (I think we actually agree entirely on this situation. I'm just pointing out that this is, in fact, the kindest solution we can offer them per our policies.) Simonm223 (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be the 'kindest solution', but as far as I'm concerned, in these specific circumstances any kindness is coincidental. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:NBIO, and the subject is clearly a WP:PUBLICFIGURE due to consistently seeking fame over an extended period of time. Neither has anyone actually identified any specific BLP violations - I see a lot of people vaguely alleging them, but the article seems reasonably well-sourced. The fact that the subject wants the article deleted has no bearing on anything, especially for a public figure; per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, 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. Regarding the WP:BLP1E argument, it specifically applies only to low-profile individuals; Kim, who has aggressively sought fame over an extended period of time, is clearly not low-profile and therefore BLP1E cannot apply. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This leaves out the issue that part of that publicity-seeking is that he's made several attempts to have the article on his terms. It's pretty clear he won't accept an article that is neutrally-written but critical of his claims; see WP:AN/I#Request for Immediate Administrator Intervention: Defamatory and Factually Inaccurate Article – “YoungHoon Kim” (filed by User:Iky1004, a meatpuppet of his) for more details. The only reason he's in favour of deletion is because he believes he can have a more fawning article inserted in its place. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject wants the article changed, shouldn't we just page protect the article instead of outright deleting it? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 17:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is a factor here, and the sourcing is problematic. This isn't helped by most of the sourcing being in a language that resists automated translation (Korean). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article seems reasonably well-sourced Is it, though? At least five citations in the article link directly to groups that are not independent of the article's subject: the World Mind Sports Council (see here), the Giga Society (see here), and the World Memory Championships (which, when one follows the links, loops back to the World Mind Sports Council). All of the referenced interviews/media reports that refer to any of those groups - which, AFAIK, make up the bulk of the reference list - are, in my opinion, similarly invalid. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't endorse the article's subject or his claims, the subject has successfully sought and received mainstream media coverage from many reliable sources, some of it attempting to verify his statements (and largely debunking them). It will be time-consuming to keep the article neutral, but editors are clearly trying to do so. White 720 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I noted above, many of the references in this article are from sources that are not independent of the subject, and any referenced interviews or media reports that cite those sources are, by extension, inappropriate. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion or web-hosting. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's admittedly funny to see that the subject is canvassing to have people delete the post because it's allegedly defamatory towards him, while other people are voting to delete as promotional consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, there is quite a curious dynamic at play here. But of course, for someone courting publicity, "promotional" and "defamatory" aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah, true, someone with an iq as high as younghoon should know that better than anyone, since his iq is so high (btw did you know that he has a high iq) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 20:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is going to be a bit of a complicated pile of votes, so i'll try simplifying it

extended protect the article and the according draft page, regardless of outcome (unless deleted, in which case salt). while i'm no authority on the matter, i'll recommend making it indefinite, as i believe the chance of kim or a fan of his attempting to recreate it in a "less defamatory" form is only a little lower than the chance of the sun producing energy that takes the shape of visible light and/or infrared radiation. no opposition to indefinitely semi protecting their respective talk pages either
look into the page's creation process, as it was a draft that was published directly into mainspace by its creator, seemingly without an attempt to go through afc. considering that the creator has about 600 edits. there might not be foul play here, but it's good to be sure
draftify, without opposition to deletion, but with opposition to keeping or reintroducing without a proper afc process. while i sort of disagree with jojo that secondary sources discussing the primary sources (in this case, especially ones critical of them) are inherently unusable, i do think some of those could be a little useful maybe probably, and putting it back in the oven should do the trick. unless someone here has a smartness number between 111 and 275 and is willing to analyze them before i'm able to, in which case... yeah, i'll vibe with that :3
~~alternatively, keep out of spite lol~~

also regardless of whether or not it's deleted, i think it needs some rewriting anyway consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 would be the best solution to addressing a lot of problems. It saves a lot of headaches regarding background outside the event. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the draft was moved once the account met the time threshold. It's perfectly OK for an editor to move a draft into mainspace without going thru review, but "Publish and be damned" applies and they tacitly accepted the consequences, both seen and unforeseen, of that action. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Simonm, considering that the only claim to notability is disputed. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ _{choose only one...} 10:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The tone of this article is not at all similar to other subjects found on this website. Because of this, it’s difficult to read through and find useful information. The main point, namely the IQ score is highly globally disputed. This argument involves both mathematics and source research, which cannot be both subjective and valid. As a place where people search for information and answers, this article is unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The-good-Yuan (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC) — The-good-Yuan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is an invalid argument, also smells a lot like the single-purpose accounts made to spam this thread. Wikipedia deletion arguments rely on WP:NOTABILITY generally. The quality of the article is irrelevant. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sigcov evidence, but not confident in my vote. The socking, spamming from new users, and Kim's behavior on this article are all extremely annoying and embarassing though. I think the article will probably quickly end up protected if it is kept, to deter the annoying behaviors we're seeing. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it appears to satisfy WP:GNG. The page cites a number of news sites with nontrivial coverage of him, e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19]. (However, many of the Korean-language sources just repeat his claims uncritically, if Google Translate is translating them right.) Nor does WP:BLP1E apply, since that requires that 1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. 2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, but the coverage of him is not for his claimed IQ score alone but also for the repeated public statements listed in the "Views" section. The appropriate solution to spam etc. is to extended-protect the article, not delete it. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Iqbal Marwat

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

Meets WP:ANYBIO but not WP:NBASIC; thus, per WP:BIOSPECIAL, I suggest merging or preferably redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Pakistan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army 200.46.55.161 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3rd highest rank and 2nd highest award makes him notable according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Behappyyar (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Mangel

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO; the subject has not received significant or in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that's independent of the subject. Some1 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Some1 (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Law, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:N and WP:BIO. Most available sources amount to passing or superficial mentions—insufficient for sustained encyclopedic treatment. For example, mainstream coverage on his work with high‑profile clients like Steve Bannon or Sam Bankman‑Fried lacks the in‑depth biographical treatment required by WP:N.--Policking (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article 7 months ago and it remained stable and uncontroversial until a confirmed sockpuppet network got into an edit war with an anonymous editor. The subject's notability is established by the original reliable sources, which include a 1000+ word profile of Mangel in The Times (a 240 year old newspaper of record in the UK), Semafor (website), CNN, The Palm Beach Post, California Business Journal, and many others. Schnookums123 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times, Semafor, and CNN sources are interviews, so they are primary sources and are not independent. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources classified as:

Profiles based off interviews: The Times, Semafor, CNN. These are primary sources and are not independent.
Primary or near-primary sources like court documents or parroting of government indictments like Palm Beach Post
Quotes that do not provide significant coverage of the subject, usually around being a "prison consultant": in the Miami Herald about Peter Navarro, or in Fortune story about Sam Bankman-Fried.
The California Business Journal profile constitutes significant coverage, but I don't think this is a reliable source. There is no editorial board or journalism code of ethics.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Rothfeld

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO; the subject has not received significant or in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that's independent of the subject. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Some1 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Finance, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Policking (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This biography clears both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. High‑reliability, independent sources have published substantive, multi‑paragraph coverage that examines the subject’s career, regulatory history and public impact. The New York Times, South China Morning Post, Financial PLanning and NBC NY are a few. These sources — reinforced by FINRA disciplinary filings and the Manhattan District Attorney’s annual report — deliver the sustained, reliable scrutiny that establishes notability and verifiability. The presence of COI and promotional‑tone tags reflects editing needs not a failure of sourcing. As WP:NOTCLEANUP states, pages with solid, verifiable content should be improved, not removed. Deleting this article would obliterate reliable, encyclopedic material that already satisfies Wikipedia’s core inclusion standards. --Appro7 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Appro7 created the article, and there's a history of sockpuppetry problems, including possible COI/UPE issues, with the article and its creation. Unfortunately most of the sources used in this article are primary sources or sources that just mention the subject in passing (e.g. "[Celebrity] hired [subject] to help with this"). I would like to hear what uninvolved experienced editors have to say about the notability of this subject, because I believe the article should at least go back to draftspace or through the AFC process (the move to mainspace is a bit suspect[20]). Some1 (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC) Some1 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's significant independent coverage here, though there seems to be WP:REFSPAM with passing mentions (such as the New York Times piece currently used). Hmr (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Bauer

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBIO; the subject has not received significant or in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that's independent of the subject. Some1 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Some1 (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, England, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems to be promotional in tone and fails WP:NBIO. Need more reliable sources apart from the [executive].--Policking (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Full disclosure: I created this article in March 2025. As the primary strategist behind what the SEC called one of “the most complex microcap stock fraud schemes” ever, Bauer meets notability requirements. The sources back this up.
- Investment Executive – National finance‑press report dissecting Bauer’s guilty plea and recapping his market activity. Independent, mainstream coverage demonstrating enduring public interest. This meets significant, reliable, secondary under WP:GNG.
- Law360 - Detailed legal story chronicling Bauer’s extradition fight.
- Compliance Week – Investigative compliance magazine feature that unpacks the $194 million pump‑and‑dump scheme step‑by‑step. The depth and analysis back up Bauer’s notability beyond routine reportage.
- BDO Canada (BDO Global) - One of Canada's largest accounting firms lays out details of "the Bauer Ring." This analysis from a major accounting firm shows the case's impact and discussion within the professional financial/legal community, corroborating the widespread attention noted in mainstream press.
- Stephenson Harwood briefing – International law‑firm commentary detailing the £100 million share‑ramping plea. Reliable legal insight confirming the scale and notoriety of the case.
- United States Department of Justice – Multiple official statements detailing charges, plea, and 20‑month sentence underscore the case’s gravity.
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission civil complaint & judgment – Provide a documented regulatory history that secondary outlets reference, further establishing the subject’s public footprint.

The nominator filed the AfD alongside three other pages that figured in a prior sockpuppet probe the nominator participated in; one of those pages has already been kept. While past editing misconduct is real, the AfD process is for judging article content against policy, not litigating old behavioral disputes. That principle should prevail here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcticwindowpane (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources you listed are primary sources, not high quality reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in depth. Unfortunately this and the other three articles suffer from COI/UPE and sockpuppetry issues. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cora Systems, an article which you also created, an editor said The clear WP:PAID / WP:COI / WP:PROMO overtones, in the article's creation and its tone/intent, are also very very difficult to overlook. I see the same issues here with this article too, and would like to hear from uninvolved experienced editors about whether this article meets WP:NBIO or not, because I don't believe it does. Some1 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This looks like WP:BLP1E, and the event itself is not notable. Here is a source assessment table for all citations except ComplianceWeek and Law360 (paywalled).

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
BDO Canada		Company blog, not a reliable news source	Does not discuss subject in detail	✘ No
Investment Executive			~ Two things subject did, but not a lot of information about the subject	~ Partial
Stephenson Harwood	Repeats SEC filing	Company blog	~	✘ No
USDOJ press release	Is directly involved with subject	Not editorially independent	~	✘ No
Fox School of Business	Subject is faculty			✘ No
Durango Gold Fund SEC Form C	Primary source			✘ No
DeSmog				✘ No
Fire Nation Podcast	interview			✘ No
California Business Journal		Site does not have editor or staff page, nor journalism code of ethics		✘ 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}}.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ishaq Khattak (officer)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, including from any of the references currently present. Most of the article is currently not verified by the citations. A WP:BEFORE did not find anything to support notability, although Urdu-language sources may have something. I suggest redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Pakistan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a two star general (3rd highest active rank in Pakistan Army) with country's second highest award (Hilal-i-Imtiaz). Clearly Passes WP:ANYBIO. Behappyyar (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Behappyyar, if WP:GNG is not met, it doesn't matter if the subject meets WP:ANYBIO. See community consensus that "no subject-specific notability guideline supersedes the General Notability Guideline". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 The rank of major general, combined with being a Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military; the second highest award), reflects a career of national-level distinction. These are not routine achievements.
As per WP:NOTE: "The barometer of notability is whether reliable sources cover the subject in significant detail." In military contexts, however, high-ranking officers are often not profiled in depth unless involved in controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Every major general of Pakistan (of whom there are currently 186) has received the Hilal-i-Imtiaz; that is the routine purpose of the award. Yes, if an officer, no matter how high-ranking, has not received coverage in reliable sources, they are not notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 Your assertion here is factually incorrect, it is not the case that every Major General in Pakistan receives the Hilal-i-Imtiaz. There is no official policy mandating this. Even if a significant number are awarded it, that does not diminish its status as a nationally recognized honor (2nd highest award) explicitly listed under WP:ANYBIO.

More importantly, WP:ANYBIO does not require an award to be rare, it requires that the subject has received a "widely recognized honor or award at a national level" or "held a significant command position in a national military organization." This subject satisfies both conditions: a two-star general and a recipient of the Hilal-i-Imtiaz.

Additionally, coverage in reliable sources is a requirement of WP:GNG, but it is not a requirement of WP:ANYBIO. As per WP:N:

"Satisfying any one of the notability guidelines is sufficient for notability."

Behappyyar (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pointing out where WP:N states that latter quote Behappyyar? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29 I wrote it in my own words. Here is the exact quote:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG). Behappyyar (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And what are the criteria outlined in the subject-specific notability guideline? You are looking for WP:NBASIC, which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". WP:ANYBIO is part of the "additional criteria", where people "are likely to be notable" but "meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included".

If an article does not meet the basic criteria but meets the additional criteria, you should look at the section titled "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria". There, you see that the best solution is to "Merge the article into a broader article providing context." In this case, I suggest merging or redirecting to List of serving generals of the Pakistan Army.

I think this encompassses my full argument, and will not be responding further in this nomination. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Siding with AirshipJungleman29 here. The biggest issue is simply the lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (WP:GNG) for this general. The Hilal-i-Imtiaz award is routinely given to every major general in the Pakistan Army. So, it's a common service award, not something that automatically makes someone notable for their own Wikipedia page, especially when there aren't in-depth articles written about them elsewhere. Wikipedia's WP:N policy is clear: just because someone might fit a subject-specific guideline like WP:ANYBIO, it doesn't matter if we can't find solid, independent sources to actually write the article from. Rackaballa (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a subject meets the criteria under WP:ANYBIO, they are presumed notable — and in that case (for army person who holds an major office or command), the level of "significant coverage" required under WP:GNG is not necessary. Behappyyar (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augustin Grignon

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

I don't see that this man is notable. He lived in Wisconsin and was an entrepreneur. But what else? He was one of the first white people to settle permanently in an area of Wisconsin.

There is some coverage, including a biography in a newspaper when he died. Is it enough? I argue no. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Osa Akwamarynowa (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The authority control (WP:VIAF) databases are providing substantial indications, and in addition, Google Books also contains significant information. The first reference in the article itself is quite in-depth. I believe this passes the WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar and Google books giving plenty of relevant results. Also, apparently Lawrence University conducted excavations in his home[21].--Staberinde (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my mind, he's notable because he was an entrepreneur at a time when Wisconsin territory had only a handful of them, and because of his account of early Wisconsin history, explained in the quote from Draper. I just expanded the article, with more sources. -Jeff the quiet (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aheria

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

Qualified for deletion policy, unsourced, one line article. Dolphish (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Dolphish (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first reference would normally seem to be adequate, but some people distrust pre-1947 sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guntram Weissenberger

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

Single-source biography of a deceased Austrian-American architect that does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Source is an article in an obituary in an Austrian newspaper. A search for his name only turns up reporting that an individual, presumably his son, had invested in the Phillies. I could find no reviews or other indications his autobiography has sufficient notability to generate an article. nf utvol (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Architecture, Austria, and Pennsylvania. nf utvol (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surjasikha Das

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

The subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Taabii (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, new article which could be improved rather than deleted, as highlighted by Fade258 SDGB1217 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. After conducting a thorough BEFORE search, I was able to find reliable, secondary and independent references to the subject which includes trivial information or routine coverage that doesn't meet the threshold criteria for general notability guidelines or demonstrate significant coverage. The article was created on 21 July 2025, which appears to be a fairly new. She has had some supporting roles in notable movie and TV shows i.e Maa (2025 film) and Bade Achhe Lagte Hain 3 respectively. So, as per alternatives to deletion draftify will be applied here for further improvement. Fade258 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX, Hope this message finds you well. Since you have striked my vote above for voting multiple times which you mentioned in edit summary of 28 July 2025. Honestly, I made only one bolded !vote in line with AfD guidelines. I did not cast a second vote. I agree that I have used draftify term twice in my comment but made only one in bolded !vote. Please feel free to review edit history. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies, Fade258! It was a sloppy mistake on my part. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all OwenX. Thanks for the clarification and appreciate your follow–up. Since we're human mistakes can happen. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Kishor Awasthi Ji

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

Non-notable Indian politician who clearly fails WP:GNG, and WP:NPOL. Taabii (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – He may have received some local coverage as a party coordinator, but fails in WP:NPOL. Svartner (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
would such comments not be at risk of discrimination by his political peers? 31.205.145.5 (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He contested a single election and finished third, it is an objective criterion. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Svartner (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desembra

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Notability not inherited from collaborating with notable artists. None of the sources in the article provide him with WP:SIGCOV, and I'm also uncertain if all are reliable anyways as some are self-published. I searched manually through Swedish newspapers (they are not usually indexed in Google) and found zero mentions. I also wasn't able to find any additional sources in g-news, newspapers.com, or PressReader. Zzz plant (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Sweden. Zzz plant (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Swedish House Mafia as an WP:ATD. Per this source and this source, which are reliable, I see no reason the subject can't be redirected and mentioned at the proposed target. ResonantDis_tortion 19:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. With two reliable sources, he is almost but not quite notable. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links above are pretty much just mentions - one confirms he is a Swedish producer who has worked with SMH, the other says "a young Swede on the scene whom Ingrosso discovered on SoundCloud. He helped the guys steer themselves toward common". This doesn't provide a lot to work with, even for a smerge. If we want to go the ATD route, targeting the album the subject worked on (Paradise Again) rather than SHM itself makes more sense to me given the context of the (quite thin) coverage. Zzz plant (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Panday

AfDs for this article:

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL fitness trainer with no significant achievements and no WP:SIGCOV. Sources are mostly, passing mentions, routine coverage, interviews and gossips around her notable relatives. The article was created by a blocked SPA. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Health and fitness, Nepal, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Scotland. Zuck28 (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: As I stated in the previous nomination, the subject clearly meets the requirements of WP:GNG by receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Notable examples include a detailed articles in DNA (300+ words), an article by Time of India (350+ words), Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, and MidDay, among others. These are independent, reliable secondary sources that provide substantial detail about her career, publications, and public influence, not mere name-drops or trivial mentions. As WP:GNG states: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. In this case, multiple substantial articles from mainstream publications combine to satisfy the notability criteria. Therefore, the subject meets both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. GSS ^💬 14:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see your comment on the previous nomination. Did you participate in the last AFD?

This DNA article you mentioned is non-bylined promotional article to advertise her personal training service.

The Times of India article is also clearly advertorial piece with a disclaimer "Disclaimer: This article was produced on behalf of Life Health Foods by Times Internet’s Spotlight team."

Business standard article is a book review without the name of the reviewer, clear promotion.

NDTV article is more focused on the Book and Salman Khan, not the subject of the article.

The Hindustan Times article is about the opinions of multiple people, and she got trivial coverage, fails Wp:SIGCOV.

midday article is just a photo gallery, without any critical assessment of her career.

This proves the article fails wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV both. Zuck28 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I did participate in the previous AfD, but regardless, notability is determined based on policy and the quality of sources, not continuity of participants. Regarding the sources: while it's fair to assess for promotional tone or disclaimers, dismissing all coverage as non-notable misapplies WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The DNA India article, which is over 300 words, discusses her career, influence, and clientele. The absence of an author byline does not disqualify its reliability or editorial status, as many editorial articles are unsigned unless marked as sponsored. As for the Business Standard article, it was written by journalist Asmita Aggarwal (credited by name), so the claim that it lacks one is factually incorrect. The article engages directly with her book and fitness philosophy, not simply as a product plug but in a substantive profile format. The NDTV piece, while it includes Salman Khan, is centered around Deanne Panday’s book launch and includes her quotes and ideas this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. Similarly, the Hindustan Times and Mid-Day articles offer independent mentions. Per WP:GNG, notability is assessed holistically. If depth in any one source is limited, multiple independent sources may be considered collectively. In addition to the previously mentioned sources, here are more in-depth, independent articles that further support her notability and provide substantial coverage suitable for expanding the article; Economic Times, India Today, HT, Indian Express, HT. In my view, these sources align with the requirements under WP:GNG and provide further opportunity to expand the article. GSS ^💬 16:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the Salman Khan reference is not a counter argument but perhaps the opposite, as it would ultimately demonstrate her importance as celebrities' fitness/well-being coach (as claimed), and thus the importance of keeping the article. Metamentalist (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metamentalist, Almost every celebrity is associated with some fitness/ wellness coach, according to your understanding does that make all of those coaches notable? Just because they’re associated with celebrities? See Wp:NOTINHERITED. Zuck28 (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She has been associated with more than one, and has produced work in different media (books and DVDs) on the matter, she's not the "average" wellness coach. Metamentalist (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DNA article: As I see it no truly independent article would include things like the last two paragraphs listing pricing information; the sole purpose of that is to promote business to here, and means the article is by definition not independent.

The Times of India article (in addition to general concerns about the reliability/independence of this source) manages to not actually be significant coverage because all it says about her (as opposed to the fitness industry as a whole) is that she posted some stuff on instagram.

The Business Standard article comes closest and may be acceptable.

I agree with Zuck28 (and have nothing more to say) for the remaining three sources here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Agree with the nomination here. Notability is not established with significant professional sources. It is a gathering of mentions, routine coverage at best. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify why you consider these sources to lack significant coverage or to be routine mentions? The articles I provided above including the one from The Economic Times are detailed, full-length features that focus specifically on Deanne Panday’s work as a fitness author. They include original quotes, biographical context, and discussion of her professional influence, which seems to go beyond routine coverage.

I've also found additional in-depth coverage such as:

Times of India: An editorial piece focused on her fitness career and early start as a wellness coach, not gossip or routine reporting.
India.com: Another article with biographical depth highlighting her career journey, wellness philosophy, and professional associations.
ABP Live: While partly visual, it still includes contextual details about her work as a fitness trainer and author.
News18 Hindi: Offers background information in the context of her family, but also presents her personal achievements and fitness career.
News24 Hindi: Mentions her appearance in a music video, but within a broader frame of her public presence.

These sources provide in-depth coverage of her career and public contributions and not just passing mentions or celebrity gossip. Several include original reporting, and contextual depth. There appears to be enough to merit a broader look through WP:BEFORE if needed. Thank you, GSS ^💬 05:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India. Com article is primary source, written by the subject herself.

MSN article is a syndicated feed from a TOI interview, again a primary source.

News18: A photogallery with a tag of "agency", indicating a PR supply.

And News24Hindi article link is not working. Zuck28 (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that?

The India.com article was written by their journalist Kritika Vaid, not by the subject herself, so it's not a self-published or primary source.

The MSN article, I've already replaced it with the original from TOI. Also, it's not a direct interview it uses a few quotes, making it a secondary report rather than a primary one.

As for News18, the article was authored by journalist Versha, not labeled as PR. News18India is a legitimate media outlet under the News18 group, not a pr agency.

Lastly, here is the link to News24Hindi, edited by their journalist Nancy Tomar. You can't just simply dismiss every source just because you nominated the article for deletion. Each source should be evaluated on its own merits, not based on the outcome you’re hoping for. GSS ^💬 05:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zuck28: There was a third AfD for this, under a different spelling, which is why it doesn't show up in the header. GSS closed it as Keep. This was promptly overturned at DRV as a WP:BADNAC and relisted, at which point GSS voted "Strong Keep". Owen× ☎ 13:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to hear from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent a while above responding to a gish gallop of sources, most of which don't meet the criteria for one reason or another. But that misses the fundamental issue; I frankly don't care if two (or three, or however many the community expects) sources are presented that I can't immediately refute. That still won't change the fundamentally deeply suspicious situation behind this article (and this AfD, since I suspect GSS's comments above were made backwards; they started with the premise that this article should be kept, and tried to find sources to prove that premise), which combined with the known phenomenon of Paid news in India, makes it impossible to definitely establish that any source presented is truly independent of the subject. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am drawing these conclusions entirely from on-wiki behavior in this and the previous AfDs. I'm not aware of any off-wiki evidence, and I'll admit I kind of started with the premise that the article should be deleted because of that, but nothing seen above has convinced me otherwise. And the term "backwards" above is an analogy to Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note [22]. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: I will not respond to any counterargument GSS may make to this comment. No comment they make could possibly convince me to change my opinion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to engage with the sources and offer a detailed rationale. However, I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion and would like to clarify a few points.

First, the notability should be assessed per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, not based on speculation around possible motivations or generalized suspicion about the Indian media landscape. While it's valid to be cautious about paid news (a real concern), dismissing all coverage from reputable Indian publications on the mere possibility of promotional intent doesn't align with how Wikipedia evaluates notability.

You mention that you "frankly don't care" if there are two or more acceptable sources. But WP:N does care if multiple reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources exist that provide significant coverage of the subject, then notability is presumed. The burden is not on editors to prove absolute independence beyond all doubt, especially not when dealing with professionally edited media like The Economic Times, Business Standard, India Today, Hindustan Times, etc. These outlets are routinely accepted as reliable across thousands of articles on Wikipedia.

Moreover, some of the sources you've dismissed (such as the Business Standard piece) were incorrectly characterized earlier as lacking bylines or being promotional, when in fact they are properly attributed, independently written, and provide contextual analysis of the subject's work. The DNA India article is over 300 words and directly discusses subject's career trajectory and impact on the fitness industry. Even if it includes service details (as lifestyle pieces often do), this doesn't make it inherently promotional and certainly doesn't disqualify it per WP:RS.

The core of your argument seems to rest not just on source analysis but on distrust of the editing behavior involved ("backwards reasoning", "deeply suspicious situation"). But behavioral concerns should be dealt with via WP:SPI, WP:COI, or WP:UPE investigations, not by invalidating reliable sources or shifting the burden of proof.

Finally, I'd still welcome an explanation of how specific sources I provided above fail WP:SIGCOV. Simply labeling every article as "routine" or "PR" without a closer look at their content and context doesn't fairly reflect what GNG actually requires. Let's please keep the focus on content and sources. Wikipedia notability is policy-based, not suspicion-based. GSS ^💬 05:19, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uruzgani (Hazara tribe)

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

Fail in GNG, WP:RS and largely dependent on only one source. Sybercracker (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Tajikistan. Sybercracker (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Well, it looks like they exist as a real tribe or subtribe [23], but most uses of the word Uruzgani seem to more broadly refer to people from the Uruzgan region, even if that is also what the subtribe is called. – Ike Lek (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can add more sources? Sybercracker (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can try, but it is proving difficult. It clearly isn't a WP:HOAX, so ideally we find a way to save the page if we can. The only language I speak fluently is English, which is limiting, and the word Uruzgani is also sometimes used to refer to anyone from Uruzgan. Not all Hazara groups in Uruzgan are Uruzgani Hazara, so it really complicates searching. Hopefully we can save the page, but if more sources can't be found, then we might have to delete the page even though it contains good information, because it isn't backed up by more than one RS. Ike Lek (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is real and notable. Here are two quotes from this source I found. WP:TWL appears to have more. "One of the original Hazara tribes, now a sub-tribe of the Uruzgani, is the Dai Chopa". "One of this writer's informants gave Qarluq as the name of a sub-tribe of the Uruzgan". ^[4] Other source with the same author "He presents no evidence to support a former use of the black tentamong these Hazaras. According to the reviewer's information both Uruzgani and Jaghuri spent their summers in round, felt-covered tents in the late 19th century. "^[5]

Czarking0 (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Dillehunt

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

Poorly sourced article, which is also filled with promotional clutter and unnecessary external links. A WP:BEFORE shows that the subject is somewhat notable, but coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Virginia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:35, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CycloneYoris. I am the subject of this article and I disagree that notability fails Wikipedia standards in that regard. I am aware that this article was created nearly 20 years ago. It appears that the citation quality is lacking, but the projects themselves rise to the national and international level which is required in those standards. I would propose that these poor quality citations be corrected instead of article deletion. 64.96.70.108 (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this article to be kept - you can assist by providing links to where you or your works have achieved WP:SECONDARY coverage. This may include local/regional/national press coverage or critical reviews. ResonantDis_tortion 08:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification. I just overhauled the page to remove the aforementioned promotional clutter and unnecessary external links. Citations have been modified per Wiki guidelines and secondary coverage has been properly linked. Dndlive (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - I read the NPR review and it's brutal. The Rotten Tomatoes sources are, well, rotten tomatoes. Be careful what you ask for. As I've written before, sometimes it's only the bad reviews that prove notability, while the puff pieces are just the deprecation of media in an age of corporate budget cuts. Again, are you sure that you want notoriety? I mean, really? Bearian (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bearian. I like your comment, it's quite funny. That piece is a brutal but honest review and I appreciate that someone with NPR took the time to assess the film. As an artist, I take the good with the bad. Notoriety remains subjective – but I value the global reach of my projects, whether viewers like them or not. 64.96.70.108 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to keep this article. The subject is notable and passes WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR. The article has been cleaned up and revised to address the aforementioned issues, including WP:SECONDARY sources. Dndlive (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just want to note that the user above has an undisclosed conflict of interest with the subject of this article. @Dndlive: what relationship do you have with the subject in question, and is he paying you to edit here? CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneYoris: I don't believe I have a COI with this subject. I'm a fan of his "You Can't Do That on Film" documentary, but I've voluntarily updated the page for years out of respect to the filmmaker. I'm a freelance graphic designer and I'm not receiving any compensation for these updates. I tried to create a page for his rock band as well by sourcing details from the web, but I recognize the band currently fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSICBIO. My apologies for any confusion. Dndlive (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more arguments focused on sources and outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject of this article meets notability criteria as outlined in WP:BIO and WP:NDIRECTOR and the article has been revised to include proper citation formatting and reliable sources, including WP:SECONDARY coverage. There is no COI and all citations have been validated. I suggest keeping the article and closing this AfD discussion. Dndlive (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Raković

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

Delete per non-notable BLP with no SIGCOV. Being mentioned in a source as a referee for an event does not establish notability. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known the subject. Sources have been added in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G-Lignum (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see WP:SIGCOV and so doesn't look to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there is disagreement here, a source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best, well-known and senior referees in the global water polo. The sources listed are all fine. G-Lignum (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahirkheli

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

GNG fails, not enough coverage Dolphish (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, and Pakistan. Dolphish (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This page has been dramatically shrunk over time. It seems to have had issues with edit warring and original research. Some of the sources it used to cite included [24] and [25]. – Ike Lek (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 04:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Higino A. Acala Sr.

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

Barely any reliable sources seen in Google Books and in an outside search. His role doesn't seem notable, as he doesn't have any coverage (the movement seems quite notable but only in law sources). Other than that, he isn't notable whatsoever. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Philippines. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 04:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was unable to find a copy of the listed reference - Elvin A. Cabañero; Higino M. Acala Jr. (2000). Biography of Higino Acala Sr - on the Internet; though as one of the authors appears to be his son, it is probably not sufficiently independent regardless. Curbon7 (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some more time looking for sources with a number of search queries, but none have returned any significant coverage (actually, this returned almost no sourcing at all besides name-drops in lists of lawyers in the Philippines [26]), and I do not think the book above would be reliable as it is written by two relatives. The subject did not hold an WP:NPOL-qualifying position, nor does he appear to pass WP:GNG. There is no obvious WP:ATD target, so delete. Curbon7 (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Mitrasen

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

The article is largely based on non-academic, regionally published & self-published books with limited verifiability. Multiple sources do not meet the standards WP:HISTRS for historical claims. The article shows signs of WP:FANPOV and contains unbalanced, unsourced glorification and conflicting timelines. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, India, Haryana, and Rajasthan. Chronos.Zx (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Even a simple Google search, specifically in the Google Books section, shows that the subject is mentioned in at least five different books. This clearly indicates that there is likely more information available about the subject in offline sources (WP:OFFLINE) as well, although I’m not entirely sure about the full extent of it. Baqi:) (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since it's not a BLP, WP:BEFORE applies. I combined several references into two sources, and cut out a personal opinion. There is obviously some notability based on what's online and already there. This is not so terrible that it can't be fixed with a few more edits. The article history looks like an editor started to try to fix it and gave up. Alternatively, can this be merged into another article? Bearian (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Kaushik

AfDs for this article:

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

Lesser-known actress with insignificant and non lead roles in multiple projects. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Appears to be a case of Wp:TOOSOON. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Delhi, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough articles for notability. 🄻 🄰 14:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played lead roles in several web series such as Ghar Waapsi (for which she was nominated for award as best female actor), Crash Course (TV series), Namacool, Who's Your Daddy? (2020 TV series). Behappyyar (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her lead roles are not actually main roles. She fails NACTOR. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: although the article needs some serious trimming, she had various roles in notable productions and although some are not lead, they are clearly significant and are mentioned/assessed in the reviews of the said productions. She therefore meets WP:NACTRESS imv and the article could be improved with sources such as https://www.lutopiamagazine.com/cover-stories/inner-joy-trails-my-inspiration-:-a-candid-conversation-with-the-creative-anushka-kaushik?srsltid=AfmBOorwI2XvwVCDh-krmdK3n5_xJRw1h4RC88Pq6lveFED5GjbcSkoh (based on an interview but containing a bylined comment) or https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/web-series/when-anushka-kaushik-s-mother-was-left-embarrassed-hearing-about-casting-couch-101663248293134.html (same comment), for example (please note that I am not arguing that these are the main sources for her notability). - Eva Ux 10:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the basis she meets the general notability criteria purely on the number of news articles that exist about her (many of which are cited in the Wikipedia article). True, they are not all of the highest quality and sometimes consist largely of interviews and quotes, but there does seem to be a LOT of media interest in her. Sionk (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources show that she meets GNG even if she does not meet NACTOR - she is clearly notable. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunty Singh

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

All the sources are about his death. SIGCOV: Not Found, Fails NACTOR, GNG and ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Dance, India, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal. Zuck28 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage appears to be occasioned by his death, assessing the career of someone prominent who has died, not about his death, as would be the case if someone was murdered or died in an unusual way. This kind of editorial obituary coverage actually establishes notability under GNG. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Career includes non-notable projects, that too without proper citations. Fails Wp:NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tragic, but his supposed great contributions to a niche cinema have no articles and no citations. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marudhu Pandiyan

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

Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd references in the article are reviews about the film. LKBT (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Tamil Nadu. LKBT (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject appears to meet notability guidelines for film directors. Reliable sources from The Hindu, Film Companion, and others exist and have been added. Will continue to improve article with inline citations. Surendrankaliyaperumal (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved !vote from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Marudhu Pandiyan. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILMMAKER even WP:GNG, it seems like the titles of the references have been altered to mislead other editors. Baqi:) (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD will hinge on this sentence from NFILMMAKER 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. (emphasis added). It is certain that he directed 2 movies (Chennai Ungalai Anbudan Varaverkirathu and Asuravadham) which is playing a major role in creating them, but are they significant or well-known works. I am leaning towards no and thus delete but I think this is what the focus of the discussion should be. Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – * ~~Keep~~ Comment– Marudhu Pandiyan directed multiple films that have received independent coverage in national publications including *The Hindu*, *Film Companion*, *News18 Tamil*, and *BBC Tamil*. His film *Asuravadham* was discussed extensively in critical circles and review columns. This coverage satisfies WP:GNG, and directing more than one theatrically released feature supports WP:NFILMMAKER. The article has since been improved with inline citations to reflect these sources. User:Surendrankaliyaperumal (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot cast a keep vote twice Chanel Dsouza (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Usually this would have been an easy keep, as the filmmaker has two movies, but there is no coverage about the subject. I don't see any announcements of his upcoming movies either, so we have nothing to write about here. Fails SIGCOV Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2025 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Helm

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

A seemingly promotional article about a marketing professional and social media influencer who only received significant coverage in one article in The Inquirer [27]. He was also quoted and discussed in Philadelphia Magazine [28], but he was not the subject of the article—I don't think this counts as significant independent coverage. On the whole, fails WP:BASIC. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pennsylvania. JBchrch talk 21:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no allegation or evidence for notability; he fails my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the Inquirer, Philadelphia Magazine has more than 15 significant paragraphs [29]:

No one represents the it’s-only-a-business new breed as much as TopDog Law, the entity launched by James Helm in 2019, not long after finishing — perhaps tellingly — a dual JD/MBA program at Rutgers.

“It comes down to unit economics,” Helm said cheerfully on a legal industry marketing podcast last year. (The TopDog founder, who grew up in Delco and now spends most of his time in Scottsdale, Arizona, declined my request for a sit-down interview.) In the podcast Helm went on to explain that you first have to know the average fee you generate on a case — if it’s $10,000, you have work to do; if it’s $25,000, you’re doing pretty well. Then you need to calculate the cost of acquiring a client. If you understand those two things — and if the delta between them is large enough — “then I can get aggressive about acquiring new customers, and I can do it profitably.”

Simple, right?

It’s a formula Helm has used with great success. Six years after launching TopDog, Helm’s operation now has a presence, according to its website, in more than 35 cities across the country, from Ann Arbor and Atlanta to Washington, D.C. Thousands of calls and contacts come in each week.

Key to the success have been decisions Helm made early on, starting with the consumer-friendly TopDog name. “I think traditionally [law] firms have been very bad at branding their businesses,” Helm said on the podcast. “Every other industry has names that are easy to say, easy to sell, easy to remember. Whereas with law firms, the brand wasn’t the focus.” In dubbing his outfit TopDog — a moniker that could just as easily have been used on, say, an energy drink or a new brand of kibble — he landed on something that both was easy to remember and conjured up winning. “I think a large part of our success is due to the name,” he said. “TopDog gets you top dollar.”

Helm’s second outside-the-box decision was to focus on social media when it came to marketing. In part the strategy was born of necessity — Helm didn’t have enough money to advertise on TV; even Google AdWords was out of his league. But it also spoke to his age (27 at the time); Instagram and TikTok were as natural to him as TV was to Rand Spear.

“We really thought there was room to revolutionize [legal marketing], especially on the social media front,” says Ian Harrington, TopDog’s first marketing director. (Harrington would go on to work for Pond Lehocky and is now co-founder, with Ryan Makris and Kate Schenkel, of Very Decent Marketer.) “At the time, no law firm was doing social media with any kind of success or results. It wasn’t by accident that we saw that as an opportunity. James was young; he was good-looking. He wasn’t as good on camera as he is now. That actually took a long time to get right. But we were willing to put in the reps to figure it out.”

Early on, TopDog’s social strategy was based on Helm sharing his personal story. A high school wrestler, he’d started taking prescription painkillers following an injury at age 17, and he’s said he spent eight years as an addict before finally entering rehab while in law school. The message to potential clients: I know what it’s like to be down and out. I can help you get your life back.

But in time that strategy gave way to something more over-the-top — kinetic videos of a hyper Helm doing everything from mugging at the camera to rapping. “We had to get our name out there by being bombastic and creating the TopDog persona,” says Harrington. “The algorithms of the platforms push the louder, the bombastic, the faster-cuts kind of stuff. And we really leaned into that.”

As is increasingly the norm in the personal injury law business, the cases Helm generates — through social media or radio or all those TopDog billboards — are not primarily handled by him or any lawyer working for him, but by other lawyers around the country. In fact, if you look closely at the language, you see that TopDog Law isn’t really even a law firm. Helm’s LinkedIn page describes it as “a leading case acquisition and plaintiff intake platform,” while the TopDog website calls it “a national network for law firms licensed to practice in their applicable states.”

The uber-referral model is not one every lawyer — even in the personal injury realm — is comfortable with. “I think it’s important for the consumer to understand who they’re retaining to represent them,” says Spear. “I’m here every day. I work morning till night. I like meeting with clients.”

Perhaps more to the point: Advertising done primarily for the purpose of referring cases to other firms actually runs afoul of Pennsylvania’s Rules of Professional Conduct. As the rules put it: “It is misleading to the public for a lawyer or law firm, with knowledge that the lawyer or law firm will not be handling a majority of the cases attracted by advertising, to nonetheless advertise for those cases only to refer the cases to another lawyer whom the client did not initially contact.”

When I email Helm about this, I get a quick reply from his general counsel, Sean Berberian. He says that because Helm — through the entity Helm Law LLC — maintains joint responsibility for all cases, he’s not, in fact, “referring” matters and is, therefore, “absolutely compliant with Pennsylvania rules of ethics, as well as other applicable jurisdictions.”

As it happens, none of this may even matter. When I ask Thomas Wilkinson, the former Pennsylvania Bar Association president, about the relevant section of Pennsylvania’s rules, he essentially shrugs. “There is not a tremendous amount of policing in Pennsylvania of improper advertising. Sometimes that policing only occurs when there’s been a complaint about the quality of representation or a client feels they’ve been duped in some way. But for the most part, if clients are pleased with the outcomes, they don’t care a great deal about how they got to the lawyer.”

I understand Wilkinson’s point. And yet it still strikes me as odd, the equivalent of a restaurateur — say, Marc Vetri! — running an ad for his restaurant, but then telling you when you call for a reservation that he’s going to get you a table at one of Michael Solomonov’s or Jose Garces’s restaurants.

Then again, for better or worse, what TopDog and so many other personal injury firms are selling is less legal services than the idea of suing in the first place.

His billboard is covered by Philly Voice [30], a profile in OK magazine [31], his social media in Arizona [32]. Judging this against WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," there are five published independent sources. Little Astros Sign (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not significant independent coverage of James Helm, the person: it's mostly quotes of him and his staff about his company and the company's business strategy, with some light background info about Helm as founder. If anything it could count as coverage of TopDog, the company he created. More generally, Helm appears to makes a lot of noise about himself on social media and in the real world, so it's not surprising that some news outlet would quote him or mention him, but that still does not count as significant independent coverage. Separately, I am not convinced that OK! is a reliable source. JBchrch talk 12:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found additional sources about him [33] [34] but to me the article seems to be coverage about both him and his company but are you saying that you think that there is coverage for the company not him? I think the opposite because the articles all describe him as a person as the creator of the billboard, and Philadelphia Magazine article mentions him 18 times. Anyway, WP:BASIC — "the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" — if Inquirer is already one independent source then the other six sources can combine to at least be one (which is more than one meaning it is multiple)? Little Astros Sign (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot access the Law360 article, but the Houston Chronicle article does not appear to offer significant independent coverage of James Helm as a person: it covers the billboard story, mentions that Helm is the person who created it, and quotes Helm. Looking at the sources you provided, the coverage falls in my view under the second prong of the rule you cite, i.e. "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine). JBchrch talk 13:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of Wikipedia articles use OK! as a reliable source [35] Little Astros Sign (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three articles plus a few short ones is enough for NBASIC. 🄻 🄰 15:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which three articles you are referring to? JBchrch talk 19:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please do not introduce large amounts of content to an AFD discussion which should focus on the condition of the article and possible sources, not reproducing those sources here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rough source assessment. I was not able to access the Law360 article, but I assume it's coverage about the sign more than it's coverage about the person.

Source assessment table prepared by User:PacificDepths
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Philadelphia Inquirer profile	~ Substantially an interview, which is not independent	This is a column, not a news piece. But the Inquirer should do some basic fact-checking.	is about the subject	~ Partial
Philadelphia Magazine "Billboard Wars"		generally reputable	~ A few lines about the subject but mainly about the company	~ Partial
Philly Voice billboard	generally yes	generally yes	Mentions subject's company but not the subject at all	✘ No
OK Magazine profile	~ short profile that appears to be from an interview	See Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion (direct link)		✘ No
In Maricopa viral video			Nothing about subject, just describes as "influencer"	✘ No
Houston Chronicle on TopDog billboard			No significant coverage of subject	✘ 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}}.

— 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not enough here, per the source table above (and I'd add that OK magazine is simply clickbait gossip). Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2025 (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.

Akshay Bardapurkar

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

Sources are mostly PR and self-published. Not worthy of an article. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Forbes India listing is a made up in one day award for an up and coming but run of the mill business person, producers and managers being especially ordinary. See also WP:NOTFB. The remaining sources are also unreliable or not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator and Bearian. 🄻 🄰 15:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I can see in the article, the subject has produced 7 movies (one unreleased) and one web series, so I believe the subject clearly meets WP:PRODUCER. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of having produced seven films and a web series, on its own, meets none of the criteria at WP:PRODUCER at all, let alone clearly. I'm not saying he doesn't meet those criteria, just that it takes more than what you said about him. Largoplazo (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Largoplazo, Thank you for your comments. If you look at point number three under Creative professionals, I believe the subject clearly meets WP:PRODUCER. That said, if in your view the subject still doesn't meet the criteria, could you please clarify what more would be required for them to pass WP:PRODUCER? Best! Baqi:) (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You're treating point 3 as though it says, in its entirety, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a collective body of work." (2) Why are you asking me about "if in your view the subject still doesn't meet the criteria" when I stated very clearly "I'm not saying he doesn't meet those criteria"? I wasn't commenting on whether he meets the criteria, I was pointing out that your remarks failed to show that he does. Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: Exactly, that’s what I’m trying to understand: what more would be required for the subject to clearly meet that criterion? Baqi:) (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help you further because I don't understand what part of the criterion you aren't understanding, if you read all of it, including all the parts that go beyond playing a role in co-creating a collective body of work. Largoplazo (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreeing with Baqi, the subject passes WP:NPRODUCER. If someone believes that the subject is non-notable, they need to prove how. It must very obviously pass the notability guidelines. Zuck28 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's notability that needs to be demonstrated in cases of disagreement, not non-notability. We have criteria for assessing notability, not for assessing non-notability. If it's obvious that the person meets those criteria, you ought to be able to explain how. Largoplazo (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is a well-known and notable figure in Marathi cinema. He is founder of Planet Marathi, with coverage in reliable sources like Hindustan Times and others in regional languages. He clearly meets WP:NPRODUCER. Monhiroe (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Akshay Bardapurkar may be active in Marathi cinema, notability on Wikipedia is not based on fame or familiarity, but on meeting criteria like WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, WP:NPRODUCER, etc. The article currently lacks multiple, in-depth, independent, and reliably sourced profiles. Most sources are trivial mentions, event-based PR, or local coverage. Several sources are affiliated or self-published.

The mere founding of a company (Planet Marathi) does not confer notability unless independent, sustained coverage exists about him—not just his projects. As it stands, he does not meet the threshold for WP:NPRODUCER. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

No.	Source	Type	Independence	Reliability	Notes
1	The Week – "Akshay Bardapurkar: A versatile producer..."	Feature/Profile	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Reliable magazine but tone is promotional and coverage is not critical.
2	Financial Express – "Plays a pivotal role in promoting..."	Passing mention	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Reliable source, but the coverage is trivial.
3	Vogue India – "Entrepreneur redefining culture..."	Profile	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Glossy coverage, borderline promotional.
4	Lokmat – Award announcement	⚠️ Affiliated	✅🟩 Reliable (regional)	Affiliated with Marathi cinema; routine coverage.
5	SheThePeople – Award mention	✅ Independent	⚠️🟨 Marginal	Source is borderline; not considered highly reliable.
6	IMDb	❌ Self-published	❌🟥 Unreliable	Not considered reliable per WP:USERG.
7	Hindustan Times – Celebrity quote	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Only includes a quote, not about the subject.
8	Maharashtra Times – event coverage	⚠️ Semi-affiliated	✅🟩 Reliable	Not in-depth or significant.
9	ABP Majha – launch event	⚠️ Semi-affiliated	✅🟩 Reliable	Source is routine and local.
10	YouTube (interviews)	❌ Self-published	❌🟥 Unreliable	Fails both WP:RS and WP:INDY.
11	Twitter	❌ Self-published	❌🟥 Unreliable	Not usable as source.
12	Indian Express – Film mention	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Not focused on Bardapurkar, passing role.
13	Mint – business event	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Brief reference in larger business context.
14	Loksatta – press event	⚠️ Affiliated	✅🟩 Reliable	Routine event coverage.
15	Sakal Times – business feature	⚠️ Local independent	⚠️🟨 Marginal	Short, low-depth.
16	YourStory	❌ Not reliable	❌🟥 Unreliable	Blacklisted per WP:RELIABLE.
17	DNA India	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	Passing mention, not substantial.
18	Mid-Day – interview	✅ Independent	⚠️🟨 Marginal	Interview-based, borderline reliability.
19	CineBlitz	⚠️ Semi-affiliated	⚠️🟨 Marginal	Considered low-tier entertainment media.
20	India Today – cultural feature	✅ Independent	✅🟩 Reliable	One-time event highlight.
21	Business World – award list	✅ Independent	⚠️🟨 Marginal	Non-substantive inclusion in a listicle.

All the sources are routine mentions, affiliated coverage, or lack in-depth, critical treatment. The subject don't have independent coverage and fails WP:GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I gently remind the good reader that for BLPs, the burden of proof remains on the proponents of keeping the article. We've gotten into lots of trouble in the past with poorly sourced BLPs, including in India, where last year the government literally tried to shut down Wikipedia, and even now the wealthy and powerful want to make us bankrupt. So sadly we must self-censor. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're debating only the subject's independent notability here. Has anyone here questioned the article's factuality? The Indian government's threats are over what it considers to be defamatory or uncomplimentary statements, not over the presence of articles on topics the government deems not to be notable. Largoplazo (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:07, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PR fluff [36] and later legal troubles [37] are about what I find. Beyond the fluffy articles and until the lawsuit, there isn't much coverage to be found. I don't think the legal issues help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Coverage is limited to routine announcements and promotional interviews, with no sustained, independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability; the subject therefore fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCER. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Marwah

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

Non-notable actor. Lacks Wp:SIGCOV. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or non-bylined promotional articles. Wp:NEWSORGINDIA. His acting career consists of two films in which he has non-lead roles, and no award nominations or wins, failing Wp:NACTOR.

His additional credits include non-notable short films and music videos.

He received some press coverage due to his connection with the Ambani and Kapoor families and his marriage but notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Fashion, India, Delhi, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and New York. Zuck28 (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR even WP:NBASIC, also wikipedia is not WP:INHERITED. Baqi:) (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He had lead roles in two notable (if average) films, so just meets WP:NACTOR. See WP:ICTFSOURCES for reliable sources for Indian films - there are additional, reliable sources in the articles about the films which could be added here. It appears that he is now a managing director at a university - this [38] is not a reliable source (being sponsored content and full of peacockery), but if a reliable source could be found, that info could be added to the article to bring it up to date. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets WP:NACTOR with lead roles in two feature films. I can find references which are enough to support the case. Sooterout (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources, demonstrates that these two roles are lead roles? Zuck28 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actor did have significant roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. In fact, in the latter, the subject was featured on the theatrical poster, which strongly suggests that he was one of the central characters. In Fugly as well, the actor played a major role that received attention and analysis in reviews by film critics.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting, in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Fugly and Raag Desh. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to verify that these roles are significant to pass NACTOR. Zuck28 (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews in RS listed on the articles for both films consistently mention Marwah. I would consider this enough to verify that his roles in the films are significant enough for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis.
- Source 1 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 2 passing mention
- Source 3 passing mention
- Source 4 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 5 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 6 Promotional for debut release. Short article on who subject is related to and how the subject came to limelight before debut.
- Source 7 Interview. Non-Independent of the subject.
- Source 8 Same promotional article with same content as Source 6. Same publishers.
- Source 9 about Subject's wedding
- Source 10 passing mention.
- Source 11 page no available.
- Source 12 Non-Independent of the subject,
- Source 13 Same as source 6
- Source 14 article is about Akshay Marwah. Nothing on the subject.
- Source 15 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 16 promotional article about the subject being launched in debut Fugly.
- Source 17 passing mention
- Source 18 passing mention
- Source 19 Unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES
- Source 20 just an image of subject dressed in Dior Homme
- Source 21 images of subject in fashion.
- Source 22 subject walk the ramp for Fashion designer.
- Source 23, Non-independent of the subject as new face of 'Provogue'. RangersRus (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per RangersRus source analysis. Clearly lacks in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cyrobyte (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: weakly pass wp:NACTOR 👑 KingBegger · 💬 · ⚔️ 10:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete the actor has only two films, and there are no reliable sources to affirm that he has lead roles in them. also, we have to be aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Almost all the sources about the subject look like puff pieces. Other sources are not about him (they seem promotional/PR as well), they are about the films, and general gossip sites/tabloid-like coverage. In essence, actor fails WP:NACTOR (only two films, we cant be sure about lead roles), and there is not significant coverage in reliable sources, failing general notability guidelines as well. In case the actor becomes notable in the future, the article can be created again. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

People proposed deletions

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

Academics and educators

Theodor Dingermann

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

Does not have enough sources for a long article (fails WP:Verifiability.) Some paragraphs don't even have any sources. I marked this article for deletion on WP:Prod but User:Liz for some reason declined it. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 22:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Liz's de-prod was correct.. Dingerman's article on German WP has 12 citations. He was a full senior professor at Goethe University, where he was also Vice President. He has won the their Excellence in teaching prize, as well as many external awards. He was the President of the German Pharmaceutical Society. He currently is the editor in chief of the international academic scientific journal Die Pharmazie. His work has been widely cited by other scholars, his GS H-index is 27, and he has several hundred papers listed on Scopus. Meets WP:NPROF on several criteria. No offense meant to the nominator who is fairly new here, but please become more familiar with notability criteria for academics when you find the time, and also read up of WP:BEFORE if you have not already. Netherzone (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivas Gada

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

Only 1 article links to this. 4 of the 5 sources are articles written by him. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, India, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR criteria - wrote a book, but I found no reviews of it. Qflib (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Owen Katz

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO, WP:GNG). The article relies almost entirely on primary or self-published sources and lacks significant coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources. The subject appears non-notable, and the article has a promotional tone. Sirwriter2004 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. No widespread significant coverage, and the article's sources are most primary or certainly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. GuardianH 21:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Astronomy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relies heavily on primary sources and almost entirely on own work, therefore, fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Patre23 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louton family

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

I've been unable to find any SIGCOV other than Rollin Grams's book Stewards of Grace, which is not an independent source, as he is a member of the family. Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Lists of people, Christianity, South Africa, and United States of America. Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV to support an article on this topic. Even if Stewards of Grace were independent, I would want to see evidence of other sources discussing the "Louton family" as a topic on its own, similar to other "known" families like the Kennedy family (for example). I was hoping that Stewards of Grace would cite works we could use to establish notability, but from a quick skim of the footnotes I don't see anything promising. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only RS identified by Cite Highlighter are 12 and 13... 12 is listed as a blog, so not helpful. 13 is an article about after-hours stock trading, not about a religious missionary family... This is a walled garden, we've already deleted a few members and few if any of the individuals are notable. As I said elsewhere, a bunch of non-notable individuals lumped together doesn't make them notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Louton

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

Low H-Index, most cited paper as first author has only 11 citations per Google scholar. No books. No strong assertion of notability in the article. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. Journalism doesn't appear to be notable. Membership in organizations, but none are particularly selective, nor are there important leadership positions or major prizes. Declined prod. It's likely that a merge to Louton family will be suggested, but I don't think the family is notable either. Jahaza (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Finance, Business, South Africa, and Rhode Island. Jahaza (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is a potential WP:BLPDELETE request at Talk:David A. Louton, but it is not yet verified. --Jahaza (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Louton family. Agree that Louton family is not likely to survive either, but it's an easy and obvious ATD until that article makes its way to AfD. Otherwise, I agree with the nom: no GNG, no NPROF. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Agree with Suriname0. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. If Louton family passes notability, then redirect it there (but it seems somewhat doubtful that it does given the weak sourcing). GuardianH 21:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now AfD'd Louton family as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louton family. --Jahaza (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Amir

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

The claims to notability seem to be the title of "Research Fellow at Harvard University" and "Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award Recipient". I cannot find anything supporting either of those claims. Actually, I'm unable to verify almost anything in this article. The references which exist here are all user-generated (IMDb, U.S. Navy Memorial, and "harvard.academia.edu", which is not run by or affiliated with Harvard), or PR fluff (everything else). Trying to find better sources only yields more of the same.

"harvard.academia.edu" is user-generated, and one can find other distinguished scholars there such as Harvard's own Aaaaa Aaaaa, Jvhv Bhjgfkyfk, and Ppoooo Pooooo.
I'm unable to find an official list of the 2023 recipients of the President's Lifetime Achievement Award, but this apparently-unofficial site] has one (it may be incomplete because the subject is missing). If you search for the award on Google News, you'll find widespread and significant coverage from many sources for recipients who are listed here. I can find no such coverage for this subject.
I found a few articles on Medium, and then realized they're all written by the same user

There appears to be a lot of PR fluff when you try to find sources here. I can't find anything to support the notability claims per WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. tony 16:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. tony 16:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RangersRus should not have accepted the AFC submission: The sources in the article are obviously highly promotional and not independent of the subject. The article lacks any legitimate claim to notability and is merely an accomplished young person's resume, almost certainly written by Amir himself. Reywas92^Talk 20:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told by other veteran reviewers when I rejected similar article that a fellow meets WP:NACADEMIC. On top, it showed on this United States Navy memorial site that the subject earned the prestigious Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, making him the youngest recipient of this honor. RangersRus (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word fellow has multiple meanings in the academic context. There are "research fellowships", which are short-term positions for junior scholars (including graduate students) to do research on some topic. This is very different from being an elected Fellow of a major society, which is a recognition for a stellar career. WP:NACADEMIC is talking about the latter. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But also, even when drafts are on notable subjects, to be accepted at AfC they need to be based on sources that are reliable, even for forms of notability that do not also require those sources to be in-depth and independent. Here, the sources appear inadequate to support the content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RangersRus, This is not a prestigious award. It's given practically automatically to anyone who logs a large number of hours of volunteer service [39] – many thousands of people have received it. A very nice recognition, but by no means given on a discretionary basis to the most notable people. This is also clearly not a reliable independent source either, the content is self-submitted and he obviously wrote his own biography there. — Reywas92^Talk 01:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Navy Memorial page is absolutely not an independent, reliable source. In fact, it should probably be included in the WP:DEPRECATED list. The "Service Memories" are self-written biographies. They are, according to the Navy Memorial site, self-submitted stories that are:
Reflections of war or peacetime service...These accounts may be typed or hand written accounts, photos, biographies, anecdotes, sea stories, poems, or even prayers.

In other words, Mr. Amir wrote this entry himself and submitted it to the Navy Memorial. The Memorial *might* have done a cursory check to ensure that it wasn't a case of stolen valor (e.g., falsified claims to service or military awards), though I doubt it, then posted it up. nf utvol (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing about this particular individual, the name is rather common overseas, so you get many hits there. The fact that most sources are either primary or almost made-up does not help the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are no critical reviews of his books, only sites to buy them. This feels PROMO... The award in the photo is him graduating from some Marine training event, with honors. Not sure that makes him notable, when the guy next to him holds the exact same thing... And is unknown to the Wiki community. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page strikes me as a WP:PROMO written by an IP editor that has only ever edited this page. Not nearly enough independent sources to pass WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR, or WP:NAUTHOR. nf utvol (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the points raised above, all the books listed are self-published. They could still contribute to his notability if they managed to be reviewed regardless, but that's a big hill to climb, and I see no indications that the climbing has even begun. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On United States Navy memorial site, it is written that the subject earned the prestigious Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award, making him the youngest recipient of this honor. and this source that shows the subject is Research fellow at Harvard. RangersRus (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Google: No results found for "Mostafa Amir" site:harvard.edu". The source you link is a part of the Google Scholar profile that is edited by the subject and can say anything. (A colleague of mine edited it to list a named professorship with a comical name that did not exist...ironically now has a real named professorship but the profile still lists the fake one.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here contributes to notability. (Self)-publishing books is not enough; they need reviews. Being employed as a researcher at Harvard is not enough, even if true. Much also fails verifiability, an even stronger barrier to having an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Stryker

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

There was no demonstration of Notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. FULBERT (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Sexuality and gender. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maherin Chowdhury

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

WP:BLP1E: no indication of notability except for her role in the 2025 Bangladesh Air Force Chengdu J-7 crash, no reliable sources antedating the crash. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Aviation, and Bangladesh. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 11:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for two reasons:

Widely reported in both local & foreign media.
[Non-political] member of Majumder–Zia family, which is a widely discussed topic in Bangladesh.

Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and being widely reported is not sufficient.
The notability of a family is not automatically inherited by its members. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"

— WP:INVALIDBIO

So, according to WP:INVALIDBIO:

Significant coverage is sufficient for this article
This rule only applies for close relationships, like the spouse or the children

Therefore, I support keeping the article. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent article. In terms of her popularity currently in Bangladesh, I am sure she will get the Independence Day Award or Ekushey Padak soon or later, then this could exist as independent article. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: perfect case of WP:TOOSOON, if she had gotten any awards i would understand having a article, but for now as a stand-alone article fails WP:GNG. Protoeus (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Well, imo, the thing about Maherin Chowdhury isn't all about the plane crash. She was celebrated not for her tragic death, rather for her own merit. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 22:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Woolley (physician)

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

One source is a press release from 2009 about him receiving an award from Cambridge Who's Who (a vanity press; untrustworthy for Wikipedia). Searching online shows other unreliable sources, or a different physician, such as for "Biographical" (1921) by Walter Barlow Stevens. Roast (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. Roast (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits in the name in Gscholar, but they appear un-related. I don't think a one-time award from a vanity publisher makes this person notable. No coverage otherwise, there isn't really much to be reviewed. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Boothby

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

No indication of notability beyond routine academic publications and research SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews in the article as nominated for WP:AUTHOR. Possibly speedy keep WP:SK3 as the nomination statement does not actually address any notability criterion let alone the right one; whether one thinks his research routine is irrelevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews for at least three of his books here, here, and here meets WP:AUTHOR regardless of how many papers he's published. nf utvol (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Nfutvol, I added those to the article. Xpander (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Connecticut, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR easily. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annie L. Andrews

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

Physician and congressional candidate. Her candidacy doesn't automatically make her notable and I don't really see anything else that indicates she's high-profile enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes per WP:BASIC and point 2 from WP:POLITICIAN that Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage . Agent 007 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. EXCEPT, when you hover over the note at the end, it states, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. None of the candidate announcements cited strike me as meeting the definition of a feature story. The closest thing to something about the subject, the Charleston City Paper, relies heavily on the subject for information/sourcing and may fall afoul the guidelines on self-published information. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina. A selective merge would also be possible. She's not even the only prominent local Democratic candidate running against LG, who has weak polling. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above, it meets the criteria per WP:BASIC and WP:POLITICIAN on whether it should exist. Perhaps better editing of my rough draft could help illustrate that better, tho definitely meets criteria to be own page rather than redirected to one of the elections she ran/is running in Sarah Bellia (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina. Per WP:EVENT, Andrews, as a participant only known for the event of the primary election (which itself is not notable enough for its own article) is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Her career as a pediatrician would not allow her to meet GNG or any subject specific notability policy.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaboration. To elaborate on why I think her academic career does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. I did a search of her full name at the United States National Library of Medicine. There are 26 multi-author pieces found between 2011-2022. While I understand many academics write with co-authors, it gets hard to know why each person was creditted (i.e. why the subject matters in the field). The works do not appear to be often cited. The meaningfulness, or lack thereof, of the research to the historic record is not explained in the article. There look to be more results on Google Scholar, but not every A.L. Andrews is the subject. Finally, the selected work mentioned in the article is a less than 3 page piece that reads like a training manual from what was once Wellstone Action. The piece breaks no new ground on activism.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While accomplished as a physician, her publications do not rise to NACADEMIC. In politics, she is so far an also-ran. She did receive 42% of the vote against Mace as the Democratic candidate, and I would expect to find more about her because of that, but didn't. If she wins against Graham in 2026 then notability will be solid. There are 3 independent sources: News from the States, Fortune, and Charleston City Paper. This gets her very close to notability, but if the non-independent sources are removed the article will be greatly reduced. Lamona (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to to 2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina per Bearian and others, as well as WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saadia Zahidi

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

This page seems to be of dubious notability, at least on the references it contains. From what I see, the only notable achievements of the subject is writing a book and being featured on BBC's 100 women. Which I don't think presently meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Pakistan, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (see below). I got carried away and made a source assessment table of all the worthwhile sources in the article; the rest in the article are obviously not independent. Since this was created by a blocked sock, I won't try very hard to find further sources, but I'll note that a brief Google/GNews search turned up nothing of interest. Toadspike [Talk] 15:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ft.com/content/87b3bf66-5bb6-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2		~ Very short, no information about Zahidi herself, minimal information about the book.	~ Partial
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/10/seeking-a-finer-balance/	Official news site of the university that hosted the event covered in the article.	Spends three sentences and an image caption discussing her.	✘ No
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/closing-gender-gap-economic-participation-by-laura-tyson-and-saadia-zahidi-2014-10?barrier=accessreg	An opinion piece written by the subject.		✘ No
https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2018/01/hlp-wee-reports-and-toolkits		Simply mentions her once as a panel member, which means she also took part in authoring this source.	✘ No
https://www.ft.com/content/47cff800-9a57-11e8-ab77-f854c65a4465		A two-sentence review of her book. Not really sigcov of the book, and certainly not sigcov of her.	✘ No
https://www.ft.com/content/1caaf96a-68b8-11e4-9eeb-00144feabdc0	Written by the subject, and doesn't talk about her at all.		✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-24579511		A single-sentence listing.	✘ 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}}.

Strong Keep as she is a managing director of a notable organization and at least easily meets Wikipedia:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to an article about the book and rewrite accordingly~~. I don't see any evidence of GNG-worthy sources that are not about the book (the BBC 100-women source definitely doesn't count, and neither does being a managing director of a notable organization). But I think the book may be notable, so if we have an article on that we could redirect to it. As well as the Financial Times review already listed (the full version of which appears to be paywalled so I couldn't evaluate it) I found published reviews at Foreign Affairs, Library Journal, Kirkus, The Cascadia Advocate, The Arab Weekly, and The Globe and Mail (not counting some personal blogs that I don't think count as reliably published). I don't think one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR, even with this many reviews, and some of the reviews are not very long, but even so I think there's enough coverage to make the book notable. And if we have an article about the book, redirects are cheap, so there should be no problem with a redirect from the author's name. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Thanks. The book seems notable. Since AfD is ill-equipped to handle moves and rewrites (closers sometimes refuse to close as such, even when consensus is clear), I've created a stub on the book at Fifty Million Rising and am changing my !vote to redirect to Fifty Million Rising; I suggest you do too. I would prefer if this AfD close with clear consensus that the person is not notable, to make it easier to deal with potential future UPE issues. Toadspike [Talk] 15:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep or redirect per new sources listed by SDGB1217. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Keep.

I have found sources that could be added to the draft/article to support GNC.

Articles relating to her book where she is also discussed, Financial Times: https://www.ft.com/content/b06a1324-01b8-11e8-9e12-af73e8db3c71, The National: https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/books/how-50-million-women-are-transforming-the-muslim-world-1.704101 and The Globe and Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/review-fifty-million-rising-explores-how-women-are-transforming-work-force-across-muslim-world/article37814830/. Plus shorter reviews in journals Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/2018-04-16/fifty-million-rising-new-generation-working-women-transforming and Library Journal: https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/fifty-million-rising-the-new-generation-of-working-women-revolutionizing-the-muslim-world

She is quoted in articles by The Standard: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/world-economic-forum-north-korea-europe-glasgow-graham-b976007.html, https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/world-economic-forum-artificial-intelligence-ukraine-india-mexico-b1131373.html, The Straits Times: https://www.straitstimes.com/world/wef-confident-of-leaders-coming-to-singapore-for-meet-in-august, BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24650912, Sustainability Magazine: https://sustainabilitymag.com/sustainability/global-gender-gap-report-time-to-parity-far-too-long and Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/climate-change-overtakes-pandemics-as-biggest-global-concern-b1990575.html - more on Google News.

She is the subject of an article by Arab News: https://www.arabnews.com/node/1438871/business-economy/1000 (can be used as unrelated to Saudi government); Articles in Spanish, Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.es/archivo/coronavirus-cambiara-trabajo-foro-economico-mundial-643497 and El Economista: https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/economia/Quien-es-Saadia-Zahidi-la-directora-gerente-del-WEF-20240121-0057.html'; Article in French, Les Temps (Swiss newspaper): https://www.letemps.ch/carrieres-et-formation/musulmanes-une-generation-travail

If anyone has access to Charter: https://www.charterworks.com/charter-30-saadia-zahidi/ or the Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/business/world-economic-forum-shakes-up-senior-leadership-f0ea23b4, there are these articles behind paywalls.

An interview was also reported on in Diplomat Magazine: https://thediplomatmagazine.com/news-activities/world-economic-forum-md-saadia-zahidi-highlights-risks-of-misinformation/ SDGB1217 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to book article per Toadspike. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Itō

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:ANYBIO. While the subject is described as an assistant professor and writer, no publications are cited to support notability. The article also mentions that the subject is a composer, but it is unclear whether this refers to musical composition or writing. The subject does not meet the criteria under WP:NPROF either. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 13:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 13:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't looked closely at its sourcing, but just noting that the jawiki article is much longer and better sourced: ja:伊東乾 (作曲家). The subject is apparently now a full professor, has written a number of books, and has won awards for both his writing and his musical compositions. MCE89 (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find reliable source, add content, and improve the article, Do you think this subject has significant coverage? I’ll be willing

to withdraw if there is substantial improvement to the article. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a BLP, this must be sourced or must be deleted. There is no other. Bearian (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The sourcing issue can be fixed. Available sources include a current faculty profile [40] and cv [41]. And U. Tokyo is very selective, but we cannot keep based only on having a professor title there. The Japanese article lists many compositions due to him but we would need independent coverage such as reviews for notability that way. The language barrier may be an issue in finding them, if they exist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not meet the notability criteria according to WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. It lacks independent, reliable sources and does not provide evidence of significant contributions to his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodboyjj (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zafarul Islam Islahi

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

Non notable scholar and educator, fails WP:GNG in general, doesn’t meet WP:NPROF, the article isn’t written in a clear and Neutral point of view per WP:NPOV. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an unsourced BLP. The bibliography is by him, not about him. Bearian (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there is one source from The Milli Gazette, but the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. Taabii (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Alan Schmitz

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

Longstanding tags on this article and curious editing history does not appear to fulfill WP:NPROF. A WP:BEFORE fails to find WP:SIGCOV to achieve WP:ANYBIO on this BLP. Nayyn (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bands and musicians. Nayyn (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Obviously does not pass WP:Prof (nor need it) but might pass GNG. BLP is full of bloat like a LinkedIn entry. Xxanthippe (talk).
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref. 1 might be good, but the rest are just databases. I don't see any other sources not connected to Schmitz himself or his employer. WP:GNG is irrelevant in this case, we are bound by WP:BLP and WP:NPROF, which are not met. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO. I couldn't find any independent WP:SIGCOV; as WeirdNAnnoyed said above, apart from [1] the others are just promo. If additional sources are found please ping. GoldRomean (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Nasr

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

Postdoctoral scientist at Harvard with an h-factor of 6 and 420 total citations. While she has made a good start to her career, she is some distance from passing WP:NPROF. Some graduate-level awards, and some minor coverage; not close to WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. I suspect that in 10 years or so she will pass the bar for notability, maybe even a few years earlier, but now is way WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. A highly successful subject who does not pass notability here. Lots of trivial mentions, primary sources, etc. used as sources which do not contribute to notability, and the article is largely a promotional showcase with a non-neutral point of view. There is a very real possibility that she will become quite notable in the future (but we are not a crystal ball). Just as a side note, the article was created by a single purpose account in 2022. GuardianH 21:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (sigh). This is one of the most well-written, helpful articles to not pass WP:N I've ever seen, I suggest that one principal editor retain a copy in user space or offline to safe the trouble of future recreation (Draftify is probably not an option since we're between 3-8 years from passing WP:PROF if I can use prior experience as a guide). But it's definitely not a WP:PROF pass at present -- agree with all of Ldm1954 and GuardianH assessments on overall notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Mscuthbert about this being the best written but non-notable article I've seen. I do hope an article will be warranted in due time. As above _{so below} 23:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this article might squeak by WP:BASIC with two UPI Space Daily articles about the subject [42], [43] (need Proquest access to view) and a few paragraphs in an article written by a NYTimes reporter [44]. I have added these to the article. There are other references but I can't find editorial oversight so not sure if they count as reliable. I wouldn't characterize the article as written by an SPA account but rather a student who worked on several articles, although contributed most to this one. If the UPI Space Daily references count towards notability I'd !vote weak keep. Nnev66 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom and above. Svartner (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you comment on the references added to the article? The statement "per nom and above" does not address them as they were added later. Nnev66 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Chase

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

Graduate student in materials science with a few papers. No major awards, many years from a pass of WP:NPROF. PROD was contested by User:BorderlineRebel with unusual claims (see Talk:Zachary Chase), for instance that receiving graduate fellowships passes WP:NPROF#C2 and being on a student advisory committee passes WP:NPROF#C7. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I can't find substantial coverage of the subject in an independent reliable sources: a lot of the sources are self published by Chase or by his school. —C.Fred (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:GNG – While the subject is clearly a promising early-career researcher, the article does not currently meet the inclusion standards of WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. The majority of sources are affiliated with the subject or their institution, and there is no sustained, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Awards and academic service, while commendable, fall short of notability thresholds without significant third-party recognition. Notably, the subject has expressed a desire to have the article removed, which should be taken into consideration. —BorderlineRebel 16:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Deletion. I am the subject of this article. While I appreciate the effort behind its creation, I do not wish to have a Wikipedia page at this time. I have conferred with other users and I believe the content does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF, and several aspects are either inaccurate or not properly sourced. I am formally requesting deletion in accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Zacharychase94 — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC) — Zacharychase94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, Zacharychase94 contacted me directly on my talk page (see the details there), and I suggested that he post here, so this is not a canvassed SPA. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject request. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason not to honor the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, even without verification of the identity. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Assuming good faith, a Wikipedia article at the beginning of an academic career can be considered more troublesome than it is worth. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Power

AfDs for this article:

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

Per request by (claimed) article subject at Talk:Nina_Power#Request_to_Delete_Page, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is among the things to consider.

This article has some history. There was a delete in 2012 (BLPREQUESTDELETE), and the current article history starts in 2016. David Gerard and Red-tailed hawk WP:BLARed it in December 2023, and the article has been protected twice since 2024 [45] So, Wikipedians, what do you want to do? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is close enough to being a case of WP:BLP1E that a request for deletion should be honoured. The history of previous requests for deletion means that this claimed request to be the subject should be taken at face value, though it would be even better if they could officially establish their identity. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Can someone with moderator status please delete my Wikipedia page on the basis of lack of standing or whatever it is? Like most of the site it's been taken over by a deranged lunatic who believe that lying is a means to an end. I'd really rather not have a page at all." Twitter 10:31 AM · Jul 25, 2025. cagliost (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I can understand the frustration, but this person seems well-known to the public at this point. Good or bad, things happened; so long as we report on them neutrally, there should be no issue. We don't censor articles simply because people don't like what they say about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Nor because they simply don't like Wikipedia. "Like most of the site...taken over by a deranged lunatic" -- this is not a good faith request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I assumed that meant the person that sued them... I suppose they could be talking about Wikipedia here, I tend to tread lightly around these requests. I didn't think Jimmy Wales was that controversial. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It's not nice (and IMO incorrect), but fwiw, it was off-WP and not really the "request." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Limited notability. Elixer777 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC. There are a couple of book reviews of "What do men want" which could support an article about that book. There is a single article about a protest about a speech she gave. The bulk of the article is about a lawsuit, which is WP:ONEEVENT and not a particularly interesting or notable one. cagliost (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the article now. There are many reviews of both What do men want? and of her 2009 book One Dimensional Woman. Jahaza (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~: to the article about "What do Men Want", seems to easily pass AUTHOR notability [46], [47], [48], [49]. This was all in about 10 seconds of Google search... I'm having a hard time understanding how she's considered marginally notable? Could redirect to the article about the book I guess, I'm almost ready to argue that she's notable herself. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She's also gotten critical notice in the USA [50]. Easily passes AUTHOR at this point. I suspect she wants the article deleted due to the issues around the lawsuit, but that helps build the article, her views have been debated in media and that she got sued over them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  We don't censor things here, and an article about a non-American, female, 21st Century philosopher really helps the gender bias issues we see in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - [51] is a review of "What do men want" (and not one from a "reliable source"). Agree that an article about "What do men want" is easily supported. cagliost (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b We also already have a (well-justified by reviews) article about One Dimensional Woman, so a redirect to What Do Men Want? (book) isn't really fitting. Jahaza (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if an author has TWO well-supported articles of her works, that's AUTHOR. I'll change the !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does two notable books pass WP:AUTHOR? cagliost (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what good authors do, is publish books that get people talking. Their "collective body of work" part in AUTHOR Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These two books are not "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." cagliost (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is, just the first of her book seems a rather significant work of feminist theory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So significant the article One Dimensional Woman is a stub only 25 words long. Yeah, right. cagliost (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is meaningless. It just means nobody has worked on the article much. There are 90 citations for Ome Dimensional Woman on Wikipedia Library. Simonm223 (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And Google Scholar indicates nearly 400 citations of One Dimensional Woman too. Whether you have heard of it and whether Wikipedia editors have properly developed the article is irrelevant. She's a notable academic. And a controversial one. And, frankly, an interesting one for looking at thd intersection of feminism, materialism, anti-commercialism and political reaction. Simonm223 (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    That something is a stub at this moment is literally meaningless, determined solely by what the specific audience of Wikipedia editors is interested in. We have more words written about lightsabers than the cultures of many African nations. I would wager the African nations are more important. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At present it looks like the result is going to be Delete. If you create an article on the book before then, we could do a redirect. Otherwise you could create a redirect later. cagliost (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cagliost, the article on What Do Men Want? (book) was already created in 2023 and the current article on One Dimensional Woman was created in 2024. Jahaza (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Although the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR, most of the article is about a lawsuit, taking it into the territory of WP:ONEEVENT. The subject is only minimally notable. The article history seems problematic for her, so I think we should honour her request.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author of two very notable books about which we have articles and which have many reviews in places like The Guardian, The Times, The Times Literary Supplement and academic journals. Her 2009 book is showing up on academic syllabuses and in articles like this from Verso[52]. Arguments that this is a case of WP:BLP1E and of not meeting WP:AUTHOR are clearly wrong.Jahaza (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out we already have articles for her two books. But that does not mean she passes WP:AUTHOR — she doesn't. cagliost (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, that actually does mean she passes NAUTHOR. Anyone who writes more than one notable book is (if there's one we usually just merge it to the book). PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "Anyone who writes more than one notable book is [notable]". No, that is not true. cagliost (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  IMO, 2 books with WP-articles doesn't necessarily equal "a significant or well-known work", context matters. And like (almost) all SNG:s, NAUTHOR falls under "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The GNG itself is a rebuttable presumption, so that's not really much; just one of her works seems rather significant in the realms of feminist theory. We can delete anything provided there is consensus, that's the "Presumption". PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The point of the SNG is that if we have, say, an author with two books with three reviews each, we presume that they're notable and don't have to dig and dig for additional sourcing to "prove" it. But here, we're well past that point, where there are tens of reviews of her work, syllabi[53][54][55][56] and reading lists[57][58][59][60] that include it, and she's being referenced as a figure with whom people generally interested in the field of feminist theory would be familiar[61] and profiled in general interest, if highbrow, magazines[62]. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  "if we have, say, an author with two books with three reviews each, we presume that they're notable". Nope. We have well-sourced articles for the books: that doesn't imply an article for the person. cagliost (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I agree, two books does not count as a "significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The book articles are well sourced, but for an article on Power, we need sources about Power, not the books. cagliost (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  This is simply not the current consensus regarding authors. Jahaza (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Says who? cagliost (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as stated above, the author has at least two works that have been critically reviewed. We also have the bit about the lawsuit, which helps show further notability for the individual. She's moved past only being notable for one book, now with a few works critically analyzed and has been talked about in media after the lawsuit. That's miles beyond what we see for most biographical articles here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable by a few different events and we should also note that WP:BLP2E does not really exist. I also find it suspect for a public figure to ask for a deletion if there is critical info that is allowed as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted on blpn. It really doesn’t sit right with me that we want to delete an article because an account claiming to be Nina powers is arguing the article is “filled with lies and unsubstantiated claims made by a severely disingenuous and malicious third party”.

if it was a lie, there should be reliable sources to prove it. As is there is more than enough coverage of the trial that pushes the other way. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of One Dimensional Woman alone for which WP:SIGCOV is trivially easy to demonstrate. I honestly don't understand the deletion rationale beyond that a person claiming to be her dislikes the article. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Also mentioned in a recent LRB essay as a notable example of a specific and influential intellectual milieu: Richard Seymour "emerged from the mid-2000s network of bloggers that also included Mark Fisher, Nina Power and Owen Hatherley". Also mentions her political veiws: "Unlike [Christopher] Hitchens, or indeed Power, whose work has taken a reactionary turn" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpm1989 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a simple notability question, this is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE question, and I believe it should be honored for figures at this level. As far as I'm aware, SNGs aren't a factor in whether subjects are eligible for BLPREQUESTDELETE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is that Power isn't a "relatively unknown subject" - at least in the community of left-wing theory types I move in she's an incredibly well-known, and controversial, figure. This is part of what I mean about it being trivially easy to source mentions of One Dimensional Woman. That book had significant impact and he later reactionary turn caused a lot of hand-wringing. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of people and organisations that are well-known and controversial among the left-wing theory types I move in - that doesn't really mean anything for notability criteria, which most of them don't pass. - AndreyKva (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that she is well known in left wing circles doesn't count for anything if it can't be backed up with sources. cagliost (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe she meets WP:AUTHOR. One Dimensional Woman and Power's ideas were widely discussed and reviewed at the time, and her work was included on many reading lists. Her role at the time as an influential left-wing feminist isn't obvious nowadays from a cursory google. and hasn't been clear to date in the article (which in terms of word count has been dominated by the Turner legal case). Her rightward turn and very different book, What Do Men Want?, appears to have also had traction in many circles on the right and has been widely reviewed. She has also been widely published as a commentator for various mainstream publications at different times. — LittleDwangs (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Her role at the time as an influential left-wing feminist isn't obvious nowadays from a cursory google". If it can't be substantiated with sources, the article shouldn't exist. cagliost (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author of two notable books. The article is very thin. The authors' two books seem to pass notability for reviews. Cut it down severely maybe - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do these "nexus" articles help much? Not much point having an article purely to link to two other articles. cagliost (talk) 06:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subjects good-faith request. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a low-profile individual as a quick Google search finds an article published two days ago in The Critic. PamD 07:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. An article written by her has zero influence on her own notability. 95.129.20.23 (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Message for Nina Power: if you feel inaccurate material has been added to your biography, feel free to contact me either on my user-talk page here or via email at MutantPop@aol.com with your concerns and we can go over things and see about getting errors rectified. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR USA ///// Carrite (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there is ongoing discussion at the article talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nom, and I now say Keep per article improvements and [63]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing my vote from Delete per improvements to the article and the subject (who requested the deletion) having since changed her mind on the matter. - AndreyKva (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - we are not a fix-it service for barely notable people. That said, I like to encourage article rescues. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article is kept there is zero reason to include the reception of the books here, since the books have separate page. Inclusion here seems to be coat racking criticism of the books on her, which isn't helping. Masem (t) 14:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about an author, it's reasonable to include something about the content reception of their books, if there are decent sources. People who want to edit the book-articles and expand those can do that. For a very WP:OTHERCONTENT example, Dan_Brown#Writing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - per [64] it appears that NinaXPower is no longer pursuing WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. That's not to say that there aren't already other good arguments here supporting preservation or deletion (or something else) but this ought to be considered. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all: I'm totally happy to let the reality dictate what ought to be done here. I note that in the past there was a page for What Do Men Want? but not an author page, because the book had been reviewed in three mainstream publications (or whatever the bar was for notability of a text). I initially requested deletion because I was misled by the way in which the page had been taken over by person/s who wished me ill (I thought they would just be able to keep re-editing it negatively and misleadingly), but a balanced page as it now is - well, up to you guys! Thank you for all the thought here, I do appreciate it. NinaXPower (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the only basis in policy to delete this is WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, but given the subject's change in stance (immediately preceding this comment), this becomes moot and the article should remain. Local Variable (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Marston

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

AfD to enforce draftification as it is > 3 months. Page had significant LLM, and Scaling.ai thinks it still has. While he passes notability as APS Fellow, none of his career and awards are sourced. Original editor has poor track record, no indication of attempts to improve. If someone wants to edit so WP:HEY applies please do. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Physics. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping of DMacks who suggested draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference to confirm that he is president-elect of the American Physical Society. Non-controversial information (the year he graduated, for example) can be sourced to primary references. I think that any traces of AI-generated text are gone now. He's clearly notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that multiple editors have resolved the referencing problems. However, this still has strong traces of LLM, in that the bulk of it is just a list of his own publications with a description of each's topic, formatted as the usual LLM bold-slug three-bullet-point list. I have tagged the need for secondary refs discusing him rather than a CV-like publication list. I would actually rather remove that whole list, especially because it's got so much fluff ("innovations") and uncited/credulous commentary on some of their merits. Some of the original content was actually hallucinated references, emphasizing how non-viable it was at the time (but also how substantial and valuable the cleanup work of everyone else has been). AFD is not for cleanup, but DRAFTify seems to have a bright-line time-limit (via RFC)...obvious problematic LLM should not default to "live in mainspace until AFD forces someone's hand" when it's not noticed promptly enough. DMacks (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He's a fellow of the American Physical Society (2013), which by itself passes WP:NPROF. I have added some text and references to the article - none of which was generated by an LLM. It needs more details on his research, but that can come later. Qflib (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the academic notability standard is met in at least two ways (elected Fellow and also presidency of APS), and the problems with the text have been resolved through rewriting. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as DMacks (talk) indicated above, Wikipedia current has a problem with LLM. IMO we should not have articles with major issues such as hallucinations, that is a disservice to our readers no matter how notable the person is. As I indicated in my nom, the page needed major repair which has now been done, and I think it now passes by WP:HEY. While there may be changes in how LLM is handled in the future (many ongoing discussions), for certain this is not going to be the last LLM mess. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Victor

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either primary (company websites, SIP Academy) or affiliated/promotional (e.g., CEOInsights, which profiles company executives in a non-independent, advertorial format). No in-depth biographical coverage found in independent media. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even as someone who is an inclusionist, I read this article and can't find much that makes him notable. Is there even anything to build an article for his company, SIP Academy India? If that article could be built, then a small blurb about this guy can be added in the history section. As a standalone article, not really Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 05:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Peay

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

Created by a single purpose editor. 8 of the sources are articles by the article subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Environment, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's the h-factor for this researcher? A non-trivial amount of research shown in Gbooks or Scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations record may be not sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C1. Author of the BLP has not taken the trouble to create a GS record. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Q/Comment -- what's the relevant comparison for a Crayfish researcher based on precedents/similar fields? Seems very well published/awarded based on article citations, but I really don't have a clue about what one should expect for a marine invertibrate? Comparing citation counts to things like cancer research would be unfair to the scholar. Leaning keep on gut (good amount of citations; past "self-promotion-to-get-first-job" stage; etc.) but want to know more. Only rebuttal to collaborator and friend Xxanthippe is--it's not the responsibility of editor or subject to create a GS record; in fact that could be held against the subject (if new) as self-promoting. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2014 researcher. Many of the claims in the article appear to fail WP:V, with for example the inventory of ancient woodland that lists other authors (but not the subject here). I did find a substantial interview on crayfish in a U Wisconsin podcast [65], and there are the BBC articles that quote her, but this looks like WP:MILL to me. Meanwhile, the article is in sufficiently bad state (promotional, primary-sourced) that I find WP:TNT relevant. Watching in case better sources emerge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is 65-66 and seems to have had a good career, and did her PhD late in life. Checking Google Scholar she has some decent papers. However, if you add "crayfish" to the search that brings up many other authors in the area who have GS profiles and many more cites, both total and h-factor. This leads me to believe that this is a medium citation topic, so her numbers are too low for WP:NPROF. I see no indications of major awards to bolster the case. Given her age I don't think WP:TOOSOON applies, and (sadly) I don't see a route forward except peer proof by a major award. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not rise to the level of notoriety necessary for an academic. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on a reasonable citation record and contributions to books such as Management of Freshwater Biodiversity: Crayfish as Bioindicators (for which she gave UK input into 2 chapters) [66]. I have added sources that verify and add to the information about her education and career, and could add more, though I fear this will be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what are the other sources you've not added yet?

I would appreciate if you could list them here so they can be used in the discussion :) SDGB1217 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to late reference additions to the article. Please re-review the sources and see if they impact your assessment of notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abrams (psychologist)

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

This article has a promotional history and recently it was edited by User:Muikuilani (blocked for UPE). It is mainly based on primary sources. I tried to find secondary sources but not much came up, fails WP:GNG. His research impact and faculty position (adjunct professor) is not enough to pass WP:NPROF. Gheus (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that he does not meet WP:NPROF Google scholar does show that his book received 30+ citations but the lack of secondary sources indicates that he does not have the level of notability for an article.

Czarking0 (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Psychology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate record on GS fails WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Seems to me notable via his books (with enough reviews - have added some). His role with Ellis and the long interviews with him in the Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies and by the EPSIG are what persuaded me of notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY - assuming the sources are legitimate and not AI-generated, I see four reviews of the subject's works in the references. Bearian (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The article is sourced mainly to the subject’s own publications and a handful of routine book reviews, offering no significant independent coverage; as an adjunct professor with modest citation metrics, he does not satisfy WP:GNG or the substantive criteria at WP:NPROF. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the book coverage routine per WP:ROUTINE? They are not "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, [...] sports matches, film premieres, press conferences". They're book academic reviews, if that kind of coverage is routine all coverage is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided here. A source analysis including reviews would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Maynard

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

Non-notable. All references are to interviews which the subject himself has promoted. No secondary sources give grounds for evaluation. Smerus (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think saying how bad things are in Gaza is enough for notability, frankly, it's evident at this point how dire the situation is. Other than speaking about how bad things are there, the one or two lines for his career are routine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Nick Maynard points out war crimes that Israel denies, so his statements are important. Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no - he is clearly using the Wikipedia platform to further his own agenda and there is no wider interest in his personal views. As noted elsewhere, the article is basically his CV plus his comments on one particular matter, expressed in a very partisan way. This may have support, but it's not sufficient to justify an article. 2A00:23D0:44D:6301:5D6B:9E99:52B1:FA9D (talk) 08:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you just said it correct. The subject is pretty clearly not the one who wrote the article. There is clear wider interest in his views (see [67]), nothing in the article is written like a CV, and there is nothing partisan about the article, and as far as I have read, nothing super partisan about his advocacy. Ike Lek (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So please provide better sourcing than what we have, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMO, the subject is close to notability; there are, for example, two articles in CNN and NPR that appear to contribute to notability. But there so far only about those sources and 2 others, so it's a little unclear whether there is widespread coverage enough to meet threshold. But I would not be surprised if there would be in the next month (but we are not a crystal ball). GuardianH 14:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given a reason that would be sufficient to delete this article. Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed secondary sources, namely other doctors and humanitarian aid workers. For example: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/19/gaza-hospitals-surgeons-00167697 Adlerauge99 (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adlerauge99 -- feel free to put in a "!vote" for Keep by adding it in bold before this statement. (I'm not voting yet -- it seems borderline and I could be persuaded to keep, especially if the articles are from more than, say, 6 months apart to show that he has sustained a reputation as an expert, or by the argument that the news coverage is only tangentally about him.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability relates to a single issue, needs WP:SUSTAINED. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The earliest independent coverage cited in the article is from 2023. Considering he is still receiving coverage in 2025 [68][69], I think that is enough for WP:SUSTAINED. As for claims to a lack of non-interview coverage, here are some [70][71]. And just because I anticipate this response, no, it isn't non-independent just because it includes quotes. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The calls for deletion appear to be motivated by political bias in favour of Israel. This is not remotely acceptable. I trust that Wikipedia will not delete this, althouh I would agree with anyone saying it would benefit from expansion.

J.A. 92.24.165.66 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sustained coverage of Maynard and his work in Gaza is sufficient to show notability, imv. (t · c) buidhe 19:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sustained coverage of work in Gaza, awarding of the Humanitarian Medal per WP:ANYBIO, and a healthy several thousand citation count per Scopus contributing to a claim per WP:NPROF. ResonantDis_tortion 20:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the references mentioned in the article [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] and [77]. LKBT (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Various references mentioned above account for significant coverage. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:1E, I believe that Dr Nick Maynard should have a WP entry, though the current one is a bit lackluster. Jacquesparker0 (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough references given to satisfy WP:GNG, from a range of reliable and independent news sources. Dionysodorus (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen A. Werner

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

I tagged this BLP about a teacher and writer with notability concerns in 2023, and started a discussion on the Talk page. Two years on, the article has not changed much and no other editors have commented. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added a citation to a book review in the Homiletic & Pastoral Review, but cannot find more to add. There are few other references in the article which are not to Werner's own work. There are three reviews in local papers of his plays, which I can't access. There is also an article in American Catholic Studies which accompanies the statement "Werner is particularly knowledgeable about Catholic history in the St. Louis area", where the actual text in the article reads "The vast knowledge of the entire region possessed by our great friend Steve Werner greatly enhanced my confidence and made it possible to urge students to consider sites beyond the St. Louis metropolitan area. Steve took us on scouting trips to such locales as St. Mary's of the Barre"; this is not significant coverage of Werner. I do not think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, and Missouri. Tacyarg (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've added some more reviews of his books. There are two reviews (and a mention) of his The Handy Christianity Answer Book, two reviews of his book on Joseph Husslein, and two reviews of his book on Daniel Lord. That, with the three reviews of his plays maybe eeks it out on WP:AUTHOR. Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails as an academic, but oddly enough passes as an author. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per NOM, a large number of the references are cites to his own writings, which are also listed in the list of writings. If these are removed then the statements like "He wrote a biography of ..." are not sourced; if they are not, then this is OR. I think they should be removed, at which point there isn't much left.Keep based on reviews in what appear to be academic theology journals. Cleanup is however needed: There are non-reliable sources such as the "Elvis Information Network". Lamona (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If [self-citations] are removed then the statements like "He wrote a biography of ..." are not sourced; He's written two biographies, of Joseph Husslein and Daniel Lord. Both of those books are cited to reviews, the first in the Journal of Religion[78] and Catholic Historical Review[79], the second in Catholic Library World[80] and Homiletic and Pastoral Review[81]

Of course, it doesn't help that @InquisitiveInvestigator has been crufting the article, which has made the (slim) case for WP:AUTHOR harder to find. Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jahaza. I hadn't realized those were reviews. I will change my !vote to keep, citing NAUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Tacyarg, "There are three reviews in local papers of his plays, which I can't access" Can you tell me more? I'm willing to try and get access to add these sources. Ckoerner (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Ckoerner, I was unclear. I meant that there are three citations in the article to local papers which I can't find online, so can't look at the content; if you are able to find them to see whether they supply SIGCOV of Werner himself, that would be great. It's the refs currently numbered 29-31: Southside Journal x 2 and St. Louis Post Dispatch. Tacyarg (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Proquest archives the St. Louis Post Dispatch, but unfortunately it's not included in the Wikipedia Library Proquest subscription. Jahaza (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

AfDs for this article:

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

relatively unknown person Parkslope1 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and New York. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've moved this nomination discussion to the proper venue, see [82]. @Parkslope1: It would be helpful if you can elaborate on why this article should be deleted beyond "relatively unknown person" — particularly what has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Kornberg that should result in a different outcome. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Note. @GorillaWarfare:. I want to note that AfD ended in No Consensus which I think is a common outcome when candidate articles are nominated for deletion during elections. In every election, there is a subset of editors and SPAs that think articles on candidates should exist "because election." This can either be for promotional or attack purposes or just Wikipedia is important and they think this candidate is important. Once the election is over, the lack of notability that has always been the case becomes clearer.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some unduly promotional and unduly negative edits in this article (and her opponent's) leading up to the recent primary. There's still room for improvement, but I think it's pretty reasonable now. In the time since the primary, a few unregistered and new users have popped in to make similar kinds of edits or argue for deletion when those edits -- which, in part, removed/misrepresented existing sources and cited instagram -- didn't stick. No success getting them to meaningfully engage on the talk page yet. A SPI is probably sensible, but that's a separate issue. Regardless, the argument of "relatively unknown person" is typically used to express that someone is a WP:LOWPROFILE individual, but that's not typically applicable to someone who runs for office. At the time of the previous AfD, notability was certainly borderline at best. Running an unsuccessful campaign does not itself confer notability, but the large amount of media it generates does help someone who came into that campaign with a borderline claim to notability. So at this point I think we're in clear Keep territory, and I'd encourage Parkslope1 to suggest specific changes based on specific citations on the talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Running an unsuccessful campaign one time is not enough to confer notability. The campaign did receive some media attention (almost all small local papers), as did other local campaigns, but the reality is that almost no other one time unsuccessful candidates for city council would ever be considered "notable" enough to have page. Kornberg's other work did not rise to the level of having a page and since the campaign ended she is not a public figure who merits a page. Pleasantpine (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Running an unsuccessful campaign one time is not enough to confer notability - this is a strange rebuttal to Running an unsuccessful campaign does not itself confer notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, given this, I take it you are the same person as Parkslope1 (who appears to be the same person as various unregistered users making the same or similar edits repeatedly prior to nominating for deletion). Please be advised editing from multiple accounts is not allowed on Wikipedia, as it gives the impression of multiple people being involved. I suspect this was just a mistake, not malicious (Wikipedia is a confusing place when you're starting out), but FYI for the future. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya Kornberg. I hope now that the election is over, policy prevails.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking again at the sources that existed last time around, it does look like notability was shaky at best. I don't edit a lot of candidate AfDs, but it seems backwards to me that a borderline case would be kept at the beginning of a campaign and then deleted afterwards, as a campaign does tend to yield some sources that contribute to WP:ANYBIO (i.e. there is no scenario where someone's claim to notability is weaker after a campaign). I won't be too sad if this is deleted given the pre-campaign coverage is thin, but I disagree with what seems like a popular opinion across Wikipedia: that coverage of someone while running for office doesn't count for anything. I get it in the sense of "running for office doesn't guarantee you a Wikipedia article," but if you do so and the big papers bite and run stories about you, it does help. Meh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think part of our difference of opinion is that I don't consider it a borderline case. At best, I think a stand-alone article for the subject is premature based on where the subject's career as a writer and intellectual is at presently. As far as why I think the subject is equally not notable as she was at the time of the last AfD. I am unconvinced that coverage of candidates in a campaign is sufficiently focused on the article subject (vs the campaign as an event) and that such coverage is sufficiently independent of the subject to count towards a subject's notability for a stand-alone article. None of the sources in the article at present lead me to believe that is not the case here. Given that WP:ANYBIO is merely a "likelihood" and involves significant honors or widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record, I'm not 100% sure an ongoing or unsuccessful candidacy would fall into it. --Mpen320 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I voted this way last time based on an in-depth review of her book, the Jerusalem Post article about her environmental activism, a Ms. Magazine article about her book and research, and the June 2025 city council primary coverage in general: one source while she was running and another after she lost the primary. Article meets easily WP:BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Birkhead, Nathaniel A. (August 29, 2023). "Kornberg, Maya L. Inside Congressional Committees: Function and Dysfunction in the Legislative Process". Congress & the Presidency. 50: 367–368. doi:10.1080/07343469.2023.2249378.
2. Waldocks, Ehud Zion (February 2, 2010). "Pre-army academy students take green message to ministers. 'We realized that change must come from the gov't'". Jerusalem Post. ProQuest 319712020.
3. Stabile, Bonnie (June 9, 2023). "Amplifying Women's Congressional Power". Ms.
4. McDonough, Annie (December 27, 2024). "Maya Kornberg pitches 'pragmatic progressivism' in Brooklyn council race". City & State New York.; Oreskes, Benjamin (June 23, 2025). "Big Names, Bigger Money and Global Themes Color the N.Y.C. Council Races". The New York Times. ProQuest 3223474732.
- Reply. A single peer review is about the book, not the author. There's a reason she fails WP:AUTHOR. The Ms. Magazine interview is not independent of the subject by virtue of being an interview. I've commented on the other sources.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I can see your point about the environmental activism article being small amount of coverage that one might say borders on perfunctory. As you note to pass NAUTHOR it would be better to have more than one book review, but the book review noted above does provide an in-depth description of the subject's analysis of congressional committees and her suggestions to improve them, which gives insight into the subject. I'm most confused about how the Ms. article could be considered an interview and not independent - this article has the most significant coverage of the subject. Nnev66 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons that have already been listed. Kornberg was a one time candidate who lost by a large margin and is otherwise not a known figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.54.92 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable outside of the political run, coverage otherwise is largely comments she makes to media outlets, or primary. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS of her book and scholarship (see refs #1 and #3 in my !vote above), which both contribute to BASIC and notability outside of her political run. I'd ask anyone !voting here to read both of these sources and include them in their !vote rationale. Nnev66 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One book review and a NYT article aren't quite enough for sourcing to sway my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo de Garis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBLP. (Definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF.) Leaving out the first-party sources and blogs, all that remains are:

two Wired articles from '97: basically interviews, one explicitly calls him "fringe"
the BBC article from '99: somewhere between credulous and Britishly bemused
the 2010 Geraci book: does mention him a bunch of times, but only as an example of a transhumanist / posthumanist / extropian / I guess we would call this TESCREAL now?

We also know now that his research program was not successful in creating artificial brains, let alone planet-sized ones. That doesn't invalidate any of the sources but it does put them in a different light. It's not at all clear that he originated any of these concepts: most were established scifi tropes well before he started his research. I did do a WP:BEFORE search, which is when the two Wired articles were added. As far as I can tell, with the available reliable sources, he isn't notable outside of a certain segment of the internet. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Technology. Apocheir (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep that his project failed doesnt mean he is not notable. I checked Google Scholar and found multiple (10+) papers with over 100 citations which is generally at the threshold but usually enough for passing WP:NPROF#1 and on top of that we have media coverage over his (failed) project which also counts towards GNG. I also found a full chapter on him in the book The Path to Posthumanity (pg 57 onwards). Taken together: I would say (weak) notability for NPROF and weak/okay notability with regards to GNG which leads me to conclude that notability is established and there is no reason to delete a reasonable, well sourced, quite NPOV article about the subject. --hroest 15:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a little concerned about a keep argument based purely on citation counts, since several of the publications were coauthored, and their numbers aren't that big for a high-citation field and for potentially accumulating citations since the '90s. (Also, the Google Scholar link above doesn't work; try searching just with his first initial instead.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that just citation counts can be deceiving, but while I'm not sure my direction (hence a comment), we should take into account that the field was significantly lower-citation in the 1990s and reference counting from then wasn't as good as it is now. When I vote it'll probably be mostly based on the Path to Posthumanity chapter, not citation numbers. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Path to Posthumanity was written by Ben Goertzel, who has collaborated with de Garis on quite a few articles. It's not independent by any measure. Apocheir (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- that's important to know. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete based upon failing WP:NPROF. Similar to others above, I am not convinced by the citation numbers claim by hroest. I make his h-factor somewhere in the 25-30 range, which is low for a high citation field. Having a few > 100 cited articles is significantly less (in most of science) than what is typically discussed at WT:NPROF and AfD. If others can persuade me of a WP:GNG pass I will change my vote. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs a bit more time to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Feature‐length coverage in Wired (1997), BBC News (1999), and secondary academic works (e.g., Geraci’s Apocalyptic AI) demonstrates significant independent attention, and Google Scholar shows well over the WP:NPROF #1 threshold (≥10 papers with 100 + citations), so the subject meets both GNG and NPROF. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim

AfDs for this article:

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

The lack of independent sourcing to establish notability is still an issue since the 2009 discussion. Sources are still not present to establish his notability.

Since that discussion, he has been mentioned in many books, but those are passing mentions crediting him for the pictures used in them. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Science, and New Zealand. Roast (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The single source referenced in the article is not an independent source as it is written by the subject. The claim of notability in the article is ‘best fan artwork’ from a fan convention, which is not a notable award that would be considered as "won significant critical attention" or any other part of WP:ARTIST. My search for other possible significant coverage in independent reliable sources turned up nothing. I found instead a self-published book and wikipedia copies. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation count is solid but falls short of WP:NPROF#C1 for me, and I don't see any indication that he passes any of the other NPROF criteria. I unfortunately couldn't find any independent coverage that would indicate that he is notable as a cartoonist. MCE89 (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ascertained judgement of the notability of the subject as a cartoonist reached in the 2009 deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am sure you know, notability standards have changed a lot since 2009. Do you have any sources to demonstrate his notability as a cartoonist? No usable sources at all were presented in the 2009 discussion. MCE89 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while generally an h-index of 27 is not quite enough to pass the bar of NPROF by itself, combined with other activities it usually is based on discussions in the past. In this I would argue that the comic activity is substantial enough to confer notability. --hroest 17:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, but I don't see any independent commentary on his cartoonist activities. Barely anything is cited, either. This specific subcategory of the Sir Julius Vogel Award does not seem to be enough to confer notability. -- Recon rabbit 23:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:38, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ARTIST. The subject, a New Zealander, won the Sir Julius Vogel Award, which appears to be a prominent award in that country. The article could do with better sourcing, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, he won the Fan Award for best fan artwork. What is your evidence that this is a prominent award? The article for the Sir Julius Vogel Awards barely even establishes that the set of awards as a whole is notable, let alone that it is a well-known and significant award or honor. And even if the actual professional Sir Julius Vogel Awards are significant enough to establish notability, it seems like an enormous stretch to claim that winning the fan art award is enough on its own to make someone notable. MCE89 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, according to the Sir Julius Vogel Award article, the "fan award winners" from "1997-2000" are "details unknown." It would be interesting to hear which of the four criteria of WP:ARTIST could possibly be met by winning a "fan award" that no one else can remember who won for four years at a time. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DesiMoore Even then, there's about nothing else establishing him. In a similar case to Taufik Rosman, the article would be better as a redirect to the award. Roast (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly I'm not familiar with WP:NPROF, but it looks like he could meet #C7a, as he appears to be the go-to expert for NZ media on a number of issues, most notably meth contamination: [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] Nil🥝^Talk 07:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And some more: [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]

Just for some context - in NZ "methamphetamine contamination" of housing (especially rentals) was a huge concern a ~decade ago, and numerous "testing" services were set up (which were in all likelihood no more than snake oil salesmen). Dr Kim was in the media a lot during that time, basically saying the fears were overblown. Along with the media stories, there's a journal article here, featuring Dr Kim - [96]

And some other articles I found not related to meth but other environmental contamination stories in the media - [97] [98] [99] [100] Nil🥝^Talk 01:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is an unsourced BLP and not a single secondary source that provides any real coverage of Kim as a person has been provided. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BEFORE does not provide any reliable sourcing for the claims made in the article. Science and Ink appears to be self published, as does Succeed in Science and Avoid Getting a Real Job. I don't see anything online to show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even though sources provided by Nil NZ just above are not yet in the article they seem to provide further notability. The subject also won a Sir Julius Vogel Award. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the sources found by NilNZ above convince me that notability is proven. Unfortunately for this person, googling "nick cartoon" tends to get you Nickelodeon, sort of a search engine optimisation nightmare. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 05:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:00, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Because there is literally only one source in the article (a primary citation to his just his dissertation), and the rest is completely unsourced and/or simply original research, we are left to find coverage elsewhere. I would have voted to keep given that he was the recipient of the Sir Julius Vogel Award (which, given that it had a page, I thought might be grounds for notability), but MCE89's comment above has convinced me that the award is somewhat dubious (its unclear if it actually should have a page at all) and may not qualify as a a well-known and significant award or honor. GuardianH 18:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

~~Christoph Zürcher (via WP:PROD on 26 July 2025)~~
Andreas Kemmerling (via WP:PROD on 24 July 2025)
Imke David (via WP:PROD on 21 July 2025)
Bayali Atashov (via WP:PROD on 20 July 2025)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Athletes Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Authors Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Businesspeople Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians

^ https://www.dn.pt/pol%C3%ADtica/marco-almeida-lan%C3%A7a-sintra-360-para-elaborar-programa-aut%C3%A1rquico

[12] ttps://www.dn.pt/pol%C3%ADtica/marco-almeida-lan%C3%A7a-sintra-360-para-elaborar-programa-aut%C3%A1rquico

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]