Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iking Ferry

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

Fails notability, no WP:RS, clearly paid PR, all signs of undisclosed paid editing. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Drewserbs (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly not notable. I feel like it should speedied as unambiguous advertising or promotion. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources don't seem reliable. If he has won awards, we also need to see reliable citations for it, not just mentions, in which case he may meet WP:MUSICBIO. MartinWilder (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. User:Em-mustapha ^talk 03:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's not any RS to demonstrate his notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — fails to meet our notability threshold as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Celestina007 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.-Xclusivzik (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Messiah (2007 film). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Soleimani Nia

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

No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Non-notable actor, may be WP:TOOSOON. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose plentiful sources in Farsi. In what way is an Iranian actor not notable because of lack of English sources? Naturally most of them relate to his big role playing Jesus in the Iranian film The Messiah (2007 film) but appears he has also done some TV work. Even if that 2007 film - in which he had the lead role - was the only film he ever made, then the plentiful books mentioning the film and his portrayal alone make him notable per WP:GNG 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you mention sources that cover him significantly (not passing a mention) in Farsi? Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some search, it looks like all about the only film he was starring, hence my merge vote below. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to The Messiah (2007 film). It looks like a single-role actor. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the movie itself is not notable let alone an actor in the movie (Redirect is also a good option) Mardetanha (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Falah bin Zayed Al Nahyan

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:ANYBIO- lacks in-depth coverage in WP:RS MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and notability cannot be inherited from other notable relations. Theroadislong (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you remove all the material about who he is related to (which do not contribute to notability), all that is left is being the chairman of a polo club. A news search finds coverage of polo events, but no significant coverage of the man himself.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Grabe

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

An article about a professor from the University of California, Santa Cruz that is not remotely notable outside any of her papers and research publications. From doing several searches online, all I get are links to her works, but nothing completely about the individual. I don't see the notability even under academic guidlines. Not a single inline source is used to verify the information on the article about the subject. This fails GNG on a basic level. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now a full professor: [1]. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It does pass WP:Prof#C1 . --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't find reviews of her books for WP:AUTHOR, but the case for WP:PROF#C1 notability is clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 per citations. ExRat (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slam-dunk. (I don't normally vote keep) per the snow WP:PROF keepers. -Roxy the dog. wooF 08:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted, clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As already said, meets WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the Afd, the article now meets the notability requirements. We can close this as keep. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Harish

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. ManaliJain (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 2. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: per nom. Lacks sources to indicate if the roles played are significant to meet NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Ab207 (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aksel Fugelli

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, meets WP:NAUTHOR with multiple books on one of the major publishing houses in his country. Dlthewave, can you disclose your methods of finding coverage? Don't say Google now. That wouldn't hold water when the sources are both in a foreign (to you) language and from many years ago. Geschichte (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change to speedy keep per WP:HEY in addition to WP:TROUTing the nominator up, down and sideways—after I added a small portion of media coverage, namely 10 reviews of one book alone. And as for 2022, like in previous years, I personally pledge to participate in as few AFD discussions as possible about countries like India, since I know so little about that country. Geschichte (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSK reason is being invoked here? –dlthewave ☎ 01:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#3, "The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". Geschichte (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable to nominate a poorly-sourced article for deletion after a standard, basic WP:BEFORE search. It's unreasonable for an article creator who didn't bother to include any sourcing beyond Discogs and a list of books written, to expect others to do an extensive search in multiple languages. If you don't want your articles to end up at AfD, I would recommend starting them as drafts and moving them to mainspace only after they've been developed with GNG-level sourcing. And please don't claim "no accurate deletion rationale has been provided" for good faith nominations. Your best bet is to put your money where your mouth is by adding sources (which you've done) and politely point this out at AfD (which you seem to be struggling with). –dlthewave ☎ 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on addition of references by User:Geschichte. @Dlthewave: - (1) Specifically on this nomination, between Google and the no-Wiki article (where it's clear that there are references in Norwegian) enough sources and pointers to sources are easily visible to indicate that the man is likely to be notable, even if you can't read them and won't be bothered to translate them. So it doesn't look as though you did make "a standard, basic WP:BEFORE search". (2) Generally, please get off your high horse. Be assured that you're in no position to be so patronising. Here we are at yet another (potentially) failed nomination because you can't cope with foreign language sources. Give it a rest. Ingratis (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Hordnes

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

Fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from “comment”) WP:ANYBIO says anyone who has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary is likely to be notable. I’m not sure if Store norske leksikon is the “standard national biographical dictionary” in Norway, but if it is, the subject is probably notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO since Store norske leksikon is indeed the standard encyclopedia, and the article has existed since it was a paper encyclopedia. It would be utterly far-fetched to claim that Wikipedia should have fewer articles than a paper encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being chief of police of Norway's second-largest city would seem to be a notable enough and has an entry in the paper version of Store norske leksikon in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 17:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Cardozo

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

Entire article consists of the fact that he worked at two organizations (EFF and Facebook) and that he likes brewing beer. This is the definition of an article of minor significance. I have tried searching for additional sources or accomplishments of the subject and have been unable to do so. Does not meet notability. WP:NOR WP:N Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yipee8f93k (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – the article as written isn't too impressive, but there are quite a few sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook: [2] (characterizing him as "prominent")[3],[4], [5], and others. None of those are perfect sources, but they're arguably enough to establish notability, particularly since he's frequently cited in the press and in books. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove – Crucially, all the sources about Cardozo's move to Facebook are about the unique choice Facebook itself made hiring a critic, not about anything that makes the subject himself any more notable than any other public policy critic of one of the largest companies in the world. See: [6] (noting "Cardozo has written acerbically" about Facebook and failing to describe any other notable accomplishments)[7] (noting "Cardozo once wrote in an op-ed" and failing to describe any other accomplishments),[8] (noting Cardozo "certainly hasn’t minced words about his new employer" and failing to mention any other specific accomplishments, [9] (noting one accomplishment as "For years he worked on EFF's annual report ranking tech companies" but failing to describe his particular role or level of involvement or importance). These citations, and a few mentions of the substance of his criticisms in other publications, fail to meet the notability requirement that the subject receive "significant coverage" per WP:BIO [10]. No sources indicate nomination or receipt of a significant award or honor; no sources indicate "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field"; and subject is not an entry in a national biographical dictionary. The article would thus appear not to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers Yipee8f93k (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are enough to show the importance, and the article could be expanded to show the context. The sentence about his hobby should of course be removed as non-encyclopedic , but that's no reason for deletion of the article DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Wired, Ars Technica, and AdWeek is easily enough to demonstrate notability under the usual standards. The above attempted minimization of these sources is not convincing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG's rationale. The content is remarkably skimpy but the references are enough to meet notability guidelines. I am ambivalent about the beer hobby except I note it was a prominently discussed quality of a recent US Supreme Court appointee. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After searching I was able to find many sources. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 03:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro Bermejo

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

Not able to find much citations for this guy. the page currently has no citations. Wikivipwiki (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikivipwiki (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Wikivipwiki (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Wikivipwiki (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ the es.wiki article is fairly well-sourced and shows the subject won multiple awards. Mccapra (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra, the various awards now sourced in enwiki, and the fact that he is profiled in what appears to be a selective biographical dictionary and this, if anyone reads the Basque language. Looking good for WP:NAUTHOR. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:22, 1 January 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 23:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hendrik Walter

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

Non-notable lawyer. References are largely unreliable and social media. No secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This non-notable TikTok "influencer" lawyer does not meet critieria for WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Especially in the area of the connection with law and entertainment he has achieved innovations in the German-speaking area with different formats, especially "#1MinuteJura", which is what made him famous in the first place. In this respect, he even had a significant influence on TikTok's entertainment in the German-speaking area, which at least fulfills one point of Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER. Depending on whether German magazines such as SVZ, watson or Zeit are considered reliable sources, he is also addressed by these according to the WP:GNG --Tobiasi0 (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ENTERTAINER doesn't apply here. They are decent refs, except apart for Die Ziet, which I think is supposed to be unreliable, which I don't understand. They are reporting on his social media work, which everybody does. It is much of muchness. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The RS here doesn't seem very convincing in terms of establishing notabliity. Seems to be referencng Tik tok and other social media, with the odd media article. He has one "new face" award. None of this shows that he meets WP:GNG P{ossibly WPtoosoon Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Cummings

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

No reliable sources are given to establish notability, and when I searched for them, none seemed to exist. He also doesn't seem to match any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for any of the WP:NPROF criteria for this 2016 PhD; I've added their Google Scholar profile to the article for clarity, as there is a physicist of a similar name. The subject appears to also have a real analysis textbook [11], but I don't see any sign of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR nor of widespread adoption. No sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON. From reading just the titles of his papers, finding a new lower bound for van der Waerden numbers could be a cool result that might get more attention with time, although my perception of its relative importance might be skewed from these dudes being at my university. JoelleJay (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, TOOSOON for WP:PROF notability and I don't see the critical attention to his two self-published textbooks that would be needed for WP:AUTHOR notability. (Self-publication is not the problem here; it's the lack of reviews.) There has been a bit of a breakthrough in vdW #s recently [12], so when I saw that in the AfD I thought there might at least be some publicity for Cummings out of it, but no. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPROF and WP:TOOSOON, as suggested above. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Govinda Swami

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

ISKCON board member is not a notable post. Promotional bio based on self published (ISKCON) sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO due to no significant work or coverage. Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Couldn't find anything significant about the subject either. References included in the article are neither reliable nor independent of the subject; fails GNG to begin with. WikiLinuz🍁(talk) 05:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Murphy

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

He's made a number of appearances on local news and received some minor coverage for winning a Regional Emmy, but these do not count toward notability since there are so many handed out. There was minor coverage for making a sexist joke but I don't think this is significant. The article reads more as a promotional resume. Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article does need additional citations for verification in spots, there is not enough to support the excessive act of article deletion. Jackson Murphy has had enough publicly notable moments including those mentioned in the nomination for deletion that would cause one to seek further information on him as a subject. Reasons for deletion dictate "improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page." Additionally, when to not use deletion process? further supports the notion the deletion process is not necessary for articles in "bad shape," as well as stating articles one is "not interested in" is not enough justification to initiate the deletion process. Rick P •— PicksonR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak Delete - local Emmys only, he insulted Amy Schumer with some really sexist remark, and does some (bad apparently) movie reviews. I can certainly imagine when his career develops (hopefully in a positive direction), but at the moment, I think this is WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I have to say that the article is WP:TOOSOON despite winning local Emmys, and the mentions of this reviewer using sexist remarks toward Amy Schumer in 2016 and criticism about a review for the film Inception from the reviewer's tweenage years. Pahiy (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear he got one local Emmy – that year the New York regional gave out over 100 awards, many of which to multiple people. Reywas92^Talk 23:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how WP:NENT is met or WP:GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not coming up with sufficient sources to support notability. He garnered some attention years ago for being a child movie reviewer, typical novelty coverage. The Schumer incident is tabloid fodder but not significant. Doesn't meet WP:NENT or WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject has only trivial media mentions and insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Getting media attention for some tweets is not cause for inclusion in an Encyclopaedia-Such-change47 (talk) 09:52, 6 January 2022 (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. Tone 15:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mausert

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

Lawyer associated with ISKCON Hare Krishnas. No asserted notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, lack of significant coverage in independent source. ISKCON sources are associated with the subject. Tagged for lack of notability since July 2020. A few WP:NOTNEWS articles related to brother's killing were used in last AfD. They do not prove notability. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only this person fails notability checks, but the article itself is of low quality and obviously written by someone connected to him (notice the personal photos). Av = λv (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, with valid points brought up on both sides of the divide. This has been reopened once, and has been open just shy of a month. I do not see a clear consensus emerging with another week of discussion. Star Mississippi 23:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Spears

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

Fails GNG, no evidence of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable career with the usual "I was there" awards and decorations (the bronze star without V device is pretty mundane, especially in the Air Force). I don't happen to buy the "generals are automatically notable" argument, especially in an officer-heavy branch. Intothat darkness 15:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree: no automatic notability, nothing that suggests he passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest this person is notable. It seems a good thing that we scapped the old military notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed that the article provides no evidence of notability for encyclopedic standards.Polyglot Researcher (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, just being a General isn't a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lieutenant general and commander of the Twelfth Air Force and he's not notable? Utter madness, as usual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes you wonder, doesn't it. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  How is it utter madness? He doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG and there is no applicable WP:SNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Clearly does meet GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Necrothesp (talk · contribs · count) said. Notable as lieutenant general and commander of the Twelfth Air Force. Deleting someone that notable hurts the encyclopedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the policy or SNG that makes him notable. He doesn't meet WP:BASIC therefore he is not notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. Former commander of a numbered air force, which carries significant responsibility. At the time, the 12th Air force had about 6 wings and several reserve units, with about 630 aircraft and more than 42,000 personnel. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:GNG it states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If he doesn't have the coverage and there's no WP:SNG (which there isn't) then he's not notable, notwithstanding his commands. Mztourist (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST applies. As a former commander of a numbered Air Force with the intrinsic responsibility of that high level position, which contains broad command and control with that many forces and subordinate commands, the possibility of existing sources to support notability is strong. This is a general that commands other generals, which gets to his level of responsibility. A search on Newspapers.com of "Glenn Spear" and "Air Force" between 1980-2021 gets 191 matches. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources added are not independent and so don't count towards notability. Just saying there are 191 matches doesn't show that he has significant coverage, if you want to keep this page you'll have to add RS. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like a lot of sources and content have been added recently. While I don't think there is the best third-party coverage for LtGen Spears and many of the sources are Air Force publications, I think commanding a Numbered Air Force makes the subject is sufficiently notable to merit a page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Commanders in these positions are rotated roughly every two years. If his notability stems from commanding the numbered Air Force, he's perhaps best dealt with in a list of commanders (which exists in the article and where he's included). As far what's in the article...I thought LinkedIn existed for this kind of information. Generals in the military aren't especially unique these days, especially in the Air Force given its structure and culture. Intothat darkness 16:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While its true that this article doesn't have much information not contained in an official Air Force bio or short article about LtGen Spears, the commander of a numbered Air Force is overseeing tens of thousands of people and billions of dollars of infrastructure and machinery. While I don't disagree with the statement that generals aren't inherently notable for the sake of being generals, I would argue that a NAF commander has sufficient notability to merit an article; the lack of extraordinary coverage about them (more often than not negative attention) does not diminish their notability. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source assessment table 1 follows:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.airforcemedicine.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000255749/	USAF website	Photo and caption only	✘ No
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/104732/lieutenant-general-glenn-f-spears/	USAF bio		✘ No
https://www.dm.af.mil/Media/News/Article/314616/air-force-announces-lieutenant-general-spears-retirement/	USAF website press release		✘ No
https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/10217633/fss-introduced-to-cafb-air-force-columbus-air-force-base	USAF base newspaper		✘ No
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019409.pdf	USAF publication	7-9 sentences setting out experience and commands	✘ No
https://books.google.ae/books?id=zWQMEuM_CfkC&pg=PA173&dq=%22&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	US Congress publication	Short description of him and his career	? Unknown
Air Force Magazine	USAF magazine	not available online	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/702849654/		Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/546734367/		Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/350042142/	USAF base newspaper		✘ 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}}.

Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table 2 follows:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Weighted Airman Promotion System: Standardizing Test Scores	RAND study for USAF	Passing mention only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/350305276/	USAF base newspaper		✘ No
Advancing the U.S. Air Force's Force Development Initiative	RAND study for USAF	Passing mention only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/image/657394693/		Can't read as my access not approved yet, assume its just a passing mention	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/213712864/		Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/image/693219732/		Can't read as my access not approved yet	? Unknown
https://www.12af.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/319689/12th-air-force-commander-retires-after-33-years-of-service/	USAF website press release		✘ 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}}.

Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question who made this table an how was it made? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I have added my signature. Mztourist (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, looks like a lot of effort went into it. Please provide some details on the methodology used to make the entries on this table. Did you make all these evaluations, and what criteria did you use? Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The methodology is me looking at the source to see if its independent, which many aren't, deciding if they're reliable, which almost all are and then taking a view on whether or not coverage is significant, which is generally yes for the USAF sources and no or unable to be determined for the non-USAF sources. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is possible to view the articles in some cases as OCR text without an account. The first newspaper source in the table is a namecheck reporting a change of command. The second is also a namecheck, saying he accompanied President Bush in his capacity as commander of the 89th Airlift Wing. The article also identifies his wife as Gwenn, as she seems to have been present as well. The Hill AFB article contains a two sentence quote from Spears in his capacity as director of force management policy and deals with Force Shaping Boards (in other words, personnel cuts). I'm not sure I'd call a single quote significant coverage. The article doesn't credit him with shaping the policy or doing anything over than overseeing elements of its execution in 2005. Intothat darkness 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I will take a closer look later, but I did add another source to flesh out the command at 89th Airlift Wing. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After initially closing the discussion, I was asked by one of the participants on my User talk page to allow more time, which I have agreed to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous participants to make them aware that the discussion was re-opened: User:Dlthewave, User:Intothatdarkness, User:Drmies, User:Johnpacklambert, User:Polyglot Researcher, User:Mztourist, User:Necrothesp, User:Eastmain, User:Balon Greyjoy, User:FieldMarine. If I accidentally missed anyone, feel free to ping them separately. --RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as currently written, per WP:HEY. BD2412 T 06:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment despite the recent refbombing, I still don't see that BASIC is satisfied. I don't have time to go through the entire source assessment table exercise again particularly as one User will keep adding more refs. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @FieldMarine: you have added a large amount of references, but it's still not clear to me whether they are enough to establish WP:SIGCOV. Based on the publishers, many appear to be non-independent (i.e. published by USAF or another employer of his) or likely passing mentions (i.e. the headline is not about the article subject). To make it easier for the rest of us to assess this, would you kindly state what you believe to be the WP:THREE best sources that most establish that he is notable? These sources should be both independent (i.e. not USAF/US military, his employer, etc.) and discuss him in as much detail as possible. If the sources you highlight are not freely accessible, please also describe them briefly: what is being said, in how much detail, how long is the section wherein the article subject is discussed, etc. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you access 5, 9, 13, 14 and 26, or at least get the gist of them? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for ref 27, you can see it was used here as a ref, as well as some of the actions taken by Spears during the Earthquake. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FieldMarine: I'm still waiting for access to newspaperarchive.com from the WP:Library, could you please give a quick summary of the coverage in #5, #13 and #26? Based on the Google books previews, #9 seems like very passing mentions while ref #14 looks very short and doesn't really have any meat on the bones. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 mentions of Spears in the Air Force One book, two in the beginning as acknowledgements, and the rest about him, his responsibilities before and while at the 89th, about the wing he commands, about the Air Force One airplane itself, and about increase security in the aftermath of 911. In sum, the coverage is not a trivial mention as he is being specifically discussed. Also, can you access the web version on ref 26, the link is included in the ref. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did not see the second link for #26. That seems like an extremely run-of-the-mill article with a literal 2-sentence "bio" of Spears. Can you provide the summary of the two other refs I couldn't access? -Ljleppan (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is short, but not a trivial mention, and important because the aricle also includes details about the magnitude of his command. Ref 5 is short, about 3 sentences, and incudes details about his command at Andrews not included anywhere else. Ref 13 is several sentences about his command at the 89th, and his responsibilities as Wing Commander. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing a lot of name checks and non-independent sources being added, but not much in the way of content that actually demonstrates notability independent of his last command position (which in my view is inherited notability in any case...major commands turn over about every two years). I looked at some of these, and to give one example the Silver Wings piece is from a base newspaper and is essentially a restatement of his official biography with no new information added. Intothat darkness 13:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the sourcing at present is just barely enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While a large amount of references have been added recently into the article, the bulk of them of them are non-independent. Based on the answers of FieldMarine above to a WP:THREE query, even the best independent sources appear to be very passing mentions of few sentences each in rather routine news coverage. As far as I can tell, Spears' main claim of notability is that he commanded the unit in charge of Air Force One at the time of 9/11. Yet, the potentially most convincing reference, a post-9/11 book about AF1, only mentions him by name a handful of time, with the bulk of the mentions boiling down to a few sentences on a single page. In my view, the references fail to establish that the subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emph. added) and as such the subject fails WP:GNG. While some other editors have indicated that his rank or position would make him inherently notable, I do not believe there exists any policy or guideline to that effect. As for why this is a weak delete, I'm not able to access all the references used in the article and am relying on FieldMarine's WP:THREE above. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the 5 sources above are not "trivial mentions", and each contains important details that address the topic so that no original research is required. I agree that command of 89th Wing and Andrews Air Force Base in the aftermath of 911, with increased public and governmental interest in security at that time, especially for government VIPs, adds to his notability. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my comment above is not claiming those add to his notability, but rather that they are the primary claim of notability. The distinction is important, especially when significant coverage of those primary claims in independent reliable sources is so light. In my view, this is a strike against the notability, not for it. Furthermore, the standard is not "more than trivial mentions", but rather significant coverage which several sentences is very far from. -Ljleppan (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well written and well referenced article about a significant person. If the notability guidelines indicate the individual should not have an article then this is one of the occasional exceptions when the criteria are providing unsatisfactory guidance. Thincat (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some sources are not independent, there are an ample amount of articles that are, passes WP:GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, more content with refs added. I believe his notability stems from both his command of the 89th in the aftermath of 9/11 as well as 12th Air force. I'm confident with more research and addition of content, his role as SOUTHCOM Deputy would also contribute to his notability considering the responsibilities involved with that position and the scope of that combatant command. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- While you added a few more references, a quick spot check of these does not fill me with confidence: "Air Force One: A History of Presidential Air Travel" is a single-sentence mention; Patch.com is not reliable and the story is an advertisement for an event; the WaPo story, again, has literally a single sentence about Spears; "CHIPS" is a navy-sponsored publication; "New Horizons Panama 2010 comes to a close" is an Air Force press release; "Air Power in UN Operations" has first a two-sentence mention followed by a later one-sentence mention. Rather than having us look over all the references you added, please provide an updated WP:THREE (this time, please limit it to three rather than more sources) if you believe the sources you added are better than those you listed in your previous list of best sources. Before doing so, I suggest you revise e.g. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, all the sources provide details used for the article that go beyond "a trivial mention" per the general notability guideline. In sum, they "provide enough information for a reasonably detailed article on the subject." Many have pointed out the military related sources are not independent, so cannot be used for GNG, despite the overall size of the military (it seems unlikely, for example, that a Department of the Navy publication is not independent about a member of the Air Force (the Navy is not the employer nor the evaluator of the person)). Setting those aside, here's a summary of a few of the non-military sources:

Ref 9: I'm not sure what you can see from Google, but in the book on Air Force One, it mentions Spears by name a total of 11 times, with 1 as an acknowledgement in the beginning and one at the end in the Index. Of those, it first discusses Spears himself, and the size of 89th. Then it goes into the response of the command after 9/11, calling the traveling after that event as "unprecedented", with fighter escorts used for the first time while Air Force One carried Bush, and intel reports stating terrorist wanted to ram the plane while in flight, TTPs used to protect the President and the plane, and the new security measures are the tightest ever, stuff like that.

Ref 13: Contains 20 sentences and over 540 words about Spears with a focus on his command at the 89th and Andrews Air force Base.

Ref 30: Between pages 217-220, this ref highlights the actions of Spears did to add resources to free up bottle necks in the response to the earthquake in Haiti, particularly at the command and organizational level, and to hammer out the authorities. He is mentioned by name, as "he" and as AFSOUTH. This was one of the major events for AFSOUTH while he was commander.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still a weak delete from me. Of the WP:THREE above, ref 9 is very passing mentions (9/11, AF1 and the 89th are all notable, but notability is not inherited). For ref 30, references to Spears specifically are extremely passing and we cannot simply insert "Spears" for every instance of "AFSOUTH". And again, the fact that AFSOUTH is notable does not mean its commander is. I cannot access the full text of ref 13, but even if it's fine, a single good reference does not significant coverage make. I'd also be philosophically fine with a merger of the article to e.g. 89th Airlift Wing and Twelfth Air Force but I'm not seeing much that would be worth merging. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed ref 9, or are you going by the limited parts you can view in Google? In my opinion, viewing the copy in Google misses the context. In sum, ref 9, 13, 14 state that Spears kept the President and national leaders safe in the aftermath of 9/11, and provide details about that, essentially, he was thrown into an unprecedented situation as the commander of the unit with AF1 and Andrews during a critical time. These are not trivial mentions and nor is it inherited notability. They are specific to him. What are trivial mentions is that while commander of Andrews during this time, he was receiving the first casualties of the war overseas, such as Capt Spann, which was basically a one-line mention (but carried in numerous newspapers globally), and certainly an important aspect of his command. For ref 30, my point is that often in the U.S. military, commanders are called by the unit they command, so determining mentions is more than just how many times you count up the name "Spears" in determining coverage. This source provides specific actions he took as the commander during one significant event that occurred during his tenure with 12th AF. I agree that this alone would not make him notable, but the sum total of his actions through several significant commands does, and the sources, some GNG and some not, support that position. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, also Ref 14 is 13 sentences and over 300 words long, and says, Spears "played a vital part in keeping the president safe", and includes details about that. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin, please consider WP:NOTBURO when closing based on some of the comments above. There were comments about the use of military sources for purposes of determining GNG. Many say sources from the military cannot be used as a GNG source for a member of the military and perhaps this has become viewed as conventional wisdom. Personally, I believe there is enough separation in some cases between the source and the subject to qualify the military source as independent of the subject. For example, a Department of the Navy source covering a person in the Air Force. In this case, the DoN is not the "employer" as specified in WP:INDY as non-independent source. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have hundreds of similar articles, partly because of he ease of making them from PD-US sources. There is no special reason to delete this one. If we mean to change our practice we should discuss that, not try to establish precedent form a single article. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We have hundreds of similar articles because of the old military notability guidelines that were disbanded. So the comparison to other articles is flawed and ignores the fact that Wikipedia proactively changed its policies, but it takes a long time to implement new policies against a collection of hundreds of articles. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have hundreds of similar articles because many editors believe that it is common sense that people in these positions are notable and have therefore created them. If you look at recent AfDs you will see that only a handful of editors continually claim that they are not notable. Unfortunately, AfDs are generally not at all well attended and this handful of editors often manages to successfully push their views. That certainly does not mean that they are suddenly right and are doing the best thing for Wikipedia and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong and is not. That is a complete fallacy. As is the claim that Wikipedia has in any way changed its policies. It has not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - One could say the same of the handful of steady keep voters. Intothatdarkness 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, this is the problem with relying on AfDs that almost nobody attends. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia used to have a military notability guideline that said that people who held the military position this man held were default notable. We have scrapped that policy. So yes, we have changed our policy, and a large number of articles we have are legacy articles that pre-date that policy change. For the record my vote above was a weak keep, so I am actually persuaded we should keep this article. However editors need to stop villifying those who have other views on a matter. It is clearly not encouraging participation in Wikipedia for editors to violate the assume good faith guidelines, as the above comments do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - You seem to be confusing policies with notability guidelines. No policy has been changed. Editors do indeed need to stop vilifying others with different views. As I'm sure you know (since you have taken part in many of the same AfDs), I have been attacked numerous times recently, usually by the same handful of editors, for asserting my views on notability. It's time editors accepted that a view posted on AfD is a valid view and should not be attacked, insulted, mocked, sneered at or used to attack the poster's integrity or good faith. This is not how Wikipedia should work and not how editors should behave. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have several reliable sources providing significant coverage per the source analysis tables above. I think this article is one occation where we should allow a pass even if the sources aren't independent as there clearly is no shortage of information here and Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. NemesisAT (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Steele

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

While there was some coverage of his death, same issues as last AfD still appear. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to speedy-delete this in accordance with WP:G4 when I noticed that the subject has had additional coverage since the last time this was deleted, particularly in the context of COVID-19. I have restored all of the previously deleted history so that it can be examined. This version of article still has some of the same problems as the previously-deleted version, but I felt the additional coverage may finally put this subject over the threshold of notability, which is why we now have another AFD discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see how this guy's notability was iffy before, but the coverage of his death pushes him over the hump IMO. valereee (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was a major figure in the new age conspiracism movement. His death was widely reported in reliable secondary sources. Even if RDS's ideas clearly marked him as a fringe crackpot he became notable in his death and the aftermath. Salimfadhley (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable. This is the sort of person where people will look for some (hopefully) unbiased information. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur re notability, he was a fairly well recognized individual in independent online media. Chris Rodgers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 17 January 2022 (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. I don't see a further relist achieving a different outcome. Star Mississippi 02:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Palmer

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

Is Palmer notable enough to warrant an article about him? I don’t think so.--FriendlyFerret9854 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 18:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although there was some publicity around the search for this person and his inclusion in a then-unusual online most-wanted list, the question of whether an article is appropriate would have to meet the conditions at WP:PERP #2, and I am not seeing evidence of the required sustained coverage. AllyD (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rock Scully. In the absence of any other input, I'm accepting the suggested redirect as a reasonable alternative to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Scully

AfDs for this article:

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

Unfortunately, in my work to improve neo-pagan subjects, I've found another article that fails WP:NAUTHOR.

The only reliable secondary sources are the two "additional sources" presented at the bottom - one is a passing mention about the Eugene, OR, fair, and the other is an interview about....talking to animals.

Google News and newspapers.com had only passing mentions. Google search had only one find, an interview on KPFA (a public radio station in Berkeley, CA). Jstor and Google Scholar had nothing of note and Google Books were entirely her own books.

Also a few brief interviews with her when her husband died. As we know, Wikipedia articles aren't WP:INHERITED - and yes, that includes Deadheads.

Finally, a interesting little comment on the talk page by an editor who re-created the article after it was deleted the first time.

Thanks for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's an Oregon Country Fair personality, that's how I am familiar with her, but I think you're right that this seems to be a case of "not inherited". I had tagged this for notability in 2015. It appears the subject herself edited the article in 2017. Simply being published by a division of Simon and Schuster is not enough to confer notability. It's hard to get "straight" sources to pay attention to metaphysical stuff, but I really can't find anything about her outside the Oregon hippie inner circle. She just hasn't seemed to have made an impact on the rest of the world. I was going to say that I hate doing this to women who are less notable than their husbands, but perhaps merge and redirect to Rock Scully, but now I see that they only share a name, a child, and a past relationship. I would love for someone to find some better sources for this but I'm likely going to!vote for deletion. Valfontis (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis - Yeah, it is a bummer and notoriously hard to find reliable sources for "new wage" type figures. I live in Sonoma County, and she used to live down here, and I can't find anything, either, outside of passing mentions, stuff about her husband, or event promotions (and not a major feature, just passing mentions in event listing sections of newspapers). Thanks for your comments! Missvain (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Galian

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

I am struggling to figure out how this subject passes WP:GNG. He doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR nor WP:NMUSICIAN and I have went through WP:BEFORE and can't find any significant coverage outside of passing mentions or event announcements (that includes via my newspapers.com subscription).

Thank you for assuming good faith in this nomination. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His books are partly self-published, partly by very small niche publishers of occult stuff, and of his two musical products, one is a self-released cassette tape, the other, according to the sources, is "an early home recording made by a man identified as Laurence Galian while he was living in Jericho, NY. While I can't find anything linking him directly to the tape, I strongly suspect that this is the Laurence Galian behind Shaman's Ascent." I'd say he definitely fails notability as a musician (I have great respect for ballet accompanists, but they're not notable), and with near-certainty as an author, but he just might be a notable general purveyor of general occult stuff/producer of inordinate numbers of podcasts, for which we have no guidelines. I have no interest in this sort of stuff and would go with delete, but that might be my personal bias. I can't see that he's any more notable than any number of similar individuals producing spiritual thoughts on sites like YouTube. Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not mean WP:BIO or other notability guidelines for people. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 16:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McCarthy (announcer)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to pass GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom McCarthy (sportscaster). Even as a Phillies fan, it's WP:TOOSOON for Patrick McCarthy to have his own article as there's not much coverage for a minor league/college announcer. Plausible to redirect per Template:R from relative. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves as the alternate play-by-play announcer for the Phillies, announces NCAA D1 football and basketball and AAA baseball. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This doesn't automatically make him notable. Notability is not inherited by the organizations someone works for. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable announcer per Pennsylvania2. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep argument is on IAR basis, GNG asserted but not given evidence. No arguments for delete aside from nomination statement. This discussion needs wider participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete to encourage creation if Patrick McCarthy becomes notable. I attempted to meet WP:GNG but I could not find three good sources. The two articles I found from WP:RS cover the same event as well so he would be in danger of WP:BLP1E for right now. I have included a source assess with the three most independent sources I could find. snood1205 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Snood1205
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.inquirer.com/phillies/tom-mccarthy-patrick-mccarthy-phillies-broadcaster-philadelphia-20210820.html	The Philadelphia Inquirer is independent from Patrick McCarthy and the Phillies Organization	The Philadelphia Inquirer is a generally reliable news source for Philadelphia related articles	The article is about Patrick McCarthy replacing his father for a weekend announcing basketball	✔ Yes
https://www.nbcsports.com/philadelphia/phillies/pat-mccarthy-catch-stands-tom-mccarthy-phillies	~ NBCSports Philadelphia does write about the Phillies with some independence; however, the Phillies have a 25% ownership stake in the outlet	NBCSports Philadelphia publishes reliable articles about sports in Philadelphia	~ The article mentions Patrick catching a ball similar to his father, but this entire article is probably not WP:SIGCOV	~ Partial
https://thelibertyline.com/2021/08/21/tom-mccarthy-son-phillies-games-padres/	No known links between the Phillies and Liberty Line	~ It is from a self-described "independent sports blog and podcast network" so it might not meet WP:RS	SIGCOV however it is the same event as source 1.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete. Notability is not inherited; unless there are multiple independent SIGCOV sources on him, a standalone article is unwarranted. JoelleJay (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dewang Subil

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

I don’t think this is eligible for A7 but it’s a BLP of a person who does not seem notable to me, or at best falls under WP:BLP1E. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:BLP. Person is notable. Billshine (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Billshine: just showing up at AfDs and saying “it’s notable” doesn’t help the community understand why a topic is notable. What is the basis of your view please? Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no notable CV and Lack of independent and reliable references. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCREATIVE and lacks coverage beyond WP:BLP1E. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of pen names#Clare Richmond. RL0919 (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Richmond

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

Pseudonym of two writers who have their own articles. Anything relevant would be for the actual authors and not their shared pseudonym. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would it be appropriate to turn this into a disambiguation page referring to both the target authors? It's quite likely a reader would search using the pseudonym, and ought to be directed to somewhere useful. Elemimele (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elemimele - Yes, that is ideal. Also is a WP:ATD. Missvain (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No per WP:ONEOTHER (if there are only two topics on a disambiguation page, then we shouldn't have it), except perhaps under the exception of WP:NOPRIMARY (i.e. if there is no primary topic). Even if there are three or four topics, this is kind of a borderline case, but we should definitely have a dab page if there are >5. Also, this shouldn't be an article proper unless "Clare Richmond" has some kind of magical notable property apart from the two people who've used it, but I don't see any so far. Furthermore, a quick DuckDuckGo search reveals a bunch of other people also called Clare Richmond, making this even more ambiguous than it seems onwiki.

From pageview statistics, we find that Louise Titchener gets more pageviews than Carolyn Males, so weak delete and redirect to Louise Titchener with a hatnote linking to Carolyn Males. (I'll change my !vote accordingly if this title turns out to be a richer topic than I initially thought.) Duckmather (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I had considered whether a DAB could be here instead, but then that would imply someone searching for the term actually wanted to know about one or both of the real authors, rather than the pseudonym. For me, a pseudonym would have to be notable in its own right and I am not seeing that to justify an independent article. A redirect isn't really viable when there are two competing targets. I can't see sufficient evidence this passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Clare Richmond" can be an independently notable author without having to be a single real person. See, for example, James S. A. Corey. The question is just whether "Clare Richmond" passes WP:NAUTHOR. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're doomed, this is quite a difficult one to decide. (1) In this particular case, I don't think it's helpful to discuss the notability of the author and the pseudonym separately. In both cases, the pseudonym applies to a significant proportion of the author's output, so the notability of the author and their pseudonym are based on the same material. If one's notable, the other is. (2) We don't know which name our readers are using; they may know the pseudonym and want to know who's behind it, so we have to have some way to link pseudonym to article. But (3) In this case, both authors used the pseudonym together, collaboratively. This means we can't say Titchener is better known than Males, as "Richmond" because we're talking about the same Richmond and the same novels. To be honest, I think they're borderline anyway (they've both got decent output, they're decent-sized fish, but in an enormous pond, and a pond that is quite ephemeral), so I'm not keen on a whole article on their collaborative pseudonym as well as on the two authors separately, and yet we can't really combine the two authors in one article as they also wrote independently. So practically, if you don't want a DAB because there are only two targets, the best would be to redirect to one of the two authors at random, and then decide whether to use hatnotes to refer to the other, or whether to emphasise in the article text that the Richmond name was used with the other, linked author. Elemimele (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it provides useful information for the reader who finds a book, or a reference to it, by "Clare Richmond". I have expanded it with content from the two authors' pages, which could presumably be properly sourced if those pages are themselves properly sourced. An alternative would be to direct to one, randomly chosen, of the authors, with a hatnote "Clare Richmond redirects here: for the other author writing under this join pseudonym see ...", but that seems overly cumbersome (especially as they both collaborated with other authors too, so a complete set of redirects would be a mess). Simplest just to keep this mini article, which is informative for the readers. WP:IAR if need be: just help the reader. PamD 10:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think using WP:IAR is a bit of a cop-out in a discussion for which there is no policy-based argument to use in defense. The fact is, each of the real authors in question that used this pseudonym also used other pen names too, as very clearly stated on their articles. Are we to have a standalone article for each of these too, because if we keep this one, then surely that has to happen? There may be a case to have one central article that links the authors together (say Pseudonyms of Louise Titchener and Carolyn Males), then redirect all the pseudonyms to that (although could get messy if other authors used the pen names too). I simply cannot see a need for standalone articles for a pretend author that does not seem to have independent notability. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no reason not to follow PamD's argument for WP:IAR in this case. Redirecting to one author or the other adds confusion, not clarity. -- asilvering (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Delete as below. I still think redirects will just cause a mess. -- asilvering (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate The pseudonym itself obviously isn't notable, and there is no primary topic (pageviews do not necessarily correspond to primary topic), so a disambiguation page makes the most sense. Mlb96 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, gsearches under ""Clare Richmond" book reviews", and for each book ""[book title]" by "Clare Richmond" book reviews" bring up zero reviews, which may not be surprising given that there have been 20,000+(?) harlequin titles published, as for needing a redirect/disamb for wikireaders, once this is deleted and Clare Richmond is entered wikireaders can "search for pages containing Clare Richmond" and hey presto! the two authors that use this pseudonym will be at the top of the list, ps. i note that both author wikiarticles presently have all the books listed, possibly just need to add mention of the other author ie. "As Clare Richmond with ...." and the titles' isbn but that is all. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple Works for me. I'll strike my !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with "delete redirect and rely on search" is that it stops working once we have a new article on another Clare Richmond, a singer or astronomer or politician. I'm beginning to think that a List of shared pseudonyms would be useful, to which to redirect this and similar cases. Maybe something like that already exists: will check further when not on phone. PamD 14:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of pen names, to which I have now added her. PamD 16:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bungle: Alyssa Howard is similar to this article; Clare Richards is a dab page, which complicates things slightly: have added both those names to List of pen names. PamD 16:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect wouldn't be a bad outcome I guess, though I won't advocate it. There are many pen names on that article without articles or redirects, although I can't argue against redirects being relatively harmless. I'd suggest whatever the outcome of this AfD should apply to Alyssa Howard et al where independent notability cannot be ascertained and demonstrated. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect would be an ideal outcome, tagged with {{R to list entry}} and categorised as Category:Collective pseudonyms. Whyever not? It helps the reader. We could add a source to the list entry to verify, but the convention there seems to be not to add sources. PamD 16:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tess Marlowe, another of this gang's pseudonyms, was deleted at AfD in 2015 with rationale "One of these articles that is basically one line saying that it was a name used by 2 writers but nothing to back it up" but I've now added her to List of pen names and created a redirect. PamD 17:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I have created list entries at List of pen names and redirects or dab page entries, for all the other pseudonyms used by these women and their coauthors (well, all those I could find). Seem the ideal solution: not a standalone article, but a redirect to an informative entry in a list that includes links to the real authors involved. The reader gets their information. The perfect WP:ATD for a case like this - will try and remember it for any future instance. PamD 18:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD Hard to believe it took three AfD relists for anyone to realize this solution exists. This redirect sounds fine, unless there's some mechanical reason that makes this unhelpful for mobile users? A List of shared pen names might be an interesting list to make, too, if you've a mind to do it. Given that List of pen names exists I'm actually a bit surprised that it doesn't. I suppose it could present an annoying problem where someone adds something to List of pen names but not the other one? -- asilvering (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have struck out my "delete" as this has moved on, and a big thankyou to PamD who has found this sensible solution. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of pen names#Clare Richmond (with the history preserved under the redirect), where I've added an anchor, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Thank you, PamD (talk · contribs), for this excellent solution. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Martin (priest)

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

No evidence of notability found. Despite the recentness and this happening in England, this got no coverage in independent sources[13][14]. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite my best efforts, the subject fails WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that she is an archdeacon, albeit very recently appointed, and we have usually kept articles on archdeacons. I'm undecided as to whether we should, but it's still the case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD outcomes for archdeacons have been very mixed, not "usually kept". The ones that are notable get kept, the other ones don't. Fram (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In fact, a number have been kept purely because of their post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then these were outliers and not supported by policy. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Lacey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Fitsrogo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Verschoyle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wandlyn Snelgrove, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Raphael. Others have been kept because enough coverage was found. Fram (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons as an ATD and tag with {{R with possibilities}}. TartarTorte 20:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. It fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must have looked at this article 24 or 34 times when I reviewing them. There seems to be an attempt to add folk. There seemed to be several of these religuous folk and couldn't make head nor tail of it. I see several have been through Afd already. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archdeacon of Horsham#List of archdeacons per TartarTorte. I don't see a delete outcome as consistent with our ATD policy if there are not exceptional content issues. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2022 (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. Only one person believes that coverage is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 09:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Ona Paukstelis

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

An actor which does meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR as they do not have significant roles multiple notable productions or made any sort of innovative contribution to their industry. I don't see any evidence they meet WP:GNG either. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found or used in article, largely bit parts. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage in Kenosha News newspaper articles from 1994, 1998 and 1999, among many other smaller mentions in other news outlets which helps satisfy WP:GNG. This is just from a quick search so may well be more. She had a leading role in Aswang (1994 film) which I have spent the last day significantly developing after a similar afd nomination. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article using the sources I found, plus others and will add more if I find anything. It's looking considerably better than it did before. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re sigcov and Kenosha news articles: this is what WP:GNG has to say about sources: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So having a dozen articles from Kenosha News is not necessarily helpful for determining if GNG is met. Samsmachado (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is, I think, an over-interpretation of the rules. If one author writes multiple times about someone, it remains one opinion. But it's natural that newspapers write multiple articles about notable people: there is only one Washington Post, and if you do three things in your life that attract the attention of the Washington Post, those three articles all count towards your notability: taken together, they mean you have sustained appearances in the public sphere, and you're not a one-off flash in the pan. The key thing is that the newspaper is independently triggered to write about different events in your life, and that the articles aren't all published in quick succession based on a single event. I assume the Kenosha news is a local newspaper; three references separated by a number of years therefore indicate sustained (but possibly local) notability. But I know nothing about this actress and have no plans to form an opinion. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's some other things I found:

I tried to get a copy of the Femme Fatales article, but it's one of the issues that isn't on the Internet Archive, annoyingly. Silver seren^C 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:NACTOR. I don't recognise any films or series. They are small films. The coverage is from Kenosha News, is that is her home town newspaper. Where is the other coverage? Where is the national or international converage? Newspaper interviews. Seems to be a bit part actor, and seems to have barely done any acting at all. Its not even in WP:NACTOR. Not notable in the least. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources with the very limited and not contributory exception of a hometown paper. Local coverage of local actors in very small productions does not help establish notability in terms of the general notability guideline nor for the specific subject matter guideline for actors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriza Hussein

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

PROD declined on the grounds that there seemed to be a feature in the Star. However I'm unable to find that feature or any other indication Hussein met NAUTHOR/ACADEMIC or the GNG. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 19:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying note from Talk page. Thank you, VarlamTikhonovich for your comments and link to further resources. I'm including a link here so they're seen as part of the discussion and no one misses your input. Star Mississippi 23:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Been more than a decades since death and I can't find any coverage as well that would make the person notable. Dear Debasish (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found the Star feature and added some other references too. Mujinga (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New refs are not adequate secondary. RemotelyInterested (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG, Hussein's only(?) book, Legacy, held in under 20 libraries which doesn't bode well review wise, a gsearch under "legacy by "Shahriza Hussein" book reviews" brings up zero reviews additional to The Star reviews/obituary already in the article, as the author of the Star obituary was close enough to refer to him as "uncle" (and helped to prepare the body for funeral arrangements) and Hussein was a regular writer for The Star, i have WP:COISOURCE concerns with these, similarly with the Victoria Institution piece (he was an alumnus), and the 4th reference is from his book publisher. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A relatively close call, but given the trend of the discussion as additional sources were found, this looks more like a keep than no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Junge

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

Only reference is IMDb. Significant coverage from independent sources is not easily found. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many hits in GNews about her writing on friends, but most are just quotes or one or two line statements. Nothing to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above, many hits on Twitter and LinkedIn, all user generated sources. Nothing verifiable. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the WP:V problem you raised has now been addressed with the sources added by Kpdow360. pburka (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least, her play, Fingersmith, is notable (Boston Globe, Variety, WBUR), and there's independent coverage of her screenwriting (e.g. Marie Clare). pburka (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pburka: There may be enough independent reliable sources for an article about Fingersmith, but we're looking for significant coverage about her. The Marie Claire article isn't about her writing - it's an anecdote where she objected to someone else's writing and was ignored. GoingBatty (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could move and rework the page as you suggest, but then Fingersmith (play) might well become a WP:COATRACK for additional information about her newsworthy career and we'd have WP:BLP page masquerading as a play. Far better to keep it all on this page, in my opinion. pburka (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Pburka: Note that I did not suggest you could "move and rework the page" into an an article about Fingersmith. I simply meant that you may be able to use the references you provided to create a separate article about Fingersmith, regardless of what happens with the article about Junge. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having an article about the play and another article about the playwright seems excessive at this time. If we had both I'd support merging them; since we don't, let's just maintain the status quo. pburka (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Pburka: I see you have now created an article called Fingersmith (play). GoingBatty (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been nominated for four Emmy awards which is verified by the television academy ^[1]. There's independent coverage of her accomplishments and contributions in screenwriting by trade publications (e.g. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/showtime-picks-up-tara-113150/) and in other reputable publications (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/arts/television/11mcdo.html) --Kpdow360 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Note to reviewers This is a new account and this editor has only edited this AfD and the nominated article[reply]

References

^ https://www.emmys.com/bios/alexa-junge

- @Kpdow360: I'm glad you're adding references to the article, but noticed you haven't added the references above to the article. Footnote #1 should be placed after the sentence(s) it supports. The Hollywood Reporter article is a passing mention of Junge, not significant coverage. I hope the NYT article has more about Junge. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacking in substance and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lacking in substance" isn't a meaningful deletion argument. pburka (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with Pburka there; the question isn't about the quality of the article, but rather whether the subject is sufficiently notable to merit an article at all. Many articles on notable people began as stubs or starter articles, or initially were lengthy but poorly written or full of copyright violations — e.g., the Lupe Ontiveros article was one long copyvio when I first read it, to the point I practically had to start from scratch to edit it, but she's still notable.
Delete - I'm not convinced this subject merits its own article. While there are plenty of passing mentions of her about the relationship between Julia Roberts and Matthew Perry, everything else is either about her play Fingersmith (which is great, but, it's also localized coverage. It's not like it's a nationally recognized play and her name is only mentioned in passing as the writer) or a primary source mentioning her and 249082093843 other people were nominated for Friends in the Golden Globes and Emmy's. When a TV show is nominated, everyone and their mother is included in that nomination who worked on the show. I'm not convinced she merits inclusion. Doesn't qualify for WP:GNG, IMHO. Missvain (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Variety is local coverage and the Boston Globe is a major newspaper (although technically local). Regarding the Emmys, she was nominated by herself in 1999. Her other nominations were all groups. pburka (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: The Variety and Boston Globe articles are not significant coverage of Junge - they just mention her as the writer. The Boston Globe article has not been added to the article. You might want to update the article to specify which award nominations were groups versus solo nominations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Globe and Variety aren't local - I'm a journalist who has written for many national publications and I have friends who work at both...I should have wrote originally "localized or trivial mentions." But, it's passing and doesn't qualify for GNG nor am I convinced she's got enough coverage to build WP:BASIC. So...still delete. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (1) Those of us granted access to Wikipedia Library — or whatever you call that project where Wikipedia gives some editors the opportunity to access databases that normally might be accessible only by paying a subscription fee — can find more articles, such as the Jan/Feb 2017 issue of The Dramatist, official bimonthly publication of The Dramatists Guild, in which Junge was the interviewee for a two-page feature that concludes with mention of Fingersmith then notes, "Her plays and musicals have been produced at the Goodspeed Opera House, Studio Arena Theater, Playwrights Horizons Lab, Theaterworks and developed at New York Stage and Film, the Hedgebrook Women Playwrights Festival, MacDowell and Djerassi colonies. TV work includes Friends , Sex and the City, West Wing, Big Love, United States of Tara, Grace and Frankie, among others." Both the fact of the interview in a nationally-known publication and the venues where her work has been performed suggest notability. (2) Her work writing the fifth-season TWW episode "The Supremes" received praise at the time and still is mentioned for its excellence. Even when the subject is how that first post-Sorkin season sucked, her writing of that episode is singled out for praise, as when 'Decider' wrote, "Which isn’t to say that the season didn’t have its moments. The Glenn Close-starring episode 'The Supremes' might be one of the show’s best. ... There were some fun comedy bits along the way — not surprising since the episode was written by Friends vet Alexa Junge... ." (Bob Reid, 3 March 2016, more than a decade later)."Disaster Relief" was rewarded with an Emmy nomination for Junge and her co-writer. The popular podcast West Wing Weekly interviewed her when they covered the s5 episode "Disaster Relief," which she'd co-written. This is a podcast sufficiently well-known and popular that people traveled to DC and paid money to attend live tapings. (For anyone wondering why I don't add this info into the article, I plan to, as soon as I'm done posting this contribution to the discussion; already had to retype it once when I accidentally hit the back button!)

Update Struck through a quote erroneously crediting Junge with a different episode written by Deborah Cahn. (lwt)

(3) Here's an item from Hollywood Reporter that indicates not only did Junge write episodes for Tara, without Junge as an EP, the show might never have gotten on the air. Writing about Junge's decision to depart: "Alexa Junge, the executive producer/showrunner of Showtime's "United States of Tara," has decided not to continue on the series, which recently was renewed for a second season.

"Bringing Friends alumna Junge on board was key to securing a series order for Tara, created by Oscar winner Diablo Cody. ... Junge penned three episodes, the last of which airs Sunday." (Nellie Andreevna. “Family ties strong for Roseanne; Junge steps aside as 'Tara' topper" Andreeva, Nellie, Hollywood Reporter, 00183660, 23 March 2009, Vol. 409, Issue 4, page not given.) Lawikitejana (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the heads-up, User:GoingBatty.[reply]

@Lawikitejana: It's great that you're using your access to the Wikipedia Library to find more articles. Remember that the basic notability criteria states "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." Interviews by definition are not independent of the subject, but the interviews may also have good information in the interviewer's words. I look forward to seeing you continue to add references to the article. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty:

Point taken, although "independent of the subject" is more about things like not using press releases from someone's own company, or possibly articles published by an outlet that is part of the same parent (e.g., one could argue about independence when CBS reports on someone's publication with Simon & Schuster, which is owned by the same company), or possibly a White House press secretary's statement as evidence of what a president did or didn't do. Where I do think you have a point would be if I took something in the interview as proof of anything that needs supported by a secondary source. In this case, however, the interview was offered simply as evidence either that (a) she's sufficiently significant to The Dramatists Guild as a writer that they picked her from among the scores of playwrights they could have profiled or as a more reliable source than IMDb as to her credits, particularly apart from film/TV. Reminder appreciated nonetheless. Lawikitejana (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been greatly improved since it was initially nominated and I hope the good work continues. Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Bondegezou (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to Lawikitejana and Thelarrydoyle and others who saved this article by finding sources to establish notability. BBQboffin (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved a lot (and sources about a writer's work do count towards their notability). BuySomeApples (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atanu Bhuyan

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

Bhuyan is a journalist from North-East India who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. None of the six sources cited in the article constitute significant coverage; and a search on Google turned up no significant coverage either. There's a few mentions, largely quoting him or his tweets, but no actual in-depth discussion. Due to the lack of significant coverage, Bhuyan fails WP:BIO. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Java Hurricane 12:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill coverage that most local journalists receive (a brief shout out in another article as a source, etc). Nothing I can find online shows me the subject meets WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This source on the article and this one (which is not) together indicate notability to me. Mujinga (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: see WP:TOI. Also, the article in The Telegraph does not quite discuss the subject in detail, i.e. it is not significant coverage. Java Hurricane 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of WP:TOI, doesn't change my opinion about an article in TOI about Bhuyan's resignation being significant coverage. Likewise, the Telegraph article is about Bhuyan entering politics and is significant coverage in my book.Mujinga (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find it somewhat surprising that your views on significant coverage and RS seem to differ so significantly from what I've seen to be the community's attitude generally. Java Hurricane 02:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ToI article linked above entirely consists of his quotes. Telegraph's was routine election coverage (btw he decided later to not even contest in that election). Even hindi/bengali searches (https://www.google.com/search?q="অতনু+ভূয়ান"+OR+"अतनु+भुयान") don't turn up anything. I note that neither bengali nor hindi wikipedias have pages (hitting some bug, can't properly linkify the search link) --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond of controversy, he is not having any coverage. --Arunudoy (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ʿAzīz-al-solṭān Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laxminarayan Payodhi Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrawan Ghimire (2nd nomination)

[1] ttps://www.emmys.com/bios/alexa-junge

[1]