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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Smith

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

This article is almost entirely uncited and does not meet BLP. The subject also does not meet WP:NBIO because they do not inherit notability from being associated with the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics. Ew3234 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Entirely uncited, the only source is a self-source. I did a quick search on the internet and there are nofew reliable sources about this person. There is a David Smith at the University of Michigan, who has a named professor appointment at the university, but it is unlikely to be the same person. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little more elaboration here. I am certain that David E Smith has published books, and that he is an adjunct prof at UCSF [1], but neither amounts to good notability. Maybe this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this report from the UC system could establish some notability? He also got a NYTimes mention by the book he co-authored (see here). I think if someone works to rework this article, I can imagine it getting kept, but at this point I still would !vote weak delete. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Brando Mahdloo

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

Does not meet notability criteria for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Arts Tribune appears to be a generic entertainment blog. The "Vasto Film Festival" and "Hombres Literary Award" also do not seem terribly notable. Other claims are unsourced and I cannot find verification. Google search for "Mehdi Brando Mahdloo" or "Mehdi Mahdloo" comes up with fewer than 100 results, mostly directory entries and social media. There's one bylined write-up in a localized news site. ... discospinster _talk 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. ... discospinster _talk 01:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is also quite promotional as well. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:07, 28 July 2023 (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. There is consensus here that the page is unacceptable synthesis, even if individual incidents are cited. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scandals of the Serbian Progressive Party

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

Another non-NPOV article that is full of original research and various accusations that are not even linked to the Serbian Progressive Party but instead to certain individuals. A similar article, which also included various accusations that are not connected to the Serbian Progressive Party, was created back in 2020 and has been since deleted. Some of this material could instead be copy-edited to neutral style and added to articles of these individuals (Aleksandar Vučić, Aleksandar Vulin, Bratislav Gašić, etc.), but adding all of this together to a single article that is not even relevant to the Serbian Progressive Party is just a bunch of nonsense. Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is inherently related to the Serbian Progressive Party as all of the people involved in the scandals are members of the Serbian Progressive Party, and have been for years. All of these people are interconnected in their wrongdoings. If we can have Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration i think this will work too.

All of these accusations are backed by sources like KRIK, BIRN, and Insajder, which are independent investigative media. In the article itself is listed the reason why i cannot diversify my sources more, most news media in Serbia have turned to exclusively pro-government tabloid journalism over the last few years.

While i can see why you might think the article is non-NPOV, i think it would be much more helpful if you were to correct/point out the specific lack of NPOV instead of flagging an entire article for deletion. Graphite2277 (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true, not all individuals listed here are members of the Serbian Progressive Party, and even if they were, that does not mean that SNS itself was directly involved in the scandals, which the title of this article implies. There is a great difference between the Scandals of the Ronald Reagan administration article and this one. First one is in the name, this article claims that all of these accusations are related to a single party, which is incorrect, while the scandals listed on the Ronald Reagan administration article were all investigated and the individuals were convicted/pleaded guilty. The accusations here were not done by SNS nor was the party involved in them.

There is also original research and misinterpretation of sources, here is an example:

For 300 out of 365 days in 2022, the president Aleksandar Vučić was present on some national television programme – Source says that from 1 June 2022 to 31 May 2023, Vučić appeared on 300 television programmes in total, not that he appeared on some national television programmes for 300 days

Again, although the article contains a lot of original research, the article still does not imply how these accusations are related to SNS, or how SNS was involved in any of them, at all. Even if the article was to be renamed to something else it would still have a lot of content that is not related to the actual topic. As I've said, these accusations are either related to individuals, not the party, while some were related to the government (COVID, 2023 shootings, Belgrade Waterfront), and most of these are already present on these articles. I'm not disputing the reliability of KRIK, BIRN, Insajder or other sources, they are all reliable. The main issue here is not the sourcing (though there is unsourced content), but rather that these numerous allegations and accusations, which are already present on most articles related to these topics, are not related to SNS, even though the title implies that SNS was involved in every one of these scandals, which is not true. I'll give you some examples:

Media freedom in Serbia already covers the media situation in Serbia,
Aleksandar Vučić covers some controversies and policies of Vučić, though not all of them,
Siniša Mali and Siniša Mali plagiarism scandal on the diplomas,
Belgrade Waterfront and Savamala,
Aleksandar Obradović (whistleblower) on Krušik,
Belgrade school shooting on the response of the shootings,
2021–2022 Serbian environmental protests on Rio Tinto,
COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia on COVID-19,
and most importantly Serbian Progressive Party already covers accusations in which SNS was involved in.

The article has been already tagged for NPOV, not by me, and reading through the article, not everything written is in neutral tone. You have even sorted the controversies into "minor" and "major" ones even though no source implies this. Vacant0 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While not all individuals mentioned in this article are members of SNS, i only mentioned non-member individuals who are directly connected to members of SNS and who presumably stood to gain from it (Mitrović getting country funds, Belivuk's clan being able to operate for over 10 years because they were involved with the president's son etc.). All of these are SNS scandals because what is a political party if not it's members and their public image? It would not be fitting to name this article "Scandals of the Serbian government" or something similar, as all of these scandals happened since SNS became the leading party in 2012.

Again these are all inherently related to SNS as their members were involved and the only reason they were involved is because they're members of the party. As for source misinterpretation, i assure you it was accidental and i would be more than happy to fix any instances of me misinterpreting a source by providing another source or changing the wording, although i am more than positive that any hard accusations made in this article are properly backed. The same applies to non-NPOV. Please do point out more examples of original research, non-NPOV and source misinterpretation so i can promptly fix them.

While some of these scandals are already present in some articles i believe it is a much better choice to just link to that article here or vice-versa (whichever has a more detailed explanation). On the other hand some of these scandals are not mentioned anywhere else and there is not an adequate page to move them to.

The sorting between controversies and scandals was truthfully done on my own accord, where minor controversies are ones where the action was technically legal but very unpopular among the Serbian people and at most caused financial harm, while "scandals" involve a major loss of country funds or life, or just blatant disregard for the law. I am more than happy to remove this and put everything in a single "Scandals" section. Graphite2277 (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the problem. You have used original research to link everything in the article to SNS and that is the reason why this article should be deleted. The article cannot be fixed or corrected because SNS was not involved in majority of these accusations. Individuals were involved instead. SNS cannot be inherently related to the accusations when there is no proof that SNS was involved in these accusations. Claiming that it is, is original research. Other than this, I won't repeat what I have already said. You can read my comments again, read more Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, and in the future use the Articles for creation process to create articles until you get more familiar with how Wikipedia articles are supposed to look like. Vacant0 (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth wouldn't it be correct to rename the article to "Scandals involving members of the Serbian Progressive Party", and to adjust the wording a bit? Nowhere except in the article title and the opening statement have i implied any of these scandals were the entire party's fault. Graphite2277 (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also just to add: Nearly all of these people involved in scandals of various severity were allowed to keep climbing the political ladder. None were ever prosecuted, the party itself never even condemned their actions. This is what i mean when i say the party essentially supported these controversies. Graphite2277 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. No reason to have this article (as well as the others mentioned that are non-NPOVs). Боки ✉ 13:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please be concise in advocating for your position on what should happen to this article from the limited options that are available: Keep, Merge, Redirect, Draftify or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is cited, but all these incidents (many of them with our old friend "Sources Say") seem like an unconnected gripe list mad at a party structure more than specific things a certain cabinet did, and 'shame' articles just because a certain party didn't 'punish' someone enough never really fly here. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this feels like a bad way to present information. Any extremely important or historic scandals would of course be covered at Serbian Progressive Party. Ones that are less important but which still commanded media attention over a lengthy period of time should have their own individual articles, and ones that only had an impact over a single news scandal and did not receive lasting attention should really not be covered in detail per WP:NOTNEWS. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin T. Onaka

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

WP:BLP1E, only notable for verifying Barack Obama's birth certificate. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable civil servant. The birth certificate thing is neither here nor there. No references found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hawaii. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

Dr. Onaka was the recipient of a prestigious national award, the Halbert L. Dunn award, and served as president of a national vital records trade association. These accomplishments made the newspapers in Hawaii. Wikipedia would better served by more content about NAPHSIS and its role in setting the policies that the United States uses to maintain the integrity of its vital records.

Of course the Obama birth certificate mess got him some national attention, a number of times, as his certifications became the basis fore state decisions to allow Obama on the Ballot, and as evidence in lawsuits such as Taitz v. Mississippi.

I would also point out that Wikipedia, at the time this entry was created, was looking for more content about notable Hawaiians. Dr. Conspiracy (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination, this article is a pretty clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. The only notable thing this man has done is verify Obama's birth certificate. IncompA 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing usable on Newspapers.com, and the only stuff I could find on plain Google was trivial mentions about Obama's birth certificate, and a book he wrote for the Hawaiian state government. (Also, apparently he was involved in a gay rights lawsuit, but that was just more trivial mentions of "the state registrar in Hawaii did so-and-so".) Nothing I saw seemed GNG-usable - all mentions of him are only about what he does as part of his job. casualdejekyll 23:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Bogner

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

I'm not seeing how this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources given are merely quick mentions of him, and the one with the most information is a university newsletter talking about another article published about him. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in directories and social media, and those "get in touch with us and we will interview you" type of sites. ... discospinster _talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. ... discospinster _talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable television executive. The "30 under 30" nomination isn't notable, rest is routine career information. Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single GNG-passing source here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Charsaddian (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams

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

Does not pass the GNG as a nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Cape Verde. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Let'srun (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm fully aware that just because she's a diplomat doesn't mean she's automatically notable. However, being a United States ambassador in general carries more significance and thus is notable. And I respectfully disagree with the notion that it's too soon; other United States ambassadors, both current ones and and those from long ago, have had articles when they were nominees too and were continually updated through their tenures.

That being said, if the consensus isn't to keep it, can it at the very least be moved into a draft? That way, I can work on it and simply move it back to the mainspace once she's confirmed by the Senate. Losipov (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to that option. Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:GNG and we do not preference ambassadors from particular countries here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per suggestion made in above comments by Losipov. Agree with Let'srun and SportingFlyer that the subject presently falls short of passing WP:GNG/WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun I didn't notice it before, but I've now seen you have nominated dozens of articles for deletion, including judicial nominees and beauty pageant contestants. Several editors have expressed their concerns about these moves, and now I see it too. In the case of judicial nominees, you've been saying that those articles are also "too soon". Remember, more sources can be added as time goes on and they will likely have more sources after they've been confirmed. It's the same thing with ambassadors.

You didn't even consider that this article be made into a draft until I suggested it, but rather straight up deleted. Respectfully, I find it a bit inappropriate. And the article Draft:Ann M. Yastishock wasn't even considered problematic before and you moved it to a draftspace. I'm at a loss honestly. Losipov (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until such time as she's confirmed. Star Mississippi 02:32, 2 August 2023 (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. Consensus that sources found indicate the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Eyfells

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Insufficient WP:RS and WP:IS sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Iceland. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. @UtherSRG:, here is alot of significant coverage on him in the Icelandic newspaper database Tímarit.is, such as these [2][3][4][5]. More can be found here. Any chance that you might reconsider this nomination? Alvaldi (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His death was also reported in the major news publications in Iceland[6][7][8] Alvaldi (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also significant english sources on him on Newspapers.com, including this from the Orlando Sentinel Part I/Part II. Alvaldi (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the 1993 Venice Biennale puts him into notable territory.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill's pets

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

Winston Churchill's pets are notable ?

Over to you, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Animal, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was able to find an academic book covering Churchill's animals (Churchill's Menagerie: Winston Churchill and the Animal Kingdom), as well as a couple of popular history books which may or may not be reliable ([9][10], as well as the Selbert one cited in the article). I did not thoroughly search news articles, but a perfunctory look seems like there might be some more coverage there. Churchill's animals are covered at Winston Churchill#Artist, historian, and writer, so a merge or redirect there should also be considered. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; sources in the article plus those listed above. This is so much better than giving each notable/marginally notable pet its own individual Wikipedia article (as many heads-of-state pets have). As a group they are definitely notable and it's great to read about them all in one place. As a history article, your best bet for WP:BEFORE is library books. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His pets don't have stand-alone notability. There's of course going to be at least some coverage of things like this for such a significant historical figure, but almost always this should be contained within the main article. Pointing towards pages like Pets of Vladimir Putin isn't a legitimate argument in favour of keeping this article. Willbb234 11:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Willbb234. This is essentially a case of Churchill's notability spilling onto his pets, who have no notability of their own and therefore should not be covered apart from him. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does oddly appear there's enough coverage of Churchill's pets to warrant a stand-alone or SPLIT article about them. Article could use some cleanup, and exasperation is not a deletion rationale. If there's nothing there after cleanup, and it can be fit into the regular article, then an upmerge is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I DO hope you're not referring to your Honourable Nominator as exasperated. For the record, I was more curious than anything. And I note that Andrew Davidson is a force of nature. I remain intrigued, however, more than convinced... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noting it's a strange AfD rationale that doesn't demonstrate any sort of care or BEFORE search. I can see the article has been greatly improved since you've nominated too, though! SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the concept (although the parlous state of the content led to the question) - is Stalin's Moustache notable? Rommel's collection of herbaceous borders? Saddam's stamp album? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting about Wikipedia's rules though: are there reliable secondary sources covering them? SportingFlyer T·C 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One never forgets Wikipedia's rules, dear @SportingFlyer. The tatty little scrap of a stub that existed has been wrangled into a rather gorgeous, illustrated wonder of an article. I don't think WP:BEFORE could honestly be expected to serve here - there has been some thoughtful, even brilliant research brought to bear on the transformation we have witnessed. Le sigh, in fact. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current form is not great. However, there are sufficient sources extant to write a decent article: for example, Nelson, one of Churchill's pets, is notable enough to merit his own article. If kept, when I get back to the UK, I'll rewrite the page from top to bottom. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is easily enough to meet WP:GNG, thanks to the expansion efforts of Cielquiparle and Andrew Davidson. Winston Churchill's article is already long, and splitting this out makes more sense than merging. Edwardx (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Edwardx. OMG check it now. #ChurchillsBlackSwans Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Point made and well taken - although I think you are all quite, quite mad. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It’s an interesting topic that might be interesting for many, deleting it would be pretty bad since it has substantial notability and the user put a lot of work into this article V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, Wikipedia has coverage on odd subjects (I still don't understand why we have an article on the George H. W. Bush broccoli comments), but that is generally as a result of there being sustained and continuous coverage which is one of the cornerstones of WP:GNG. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although the nominator is withdrawn, we probably still ought to let this run the full seven days since at least two other users !voted to delete. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The short answer to the nom's question is clearly "Yes, they are." In regards to SilverTiger12's point, yes their notability us purely derivative, but for highly notable, well-covered individuals like Churchill the various aspects of their life and work can be split into separate articles for the convenience of editors and readers, even when the separate parts aren't truly independently notable, as long as they can be properly sourced, as this article can. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2023 (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'm closing this as Delete as I found BusterD's argument very persuasive. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lexie Madden

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not meet WP:GNG and is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does not fit WP:BLP1E as she not only won Miss Wyoming, but came in as 3rd runner up at Miss America 2013, won Wyoming's Miss Junior Royal Miss in 2009 and won Miss Goshen County 2012. The 3rd runner-up spot at bigger pageants is basically a podium style finish at pageants, while say in something like racing, it would be seen as an average result. I feel the sources listed are enough to meet WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just want to note that the 2nd runner up and 1st runner up winners in this competition don't have articles so decent placement in a beauty contest is not an automatic qualifying factor in having a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is classic BLP1E. Each one of the presented cites (but for the wedding announcement) are local sources concerning her strictly local pageant wins eleven years ago. Any winner would have gotten this local coverage. As a living person, we owe the subject direct detailing with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. We don't have any of that here, we only have pageant coverage from before she graduated college. And the wedding announcement, which is itself a blog post from her cousin who happened to professionally photograph the wedding (so doubly connected). As a matter of BLP policy, we need much more direct detailing and diverse sourcing before we should justify such an article. BusterD (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenti Lauren

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Seems to have no coverage outside this. Redirect to Miss Puerto Rico is also fine. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2023 (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. then redirect to Sidemen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Minter (Miniminter)

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

Disputed draftification. Lacks sufficient and suitable references, and is plastered with inline links which the uncharitable might consider spam. Fails WP:BIO, fails the tone expected of an article. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group). Non-notable, Wikipedia isn't the place for promotional pieces and advertisements. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, I was watching the page Draft:Simon Edward Minter (Miniminter) in case it was moved to mainspace again and this article seems to be the same. Not enough reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Sahaib (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G4 - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miniminter. This is an attempt to game the name of a previously deleted article. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles are not substantially identical so this is not eligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the originator thinks that the subject is now biographically notable, as they were not in 2021, or that the 2021 article that was deleted needed expansion, they should submit it as Draft:Miniminter to be reviewed, rather than trying to evade the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be another case of an Internet personality whose article has been deleted, and whose ultras, that is, fanatical fans, are attempting to get an article in by gaming the name, thus resulting in more variations on the name being locked, rather than asking for help in finding reliable sources. These fans, like those of other Internet personalities, are the enemies of getting an article for their person, because they will just result in more forms of the name being protected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Sidemen (YouTube group) then Protect: Non-notable YouTuber with many fans who apparently want him to have a page. Why? I Ask (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, am I missing something? Subject appears to meet WP:SINGER#C2. Do we need to delete history on this for some reason? —siro χ o 00:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a lot of the unverifiable stuff from the article. —siro χ o 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That part has always been pretty vague to me. Does "national" only include the actual national chart (e.g., UK Singles Chart) or do the sub-genre charts count (e.g., UK Independent Singles Chart). If only the the former counts, then he does not meet it, since the only charting single, "The Gift", was credited to the Sidemen. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thank you. Deceptive crediting in the article. The NZ chart would count for sure, but I think you're correct, it's all credited to Sidemen. Redirect. —siro χ o 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Do not redirect. Simon Minter already exists as a redirect to Sidemen and it's unlikely that this would be a valid redirect. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanantha

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

PROD'd in 2015 for failing GNG, de-PROD'd because "it's a given name, and Wikipedia has a category for given names, so it seems notable by definition..."

Given names don't get a GNG carveout, so AfD it is. I was not able to locate any significant coverage of this name on a search. Normally I would simply turn this kind of page into a disambig to famous people who have the name, but no articles exist with this string in the title, so that's not plausible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Tamil Nadu. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable name, interesting how there are no BIOs with this name to covert to a disambiguation page anyway Karnataka (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't need it. Non-notable in English language searches (note: it's a Tamil language name and Google has difficulty with transliterating search words involving non-Latin scripts)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etian

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

Basically since creation, aside from a reference to Baidu, which is unreliable. Was requested to be undeleted by its original creator in 2015 after a 2011 PROD (see User_talk:Just_Chilling/Archive_9#Etian). User provided no sources, made unsubstantiated accusations that the article was deleted because of "bias", and has never edited a single other page aside from this one.

I was not able to locate any reliable SIGCOV that suggests this is a notable name. Normally I would simply turn this kind of page into a disambig to famous people who have the name, but no articles exist with this string in the title, so that's not plausible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wiktionary we aren't. There is no sourcing other than people having this name. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title seems to be an unusual spelling – the pinyin transliteration of 倚天 is Yitian, not Etian. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete factfiles on non-notable names are unneeded for an encyclopedia — Karnataka ^talk 17:56, 2 August 2023 (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 AA Films. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Thadani

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

Non-notable, no reliable sources. BoraVoro (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Seriously? he’s Literally the 1000 crore movie distributor, I’ve not completed the article yet, its a stub right now, he owns the AA Films you check that article, he’s along side Lyca Productions Karan Johar I think this is Literally the mistake, please consider it again once you search him on the web. I have not cited or added all the information as I’m yet to collect and write just started so anyone else who wants to can contribute ~~~ Autograph (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are Literally 1000s of Independent and reliable sources on him, presenting and distribution related in India he distributes film Pan India, and his recent films have been all time blockbusters and right now Anil Thadani is distributing every fifth film in India nationwide. Any admin should consider removing the tag. I personally feel This person deserves to be on wikipedia as much as Aditya Chopra Siddharth Roy Kapur Autograph (talk) 07:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly does, but we need extensive, reliable sources that discuss him at length. Articles saying how pretty his family is or how he's divorced don't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Meet Anil Thadani, Raveena Tandon's Husband" says the society pages headline, which sums things up nicely. Yes, he's big in film distribution, yes his company has distributed big films. Yes, he moves in Bollywood circles. Does that make him notable? It does not. No SIGCOV in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay I will cite significant independent sources and he does passes as general notable person, Because he has independent sources i will add the information later today and cite those. After that I will again come here comment to point those out. Autograph (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just like these independent [11] there are atleast thousand if you search.. I’m just not sure exactly from where I should so I just started stub for everyone. Autograph (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a photo and a two sentence photo caption. Not anywhere near extensive coverage. "Thousands" of one or two line sentences in news articles won't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added sources and his contribution in the films distributions please look at it once. I'm just trying to prove his notability. if its still not justified let me know I will just DB-self it bcs its just time wasting for me, if he's not even worth wikipedia. Autograph (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He likely isn't, that's what we're debating, based on what I've seen, it's not noteworthy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celebrity fluff coverage, look at his family, divorced his wife, nothing we can use for sourcing. Thousands of hits in Gnews, yes, but I'm not showing any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has not divorced his wife that's false Autograph (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont mind if this article being deleted but anyone who's from India definitely would agree with me that Anil Thadani is one of the biggest film distributors and presenter in India today, and news does cover him as Raveena Tandon's husband because she's big actress in bollywood but he started his distribution company even before getting married to her, and have distributed numerous films even before getting married to her and those were India's biggest hits. if u are only concerned about the sources I dont know about that but as an Indian he's BIG name. Autograph (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please check the new section for his films distributed as owner of AA Films Autograph (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with a !redirect if it goes that way, the film company seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think, the all information given at AA Films is same in Anil thadani's article such as presented and distributed films except his birth date. It can be merged or redirect to AA Films. Morekar(talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Polito

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

Fails the notability guideline; WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. GuardianH (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and also has clear WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Radio, and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment: I cut out the stuff about firing for now due to BLP concerns. Also, the links didn't work right so I deleted them.

Google News search turned up multiple hits but I did not have time to evaluate them: [12]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His name appears in local (Massachusetts) newspapers but primarily as announcements of his shows and guests. He does appear to still be at the station (here) but I have not found anything substantial and independent about him. As someone with a radio show you expect his name to be found in listings, but that's all I find. Lamona (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2023 (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 01:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John David Larson

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

Neither the rank of brigadier general nor the awards received convey automatic notability. From tribute from his company and obit, I find no other evidence that he was notable businessman. Star Mississippi 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Wisconsin. Star Mississippi 03:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no substantial coverage to base WP:ANYBIO. This subject does not approach any special guidelines or policies on account of his rank. We will all have obits online as long as we don't die too far yesterday. JFHJr (㊟) 05:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I expanded the article with information about his civilian work, and I noticed some volunteer activity in his obituary, but probably not enough to pass notability. In general, though, military personnel are often notable for their accomplishments in civilian life as well. There's something hidden behind a paywall at https://madison.com/news/local/obituaries/larson-john-david/article_a431f806-f336-5d73-b721-4f845637b6fa.html Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t meet notability or SIGCOV guidelines. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorotheus of Athens

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

Unsourced biography. Seems to be a run-of-the-mill priest. Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Greece. Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: subject appears real based on this. Archbishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church are not "run of the mill" priests but rather the highest ecclesiastical officials in territories that cover often hundreds of thousands faithful; see WP:NBISHOP for a discussion of how this pairs with biographical notability standards. Note that the Greek language article is indeed sourced. This is not a case of BLP, as the subject is very dead. I see no reason to delete outside "the article is currently unsourced", which looks to be easily fixed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19: I have added two sources to the article. Neither are stellar, but serve to adequately establish that Dorotheus was a real figure and served in the capacity described by the article (as well as providing an account of his death). I would encourage you to consider withdrawing this AfD on the grounds that a modern Archbishop of Athens and All Greece–who served as the head of the Church of Greece–almost certainly satisfies the standards laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to overload this, but please also see the essay section WP:CLERGY. Additionally, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuhanon Mar Meletius demonstrates a recent case where a less significant bishop was AfD'd and kept on general notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pbritti. Mccapra (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Pbritti. Not "a run-of-the-mill priest" -- according to Wikipedia, he has 8,515 of them that he supervises.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To caveat, he presumably oversaw a similar number of priests in 1957. Not sure about vocational trends in Greek Orthodoxy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, you're right!

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as references have been added to the article and archbishops of a major denomination are usually included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and per arguments above. BD2412 T 00:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesans bishops and archbishops of major denominations are always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaz Ribas

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

Unsourced biography since 2007. Unclear notability as a writer, director, etc. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Dance, and Portugal. Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pt.wiki article is sourced and the subject received the Order of Merit. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, seems sources in pt should demonstrate WP:BASIC. It's also likely WP:ANYBIO is met by one of the awards or honors, but I was unable to verify due to language. —siro χ o 08:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adelita Kabuki Ami Tettegah

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

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant lacking significant and reliable coverage. Fails GNG and NMODEL. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Ghana. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fancy, I understand my article is being considered for deletion. Please what can i do to prevent this deletion from happening? Any suggestions please? Adelitattegah24 (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adelitattegah24, I noticed that the article you created used many Instagram sources. please note that Wikipedia generally does not consider Instagram as a reliable source. You may see WP:NOTRELIABLE for more information. Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please is it possible for my article to be retained/published if I update it with more reliable source? Is there a chance for me that way? Adelitattegah24 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Adelitattegah24, sorry that I am not certain about that. Article deletion depends on the consensus of the community. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adelitattegah24, yes, finding reliable sources could help retain this article, and you could add a list to this discussion for the community to review. You can also review the Africa sources list for more information about reliable sources published in and about Africa. I have not found many sources about her, e.g. [13], [14], [15]; it may be WP:TOOSOON for an article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Also note that article creator and main contributor Adelitattegah24 has a name oddly similar to that of the article's subject... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources for this assistant superintendent of something... No indication what the person does to warrant an article and I can't find any sources discussing them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please the contributor Adelitattegah24 is not the same person. I did this Article using the same username or email I created for her. I'm a guy and she is someone I have worked with some years back and so I decided to set up a Wikipedia page/article for her looking at how far she has come with her achievements at her young age. I only thought it will be better to use same email, username and article name as one. Thanks. Adelitattegah24 (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Podio

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that lacks sustained coverage beyond WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual with a cousin who reports the news. There are only 3 sources in Gnews, lists of participants in the pageant. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed. Non-notable. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2023 (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 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Ringdahl

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

Lacks sustained coverage as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Miss Alabama. Star Mississippi 14:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Champion

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that falls into the category of WP:BLP1E, with only routine coverage to supplement. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She also competed at Miss America 2014 and won the "Non-finalist Talent Award", so she's known for more than one thing. She also acted in a play - https://www.al.com/entertainment/2015/07/former_miss_alabama_chandler_c.html and performed in various concerts in Alabama - https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/image/189288493/?terms=%22chandler%20champion%22&match=1 and seems to be a local Alabama celeb. I don't see any issue with keeping her page. KatoKungLee (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Isn't the award she won part of the Miss America competition? SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SoniaSotomayorFan - Winning Miss Alabama qualifies you for Miss America. She won a non-finalist talent award at Miss America. Not everyone competing at Miss America gets that award.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attn: KatoKungLee. Consider merging to Miss Alabama. --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miss Alabama. She really is WP:BLP1E, as Miss Alabama is run by the Miss America organization, and the NFT award above is not a notable award. --Bejnar (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlotte Deupree

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deupree won Miss Alabama and came in as the runner-up at Miss America 2003. I feel that's significant since it's the biggest beauty pageant competition in the country and the Top 5 is basically the pageant equivalent of a podium spot. Had she just won Miss Alabama and not won any other awards or pageants, I might agree, but right off the back, that is more than being famous for one thing. So I am voting keep.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. BLP1E or not, the subject must still pass WP:BASIC. I believe she does not. The only source that maybe qualifies under the GNG is a very small local newspaper. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Greenville Advocate	Yes.	It is unclear whether or not this local newspaper (which doesn't even have its own wiki page) is reliable, but I currently have no reason to doubt the reliability as of now.	The entire article is focused on Scarlotte.	? Unknown
Miss Alabama website	The subject competed in this competition.		Mentioned in a list of winners.	✘ No
Miss America website	The subject competed in this competition.		Routine database entry.	✘ No
Kilgore Firm website	Her husband's firm.		Just a passing mention that she is his wife.	✘ No
Literary Council website	She is on the board		Just a passing mention that confirms she is indeed on the board.	✘ No
Alpha Delta Pi website	Her sorority.		Just a passing mention of her in a list of pageant winners who were members.	✘ No
Samford University website	Her college.		Short as it is, technically SIGCOV. Still not independent.	✘ No
Troy University website	The college the runner up to her attended.		passing mention of her as the winner.	✘ No
Jeff Sessions	Her senator, (whom she also interned for).		A routine acknowledgment.	✘ 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}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, thanks for the source analysis! Fails WP:GNG, and I'm not sure what other SNG would apply. There is no consensus that beauty pageant participants or even winners are inherently notable. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 15:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all sources are in depth sources individually, but note that WP:NBASIC states: “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability” 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 Greenville Advocate looks indeed reliable and indendant. Has a wikidata item (here) and is added manually to the list of missing articles for newspapers and Alabama and Alabama newspapers. 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think these sources are independent: bizjournals.com, styleblueprint.com and another source of Greenville Advocate 109.37.150.153 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source table above. Nothing for GNG, some confirmation of the pageants she's participated in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @IAmHuitzilopochtli: Greenville Advocate is a reliable newspaper. I have provided a Library of Congress record [16] to prove their validity as a legitimate newspaper organization. Local news stations and newspapers are considered reliable unless proven otherwise. It does not change the rest of the source analysis beyond this one source, which will count towards GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I hate to say it but it appears that she probably doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only thing going for her is the small local newspaper. What about the sources the IP posted earlier? Has anyone looked at those? Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:19, 24 August 2023 (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 Apple Inc.#Senior management. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine L. Adams

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a lawyer. Only sources discussing the subject were WP:ROUTINE for lawyers. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that after reading the previous Afd, only the law.com source seems to meet the secondary source requirements. Let'srun (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple Inc., where she is listed by name. Does not seem to meet WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 01:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc. Mostly run-of-the-mill information, including coverage directly related to the subject and nothing substantial enough to meet WP:BASIC. No awards/recognition that is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO #1. It would be best to redirect because she is mentioned in Apple Inc. The Night Watch (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc.#Senior management where she is listed. Per nom, Siroxo, and The Night Watch, not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apple Inc.#Senior management.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2023 (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. When policy changes it can be hard to find a clear consensus because it takes a while for wide acceptance of the new standards to bed in and its not helped by votes that assert a gng pass but don’t provide context of which sources pass and why. Here we have the benefitnof a detailed source analysis but its in the delete side and has not been refuted. The evidence is that the gng is not met so that gives us the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitrijs Zelenkovs

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

Non-notable footballer. As NFOOTY no longer applies, we need to see GNG from the sources, but they don't even come close to this, and BEFORE finds nothing beyond the usual stats and capsule profiles. Was draftified earlier, but the creator didn't like that, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Latvia. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it looks like the article creator has created several similar stubs in the last week for Latvian footballers, many of which will require forensic examination too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC Karnataka (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Enough in Latvian language sources to pass WP:BASIC in my opinion. Have you even looked at lv:Dmitrijs Zelenkovs? or ru:Зеленков, Дмитрий? Govvy (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems to be enough sources directly on him overall so at least barely passes WP:GNG (haven't searched in Latvian) and RFS are currently playing in Europe so it's not as if he's random. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 19:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at the Latvian sources, the first is straight from his football club N; the second is a transactional piece with a bit more info than that provided in the referenced press release, but still hardly non-routine SIGCOV N; the third is another piece from his club N. Govvy SportingFlyer Are there other Latvian language sources y'all are counting? Because a single transfer announcement is most certainly not enough for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: There are weak hits here and there all over the place from a some obscure ones from Italy back to Latvia, one example, you can goto a news service like diena.lv and pick up some hits. la.lv have some weak hits, but not very good ones. ir.lv doesn't do sports as far as I am aware. There is a difference between the local newspapers in per regions in Latvia to the national ones. Up to you how you want to vote. But from what I've seen online, it's a weak keep for me, and the reason why I side with Keep is partly what SportingFlyer said. It's rare for a Latvian player to go abroad for football and Zelenkovs played in Italy, although in a youth setup. And now he is called up to their international team. You're just seeing the black and white and not the bigger picture from my point of view. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second source is fine. The third source is from the Latvian federation, not a club. There are other additional sources out there as well - it's not as if this is the entirety of the information. SportingFlyer T·C 10:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Latvian federation is still a governing sports organization and so does not count as independent. JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I thought you guys were just referring to the sources on the Latvian wiki. I don't really see why it matters where he's from if he doesn't receive SIGCOV...? The diena.lv hits all just seem like routine match reports. My own searches in Cyrillic didn't return much at all, and I only got transfer announcements and match recaps from 46.lv and Sportazinas. JoelleJay (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the second ref in the page has enough non-routine information to be considered more than a routine "transactional announcement" and is WP:GNG-passing. However that alone is not enough as all of the other references are non-independent (produced by his team or league). Frank Anchor 16:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other decent references not currently in the article, though. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Per provided sources, this just meets the GNG. User:Let'srun 23:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG per sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Cleakry significant figure in Latvian football with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as the sources are either not independent (quotes from the subject, club press releases - even when hosted by a local newspaper, Latvia federation announcements) or not in-depth (a short blurb about his 2015 youth football award). Everything else is routine stuff like match reports or notes about his signing for RFS (which is all derivative of the non-independent club's press release). I don't understand what other editors are seeing that suggests anything approaching SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify if possible - not notable right now, but more sources may come out after potential Latvia debut. Otherwise, delete. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alayna Westcom

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Vermont. Let'srun (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bennington Banner article possibly counts towards notability, but more independent coverage is needed to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:24, 28 July 2023 (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Katherine Fechtel

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Coverage is limited to winning the Miss Florida pageant, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the article and available sources, coverage is not limited to winning the Miss Florida pageant, because she also competed in Miss America 2016, see e.g. Orlando Sentinel. Other sources include brief mentions in CBS News and AL.com, noting she was in the top-12; WGNO/ABC, reporting an early award during the Miss America competition; there is also the Orlando Sentinel with more in-depth reporting on her top-10 finish in the Miss America competition. Beccaynr (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why this one but not the dozens of other articles on beauty pageant winners who aren’t notable for anything else? Just curious. ~ Argenti Aertheri^(Chat?) 05:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. Kaliyamurthy

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

Served for 35 years in the police, became Superintendant of Tiruchirappalli. Was awarded 27 Meritorious Service Entry and 150 Good Service Entry Medals. Among these, neither the 'Chief Minister's medal for gallantry' nor the 'President’s Police Medal for Distinguished Service' are mentioned in the linked "Awards and decorations of the Indian Armed Forces". BTW, the 'police medal for meritorious service' had 482 grantees in 2008. Subject then retired and became a motivational speaker. He spoke - at times a lot. And there, Ladies and gentleman, our case rests. Fails WP:GNG as a policeman or as a speaker. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and Tamil Nadu. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One out of 480 recipients for a medal seems rather ROUTINE, not meeting GNG for the speaker position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b, thank you for your message. I understand your concern regarding the number of recipients for the medal and its relevance to the speaker position. I'd like to clarify that the selection process for the medal recipients might vary based on specific criteria and guidelines. However, it's important to note that the medal recipients are not directly linked to the qualifications for the speaker position.

The speaker position's requirements and selection process are usually governed by separate criteria to ensure a fair and suitable candidate is chosen. While the number of medal recipients may seem routine, it doesn't necessarily impact the selection process for the speaker position.

If you have any specific suggestions or information that could improve the article or make it more relevant, I would be happy to consider incorporating them. Let's work together to ensure the content is accurate and well-represented. Please feel free to provide any further insights you may have. Thank you. Anandhakesavan (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When reviewing this (before the AfD nomination) I checked the references and also noted the absence of a citation for some of the awards. Seems to fall below the GNG. MarcGarver (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Andrade

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that fails WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Jersey. Let'srun (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Pennekamp

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant and also doesn't meet WP:NMODEL. Let'srun (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any sourcing at all found, not meeting GNG. Only one story about a murder, likely with a different individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lightbourn Strong

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

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Nothing on ProQuest, Newspapers Archive, or JSTOR. APK whisper in my ear 04:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the lack of refs, the article itself paints the picture of a non-notable Presbyterian minister who pastored non-notable churches in the early 19th century.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a decent man but not especially notable. But a comment, once again that pernicious little note "this article incorporates public domain material from..." conceals the fact that this article is public domain material from. Apart from the first sentence, it is simply, word-for-word, a copy of an obituary published by Yale. We are supposed to be an encyclopaedia, summarising multiple sources, not just another mirror site acting as a dumping-ground/archive for copies of bits of other sites and documents. Elemimele (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should generally evaluate the value of the information in an article when deciding whether to delete or seek an ATD. Given that this seems to all come from the Yale source, let's take advantage and do a minimal merge into William Strong (Pennsylvania judge). There's a sentence or two of value to the early life section of that subject's biography. —siro χ o 09:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Connecticut, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a one-page-long biography, here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the Yale biography that the article is built from. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are two distinct publications both by Yale. —siro χ o 04:51, 26 July 2023 (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 Survivor: South Pacific. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Clarke

AfDs for this article:

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

Even as the winner of Survivor: South Pacific, I can't help wonder whether finishing tenth in Survivor: Winners at War makes her more notable and whether finishing tenth itself is notable. Outside of Survivor, I couldn't find something else that makes her noteworthy. This isn't Tom Westman, also a two-time Survivor contestant. However, if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E applies, then what about WP:PAGEDECIDE? How about redirecting the page to either the South Pacific page or the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants page? George Ho (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Television. George Ho (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: South Pacific. Only winners should get their own articles. NYC Guru (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but at least ten articles about individual winners have been already redirected to their respective season pages. So far, two other articles were deleted per AFD discussions. George Ho (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: South Pacific per above as a plausible ATD. Otherwise delete. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:20, 2 August 2023 (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. ✗plicit 11:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kumar (actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. Both sources are largely interview and don't give much information about him. A PROD was contested due to the page being previously deleted through PROD and re-created. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. I think The Economic Times article is noteworthy. I also found content in The Hindu, Pune Mirror, Outlook India, etc. APK whisper in my ear 08:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - Passes to prove WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:ENT. Kind regrds –––ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 04:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Wittler

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

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage of her participating in the pageant, nothing since. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'd like to give this a definitive close but with no comments after two relistings, all we have to go on is three opinions. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CC Barber

AfDs for this article:

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

A lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete, subject does not appear to rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, [13, 14, 15, 16 - This is why I had an issue with so many articles being nominated within a short time frame. If you check CC's page, most of the links are dead or behind paywalls. I feel that this should have been mentioned in a WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG nomination as it's impossible to know what's behind dead links and paywalls. From what we know of the sources I posted and some of the sources mentioned in the other links, she was on interviewed on Portland TV about her win, she did various appearances and MC gigs, she was covered in TLC's Miss America 2010 preview, she was interviewed on 105.1 FM The Buzz and had multiple articles written about her in the dailyastorian. She's very clearly a local celebrity in Oregon. I believe there's more out there and with her winning 4 pageants, I have more reason to suspect that more coverage exists.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the coverage appears to be pretty routine and is a case of BLP1E being the winner of a statewide pageant. It isn't sustained, and as such doesn't rise up to the standards needed to keep just because sources exist. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a reason to keep any article.

Some of the sources you linked to are simply Facebook posts as well, which aren't at all reliable. Let'srun (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let'srun - The point of the facebook links are that we now know more coverage exists, which is important in a debate about WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. And to - All of the coverage appears to be pretty routine, it's really hard to rate a source when it's dead or behind a paywall, which most of the sources listed are.KatoKungLee (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 8 August 2023 (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 23:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kasi Kelly

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing found for this person, who must pass GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the in-depth coverage needed to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:17, 28 July 2023 (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 23:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elyzabeth Pham

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

Non-notable former beauty pagent contestant. Does not meet the WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing found for this person, unless she married Sysqo (plenty of coverage about his wife). Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (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 Das Boot (film)#Accolades. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Pyke

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

Article fails WP:BIO, current sources are a list of Academy Award nominations and a very brief obituary. Searching finds very little with coverage of the award nomination limited to the name appearing in articles listing all nominees. For example this list article. A redirect to Das Boot (film), where he is mentioned in the Accolades section, is an alternative to deletion. Gab4gab (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Das Boot (film)#Accolades. Pyke meets WP:ANYBIO; you need to either win a big award or get multiple nominations. For Das Boot, he won the German Film Award (top German film award) and the Motion Picture Sound Editors' Golden Reel Award in addition to his Oscar nomination. Das Boot set the standard for sound editing for submarine movies, a genre where the soundscape dominates.^[17]

The German article has more information: de:Trevor Pyke. Unfortunately, despite Pyke's notability, neither the English nor the German articles have information about his life and career that doesn't come from IMDb, an unreliable source (WP:IMDB), or his terse 2-sentence paid obituary. I found no good refs except some tiny little bits.^[18] Hence the redirect; we just don't have enough to build an article with.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Koldau article was interesting and while it never mentioned Pyke it is some coverage of his work that is helpful to notability. It would be helpful to have a source for the two awards mentioned. Gab4gab (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gab4gab, the awards come from Das Boot (film)#Accolades. And, yes, I'm a submarine movie aficionado, so I very much enjoyed that Koldau article, too.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm amazed Das Boot didn't win Oscars for its sound and score -- they really set the tone for a great film (as Koldau noted).

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and tag for improvement~~ or redirect per reasons above - if it is redirected then someone can hopefully improve this page in the future.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly does meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp, I'd love to keep the article but what do we use as WP:RS to build it?

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:STUB. Nothing wrong with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If it can be expanded and further sourced that would be amazing, obviously, but if not it still meets notability standards and should stay. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Das Boot (film)#Accolades as we don't have enough sourcing to meet GNG. Although he does appear to meet the first section of WP:ANYBIO, the sourcing just isn't there for a good article. We can redirect for now and restore/expand the article if and when sources are found. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Das Boot (film)#Accolades per the above as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh-Taylor Smith

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing coverage in RS, only in this [19], does not appear RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing GNG sources anywhere. Kalethan (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2023 (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 recognize the need to be diligent in searching for sources on topics that may lack online coverage; however, we must have some solid evidence that coverage exists, and in this case it appears that the argument to keep rests on her having been a pageant contestant, which does not have consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanne Pennington

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

Does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and West Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is the claim of lack of significant coverage because no coverage exists, or because you couldn't find it online? This is someone who would likely be covered in West Virginia newspapers during the 1980's—presumably the Charleston Gazette and Charleston Daily Mail, possibly others, such as the Huntington Herald-Dispatch, Parkersburg News, Wheeling Intelligencer—of which very few issues are available online (for example, Newspapers.com has the Daily Mail up to 1977, including some years of the Sunday Gazette-Mail, but none of the others, and no West Virginia newspapers of note during the 1980s; the Google News Archive seems to have only the Point Pleasant Register—a small town paper—from 1986 to 2004). But it's quite likely that these papers would have covered "Miss West Virginia 1984", and even more likely that they would have mentioned her death or the governor naming her a "Distinguished West Virginian" a few years later. Have you searched for coverage in likely sources, or was this limited to Google searches and online newspapers? P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius - He's doing a mass run through of various pageant contestants. He has nominated 9 beauty pageant articles in the last 3 days. I do not believe all of these nominations could have possibly been researched properly and I think it's asking a lot of people interested in this subject to go through this many articles at once.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to having my doubts as to the notability of national beauty pageant contestants (as opposed to winners, or people who first came to public attention through pageants). But doubts aren't enough to determine notability, IMO, and I've seen many more articles nominated for deletion that shouldn't have been if a thorough search for coverage had been made, than I have articles for which there really was no justification.

In this case, I strongly suspect there's local newspaper coverage of some kind, but I also know that there are very few West Virginia newspapers from the 20th century available online. I do know there are archives besides the ones I have access to, and of course various libraries have these papers on microfilm, but they're not very easy to search if you don't know the exact dates you need. It seemed unlikely that the nominator would have searched them, but it was worth asking. It's technically the responsibility of the person nominating articles for deletion to show that significant coverage does not exist or is unlikely to exist. It's not the responsibility of those opposing the nomination to find coverage, although it nearly always works out that way.

If the nominator hasn't looked for coverage in the sources most likely to provide it, then I think this nomination should fail—along with other similar nominations if the nominator didn't search for sources other than on Google. There's a world of print sources that simply aren't available online, and it's not sufficient to report that online news sources don't provide coverage for events of local or regional interest from over thirty years ago. P Aculeius (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched beyond google, to be clear. Let'srun (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, news doesn't equate to notability. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News verifies facts that make people notable; the extent of news coverage is what SIGCOV is about. And the relevant question isn't whether "any sources other than Google" were searched—it's what sources were searched?. Since we know reliable sources that are not widely available or available at all online exist, and probably include coverage of the subject of this article, the article cannot be fairly deleted without checking those sources. P Aculeius (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched all sources I had available. Fair point regarding the coverage of newspapers on newspapers.com and Google, but even so that would still make her fall into WP:BLP1E. I also could not find any coverage of her receiving the Distinguished West Virginian award, and it does not appear to be sourced in the article as is. Let'srun (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E explicitly states that it only applies to living persons, or to persons who have recently died. Pennington died in 1988, so this policy clearly does not apply. Different standards apply to the notability of people who have been deceased for a considerable amount of time. The policy also specifically refers to people notable for only a single event; being named a "Distinguished West Virginian" by the governor would presumably be a notable event in addition to her being named "Miss West Virginia" and representing the state in a national pageant.

The fact that you couldn't find coverage of this is irrelevant if there are likely to be reliable sources that would verify it, and again—if you didn't review West Virginia newspapers (specifically Charleston newspapers, IMO, given both where Pennington was from and the governor's involvement) from 1988 (or local coverage of the pageant; there was likely some mention of Miss West Virginia prior to or following the pageant), then WP:BEFORE has not been satisfied. The fact that these papers may not be available online is irrelevant.

It may also be possible to contact the governor's office and find out whether there is a list of "distinguished West Virginians" named in past years, or a reference that might mention them (for example, the West Virginia Blue Book for 1989 might mention such recognition). The offices of the Gazette might have an index mentioning people and events by name, topic (awards or proclamations by the governor), or date. At the very least I would expect an obituary to verify the date of Pennington's death, and perhaps fill in some details; and it's likely that there'd be a short news story on or around the same date, since clearly her death at a young age came to the governor's attention. Unless sufficient information can be found to suggest that any of the facts mentioned in the article are hoaxes—i.e. a diligent search of sources that ought to mention them turns up nothing, meaning that the sources that would mention them, if any, have been identified and searched—this nomination should fail. P Aculeius (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the blue book before; it doesn't state such recognition. Let'srun (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably acts of the governor are recorded somewhere, and as stated above, there should be newspaper coverage. The fact that the Blue Book doesn't mention it doesn't tell us that it didn't occur. Perhaps the thing to do would be to find out what was done in some other instance of the governor naming someone a "Distinguished West Virginian" and then figure out where—besides the newspaper—it was recorded—or to ask the Governor's office what would be done if someone were named a "Distinguished West Virginian" today. That might tell us where to look, assuming the process hasn't changed since 1988. P Aculeius (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - We must be careful to avoid WP:SBEXT. Newspapers.com does not have any West Virginia newspapers from 1984 on their website - See here. This is important as not only do we not have that, we don't have footage of any local television or radio broadcasts either, which would be the main sources of coverage. This is also pre-internet, so there will be little there. A lack of access to sources is different from not having any sources. There is some coverage on her here 1 and with her winning the pageant, being awarded an award from the governor of West Virginia and passing away unexpectedly at a young age, I expect more coverage to exist as it's an interesting story.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:50, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable person - the article fails WP:GNG on its face, and everything I can easily find online is basically either a Wikipedia mirror or a photo of her posing with the president of West Virginia university. I think we can probably redirect this to a list of West Virginias and I have no problem with re-creation if better sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer - I do think we have to keep in mind that newspapers.com does not have any West Virginia newspapers from when she won, where she would likely be covered. This is on top of us not having any local radio or television broadcasts and missing any other kind of local material that likely would have mentioned her on top of being pre-internet era. It seems very unlikely that someone received an award from the governor, won the state's beauty pageant and died very early yet no coverage existed.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are other places you can search to show there might be sources. Does ProQuest cover that time period? SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer - I have found two mentions. I don't know anything about this site, so I can't speak any further. 1 and 2 KatoKungLee (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More information has popped up. Pennington had an award named after her called, "Melanne Pennington Quality of life award" from - https://newspaperarchive.com/bluefield-daily-telegraph-jun-24-1991-p-1/ KatoKungLee (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more opinions here. And while sources may be difficult to find, they are necessary for verification. The absence of available sources can't be twisted around to be seen as proof that sources exist. We can only use what is findable, not what we imagine might exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until someone can actually cite references in appropriate reliable sources, we can't just assume notability. Possibly there are paper or microfiche copies of the newspapers in local archives, but until someone goes to look I don't really see how we get any further forward. JMWt (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Some attempts to deny or ignore these failings, admirable though they may appear when first glanced, read like "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" more than anything. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. As with Winfield D. Ong, the argument against redirecting is weak. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inga S. Bernstein

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

Failed judicial nominee who does not pass WP:GNG. All sources are primary or namedrops. Let'srun (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as we're generally doing for these now —siro χ o 10:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm not proposing a redirect is that there isn't much to suggest that Bernstein was a controversial nominee, and her WP:BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by her passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee with only 1 senator voting against the nomination. It appears that she simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible redirect targets Let'srun (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, support siroχo's suggestion, above. While that article includes information about controversy in Obama's nominations, it's also a comprehensive list of all his nominees that were never confirmed. Many of them have their own pages, since becoming a nominee for the federal bench usually includes achievements that pass WP:GNG. In the interest of keeping that list complete, she should probably be redirected there even if her page is deleted. Kalethan (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2023 (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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. I don't find the argument against redirecting persuasive; the presence of a redirect doesn't say that this individual was controversial, only that the relevant information is found at the target. There is clear consensus against a standalone article. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield D. Ong

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

The person was not confirmed as a judge and does not meet the notability criteria as described by WP:GNG. All sources found regarding the subject are primary or namedrops. Let'srun (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as we're starting to do with these. We have lawyers statements, and some relatively trivial coverage like [20] but nothing that amounts to SIGCOV as far as I can see. —siro χ o 09:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I'm not proposing a redirect is that there isn't much to suggest that Ong was a controversial nominee, and his WP:BLP1E isn't covered in that article, as seen by his passing through the Senate Judiciary Committee by a voice vote with the support of both Indiana senators. It appears that he simply never received a vote before the end of Obama's 2nd term, and I don't see any other possible redirect targets. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article creator. However, am open to the alternatives above, if they are pursued. Safiel (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Hassan Ilyas

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

Pakistani theologian, associated with philosopher. No notability whatsoever. Sources are not RS. Being the son in law of a philosopher does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as the article makes no claim to notability. Because of the lack of claim to notability I did not perform a BEFORE. Ping if there is notability. —siro χ o 08:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No SIGCOV that I can find. 〜 Festucalex • talk 08:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is a Islamic theologian, who belong to the Farahi school, I find out that creating a Wikipedia article for him, would be helpful. AlidPedian (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we have the article of Dr. Muhammad Farooq Khan. AlidPedian (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2023 (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 14:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia M. McCarthy

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

Failed judicial nominee that lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - judicial nominees are not necessarily notable. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources listed are either namedrops or primary. No evidence the subject passes the GNG beyond routine coverage. Ravenswing 00:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability shown. Failes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2023 (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 14:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne E. Davidson

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

Non-notable failed judicial nominee. Lacks the secondary sources needed to meet WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Pang

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

Lacks the needed coverage to pass WP:GNG. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pageant winners could be notable, but she isn't discussed in anything we can use for sourcing; this is all I find [21]. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Spellman

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

Doesn't quite meet WP:GNG nor pass WP:NBEAUTY. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E Let'srun (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and New Hampshire. Let'srun (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination statement, this is a case of WP:BIO1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:01, 28 July 2023 (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 Carlton Tavern. I see a rough consensus to Redirect this article. I also am concerned with WP:BLP1E brought up and other BLP issues in this almost entirely negative article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ori Calif

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent, significant coverage about this person exists. Every source in the article is a passing mention and well below the standards that apply to Biographies of Living Persons. The first AfD had clear consensus and nothing has changed since then. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern, for which the subject has been in the news a decent amount over several years. (with perhaps a gentle merge of relevent information). —siro χ o 07:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Israel, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and a comments/questions) I don't understand the delete rationale. Developer demolishes historic London pub in Architect's Journal, for example, it entirely about his dramatic and unusual activities, which prompted all sorts of other activities and reporting. Exemplo347, are you saying that Arhitect's Journal is not reliable? Or is it because the article is about his activities rather than him? Or because he technically did the activities via a limited company which he is the sole director of? I'm confused.
Decision on illegally demolished pub myst "set a deterrent" in the Morning Advertiser (establish 1794) is also all about him.

The first AFD happened in 2016. Calif has continued to make news since then. I can't see what the article looked like then, but back then it seemed like he was notable for one thing. The Magdala was a stub and Calif's involvement wasn't known to AFD participants. At that AFD Philafrenzy noted "Meets the GNG. Has coverage in a variety of secondary sources in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and extensive coverage in 2015" but most people noted a lack of detail and everything being about one pub. Both those factors are no longer true, so I challenge robustly that "nothing has changed since then"
CT55555(talk) 11:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This is extremely straightforward. None of the articles are actually about Ori Calif at all. Have a read through WP:GNG and you'll see what I mean. None of the sources in the article, and none that I've found, meet the standards.
Exemplo347 (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not extremely straightforward. Calif demolished the pub. OK, technically he did it via a limited company (that he is the sole director of). Are you suggesting that the simple creation of a limited company makes the actions not his? Probably every notable business person in the UK actually performs their activities via a limited company, but we understand it is David Beckham playing football, not David Beckham Football Company Ltd. We're not removing articles about singers because technically it was Elton John Music Limited who released the album. CLTX and Calif are the same thing, as he is the sole director. The demolition of the pub, is completely his action. CT55555(talk) 11:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you haven't read WP:GNG and I'm not prepared to explain it here when the link I provided explains it very coherently. A person does not inherit notability from a building they own (or one demolished by a company they're associated with). I'll step back from this discussion & let other editors respond now. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with our notability guidelines. I am not asking you to explain them. I am asking you to explain how you think they apply to this article.

Calif effectively is CLTX. The articles are about his actions.

Someone could argue that as the sole director of CLTX that the article should be about CLTX and then someone would come along and say that CLTX is WP:COMMONNAME best known by its sole director, Ori Calif. CT55555(talk) 11:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I suggested a redirect is because the vast majority of news is about Carlton Tavern. There is indeed other coverage as well, but it's largely WP:ROUTINE coverage of a lawyer's and landowner's dealings. I you took away coverage specifically about Carlton Tavern there would be zero claim to notability, and with such slim coverage of the individual within the Carlton Tavern articles, I was concerned WP:BASIC was not met.

Do you think subject can meet WP:BASIC, and if so what sources would you use to demonstrate it? —siro χ o 11:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is indeed mostly known about Carlton Tavern. And if it wasn't for the routine coverage of other stuff, I think we'd agree to redirect there. But that routine coverage is verifiable and enough to support an article. Routine coverage alone, obviously wouldn't.

I think he passes WP:GNG. Of course that argument hinges on accepting (as clearly not everyone does) that coverage of his actions (pub demolition) is coverage of him. I say it is. We consider book reviews to justify articles about authors, we consider sports reporting about how a match went to justify articles about footballer and we should consider articles about the actions of a property developer to justify articles them. If you wanted to take a WP:BASIC approach, the first article in AJ is all about his actions. Or https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2016/05/31/Decision-on-illegally-demolished-pub-must-set-a-deterrent is also all about his actions. CT55555(talk) 11:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add this to the list https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 CT55555(talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a WP:BLP1E to me. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For completely unrelated news coverage, see https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 CT55555(talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's routine coverage of a lawsuit. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine" as per WP:ROUTINE. This does not fall into that category. It's an event that generated news. It seems necessary at this point to accept that he is notable for more than one event. CT55555(talk) 22:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern. Most of the article relates to a single event concerning the Carlton Tavern (agree with WP:BLP1E view); the subject's ownership of the Magdala is a diversion with only passing coverage in one article. Paul W (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was maybe true before we identified the Hebrew sources, see https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000757762 for example CT55555(talk) 12:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carlton Tavern. There was some litigation between this lawyer and his client in Israel and his name was mentioned in the financial daily newspapers also in a few other cases. He is mentioned in Hebrew as "specializing" in international tax law, rather than "specialized". Specializing refers in Hebrew to someone's professional focus (or to training) versus specialized which indicates recognition as an authority. I conclude that this lawyer is, at least for now, a professional at work with some investments. Since alive, I advise against keeping. The bar (great word for a lawyer who invests in pubs!) for a redirect is definitely met! gidonb (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to some of the articles in Hebrew please? Or say how his name appears in Hebrew? CT55555(talk) 12:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. אורי כליף. I have added this name also to the article. gidonb (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel CT55555(talk) 16:01, 25 July 2023 (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. I am not a fan of these articles but I see a Weak Keep consensus here after 3 relistings so this has to be brought to a close. But those preferring a Merge should take their argument to the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Parry Fry

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The current sources lack the independent coverage needed to meet WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep I suppose the Miss Teen USA is notable, but there is no sourcing in the article and I can't find any (it's from that very early internet era, so might not be found online). The rest seems rather non-notable, going to school, being a vegan.
Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sustained coverage for different reasons over 20 years – I've updated the article and added more references ... CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 13:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Miss Teen USA 2000. We have coverage at the time for winning, which is really more about the notability of the event. The rest of the sources appear to be brief mentions and material written by the subject, not about the subject. Per WP:GNG and especially WP:NOPAGE, merge to the parent article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge and Redirect option vs. Keeping the article as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO#1 as a winner of a well known award. The fact that she gets only brief mentions doesn't disqualify her because sources can be tacked together under WP:BASIC. There was some (fairly inoffensive) personal information in the article that completely lacked sourcing and I deleted it conservatively out of privacy concerns - if it wasn't published elsewhere it probably shouldn't be publicised here. Oblivy (talk) 08:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now there's no consensus, closely leaning towards keep. Relisting for a final time to hopefully find that consensus. Any thoughts on the suggestion for Merge/Redirecting to Miss Teen USA 2000?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think the idea of merging into Miss Teen USA 2000 is wise. It seems that many of the winners do have their own page, though the lack of references & notable elements in Miss. Fry's article would make it well suited to a merge. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shawna Stoltenberg

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. All coverage is routine, nothing of significance. Let'srun (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks independent coverage to meet WP:NBASIC. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:03, 28 July 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cullum

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

Non-notable musician, sources are only IMDb and music database, with third being primary. Record label is also non-notable, searches bring up a fictional namesake and Discogs profiles etc. Karnataka (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and England. Karnataka (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This artist is credited as a producer among other creative credits on several notable albums including some Tears for Fears and Enya albums. Beyond just trivial db entries/lists, we actually have short-but-nontrivial coverage across many sources [22][23][24][25][26][27][28], etc. Seems to cross the threshold of WP:BASIC, may also meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PRODUCER. (With a reminder that BASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability (with a long note explaining what types of trivial coverage are not included) (addendum, I've now evaluatd PRODUCER below as well, see my commment) —siro χ o 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the list of sources provided by this user, I cannot read two that are from Canadian newspapers due to database access. For all the others, every single one is about someone else's concerts or albums, with Mr. Cullum only being listed very briefly as producer or for other session work. That does not qualify for significant coverage, in which the subject needs to not only appear in a reliable source, but there must also be encyclopedic information that can verify facts in an independent article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Let me describe my thought process on this subject, I hope this is helpful, I do not mean to be confrontational in any way. Per WP:SIGCOV "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As this is a biography, examples of trivial mentions given in WP:BASIC include simple directory entry or a mention in passing ("John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University") ... a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. paraphrased by me of course.

Again note that, excluding trivial mentions, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability

Now each of these seven sources provides something short that meets SIGCOV, being not trivial.

The Paul McCartney source describes the success with Tears for Fear, high tech production, lush sound, and being more synth-sounding than McCartney wanted. All of this is tied directly to the subject's work and goes beyond a passing mention of the example above (like being hired)
The Enya source is similar, describing the subject's work directly and in detail.
Then we have a variety of short coverage that go beyond just "being hired",
- We have reviews of recordings that discuss the sound in depth. Keep in mind that recording production is a creative endeavor. To discuss the sound of the album and name the producer is to review the producers work.
  - Eg. an ethereal and juiced-up orchestral concept album built around Brennan's soaring voice and crystalline harp work..... It was produced by Ross Cullum (Tori Amos, Tears For Fears, Enya) and Chris Hughes[29]
- We have discussions of the artists' career and perception amongst peers and industry
  - eg. for example, Blake opted out of recording his album with hip label stablemate Howie B after just a few days, choosing producer Ross Cullum (who has worked with Enya) instead. The album was recorded at Cullum's studio The River in London[30]
  - eg. ...they were quickly signed by Universal Classics and Jazz who enlisted Ross Cullum, the man who worked with Enya, to produce their first album,[31]
  - eg. The creation of the "classical crossover" album Journey On followed a chance meeting with Zarecki, who convinced Hawkins to fly to his homeland to record the instrumental component of the album with Polish musicians, then travel on to London to record her vocals under the direction of another producer, Ross Cullum.[32]

We don't need any original research to extract content from any of those sources. And there are indeed more similar sources we can pull from, I stopped looking when I felt I had enough to demonstrate that I could write a start class article about this subject. We can attribute where necessary to keep WP:VOICE, and the variety of sources can help avoid WP:UNDUE weight.

—siro χ o 22:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Keep - Found Quite a few references

the-paulmccartney-project

tunefind PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 04:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't references, they're a list of stuff found in a basic Google search. See Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. The only thing in that list that can be considered reliable is AllMusic, but all they have is a list of credits in which this man's name appears briefly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fail to prove WP:NM and per Karnataka ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 17:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "Keep" voters above are trying diligently and probably in good faith, but Wikipedia's rules make it tough for producers who are only listed in the credits for other people's works. That is all that can be found in any of the sources currently used in the article or proposed in this debate above. I have no doubt that Mr. Cullum has worked with many important musicians, but he has simply received no media coverage in which someone highlighted his works and career in their own right. And that's what we need for an encyclopedic article with verifiable facts for the reader's benefit. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the disagreement above, I've now also evaluated WP:PRODUCER. This individual very clearly meets WP:PRODUCER.3, playing a major role in co-creating many albums and songs:

The Hurting - [33]
Points on the Curve - [34]
Prince Charming - [35]
Watermark - [36]
Evening Falls... (single) - [37]
Orinoco Flow (single) - [38]
Under the Pink - [39]
Dance Hall Days (single) - [40]
Bajo el signo de Caín - [41]
In the Running - [42]
And several other albums and songs...

—siro χ o 19:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since he was active in the mid-80s/90s, I was convinced that I could find significant offline coverage. I was wrong -- I searched ProQuest, Newsbank, and Newspapers.com and didn't come up with much beyond what is already mentioned.

There are two very positive sentences in the LA Times about his work with Emma Townshend: (Nichols, N. (1998, Mar 22). Pop music; album review; Emma Townshend "winterland" EastWest, home edition, Los Angeles Times) and a snarky paragraph in the Washington Post about his work with Moya Brennan. (Moya Brennan, Two Horizons" [final edition]. (2004, Feb 27). The Washington Post). There's also this, from in a story about Tears for Fears in the Sun-Sentinel: "They kept producer Chris Hughes from The Hurting, but elected not to use engineer Ross Collum (sic), whose meticulousness finally caused a split between him and Hughes while working on an album by the group Wang Chung." (De Atley, R. (1985, Sep 20).No tears, no fears for British (Sun-Sentinal edition).

There's a lengthy interview here: [43] It isn't a valid source, but there is a lot of information if anyone is up for doing a more targeted search. Commenting rather than weighing in; I'm in between weak keep and weak delete. His work is influential (based on his credits), but "influential" is subjective, and there is a distinct paucity of coverage. JSFarman (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all newspapers are listed online, so there could still possibly be offline news coverage. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 August 2023 (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 14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vik Edwin Stoll

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

Failed judicial nominee that does not pass WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently basically a CV, clearly fails WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominee for a position that he did not get. No sources about him other than his nomination. Lamona (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2023 (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 14:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Halkowski

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

Failed judicial nominee that does not meet WP:GNG and has a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Delaware. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:GNG as article creator. Safiel (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nominee for a position that he did not get. No sources about him other than his nomination. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Al-Othman

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, with all sources online and in the article being either statistics or routine coverage. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found an image caption in Arriyadiyah and SA24, which is a basic contract renewal announcement, much like one of the sources already in the article. I'm not seeing how this guy is any more notable than the last time the article got deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Stone (radio personality)

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

This seems to be a WP:BLP1E - shock jock known for one shock incident. BD2412 T 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 06:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All media coverage was about the incident, not the person, and was fleeting. No media mentions since 1989, apart from a one-sentence name-drop in SFGate. Non-notable individual remembered for getting fired 34 years ago...who cares. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2023 (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 Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Perdew Silas

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a public defender and failed judicial nominee. Coverage of the subject is mainly WP:ROUTINE mentions regarding her work as a public defender. I propose this article be redirected into Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Let'srun (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem at all with this article being redirected.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. - Indefensible (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. We shouldn't try to do a redirect to a specific section there, though, as she appears in two. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MaryAnne Sapio

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lacks in depth secondary sources needed to establish notability . Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, California, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable lobbyist. This is the only source [44], she exercises at the gym. Nothing for notability. Her husband being a marine isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that would result in this person being notable. I can find various "profiles" (linkedin, professional sites, etc.) but no other info about her. Oddly, the first resource links to a news story about her husband being killed in a car accident, which isn't mentioned in the article. All rather odd. Lamona (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources required to satisfy Wikipedia requirements for "notability". Of the 141 hits found on ProQuest, most were bylines by her as VP of Fed Govt Affairs for the AANP, particularly a recurring column in The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, plus public commentary issued as press releases by the AANP where she is listed as the main media contact. There was surprisingly little about her as Miss California, except for a couple of brief quotes as a Miss America contestant – she lost $20 her first time in a casino, "Teachers are important". (Not every contestant gets quoted though, so good for her.) The best piece of coverage about her was a paragraph in Politico (2013) about her heading up the new lobbying effort by the AANP coming from the American Health Care Association; but that's all it says. Other than that, she gets two passing mentions in The Washington Post: mentioned once as one of three women who made a "beeline" for buying used pilates equipment when a fitness guru decided to downsize (link per Oaktree b above), and how much she and her spouse hold their house for. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Newspapers.com yields a total of 9 hits, 8 of which were Miss California-related mentions connected to the Miss America pageant: in addition to the two topics mentioned above, we find out she danced to the swing tune "Go Daddy O" and craves carvel ice cream and cannolis. But as it turns out, she also managed to get several paragraphs in other pieces, including a humorous anecdote about her and Miss Nebraska doing an impromptu comedy routine in the casino in Atlantic City for a reporter (Asbury Park Press) – and, most impressive, recognition for her decision to invest the scholarship money she was paid as Miss California in the stock market to pay for law school (Press of Atlantic City). Finally, there's a photo of her at a society fundraiser in South Florida Sun Sentinel. In any case, while the Miss America-related coverage does give us a better sense of her as a person, it still isn't enough for a standalone article about her as a lobbyist. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Ravindran

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

Is Innovators Under 35 sufficient for biographic notability? I'm bringing this here for discussion since I"m not sure and otherwise with the promotion and blackhat stripped, I'm not sure he's a notable businessman. NB: I suspect this was created by an untagged sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 given timing and visible & deleted history, but it's not a G5 so we're looking at this on merits only. Star Mississippi 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Star Mississippi 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, he's not notable. The Wired article referenced is a one line quote he gave while speaking at a conference. The rest is fluffy promotional coverage, Bizcrfut we'll call it. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIZCRFUT. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Charsaddian (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not established here. Okoslavia (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2023 (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 01:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Metcalfe

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. The only reference in the article does not pertain to the subject at all. A WP:BEFORE check only came up with WP:ROUTINE passing mentions from his various roles, with nothing that would pass for WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, and Alaska. Let'srun (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Even if kept, is hugely problematic with regards to sourcing from a possible BLP point of view. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment sums up the decline of Wikipedia in a nutshell. When this article was created in 2006, there were still people around who understood that the purpose of a biography is to credibly tell the story of someone's life. Nowadays, between running off many editors with common sense and gaslighting newbies who don't know any better, we've twisted things to where the intent of a biography is to mindlessly repeat whatever detritus one finds lying around through a Google search and nothing more. You should really take a good look at some of the articles created in recent years with that mindset, consisting of a random series of sentences connected solely by the presence of citations at the end. Many of them are an absolute embarrassment to read and serve little purpose other than to enforce the real-world perception of Wikipedia as a haven for the autistic. Here's the real BLP issue. As the opening paragraph states, "On July 30, 2007, Metcalfe announced his intention to run for Alaska's At-large congressional district in 2008". On August 7, 2007, the article received its only substantial improvement from a user whose only contributions to the project were those edits. Meanwhile, nearly 16 years has passed between those edits and today and people are still grasping for other things to blame? Unfknbelieveable! RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not a good look to falsely imply that the article only contains one source. I see several sources but only one properly formatted citation.

I turned them into citations so that it is easier to see what is there. I didn't make all of them complete but I think it is now possible to understand. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2) It's not a good look to say or do nothing while someone is a candidate for office, then come back well after the fact claiming they're non-notable for the same reasons that applied back when the article served as free publicity for their campaign, yet that has occurred over and over again across the encyclopedia for years.

3) It's not a good look when philosophies which worked for years on this site are changed on a whim to satisfy those pushing a starkly black-and-white view of notability. For a long time, NPOL generally referred to statewide political leaders. He qualifies in that regard as a state chair of a major political party, an office he held at the time the article was created. There's also Category:State political party chairs of Alaska and we tell people that categories reflect defining characteristics of notability. In the context of Alaska, the Anchorage School Board is a major office. Anchorage School District enrollment has comprised about five to eight percent of Alaska's entire population in recent decades. School board members in Anchorage serve areawide, which means his constituency consisted of eight times more people than a state senator. Are you telling me that's irrelevant because of whatever one-size-fits-all view Wikipedians have about particular titles? Without giving serious regard to what makes a biography a biography (as someone mentioned to you in another AFD, WP:ROUTINE has nothing to do with biographies), you turn this project into a directory of holders of titles. WP:NOTDIR is a policy, whereas the pages you refer to above are only guidelines. Last I checked, we're supposed to give more weight to something if it's a policy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metcalfe is mentioned in passing in the context of routine events, which is the point I was aiming to make, although I admit I could've made it better. The last time I saw, wikipedia is not a textbook, and if you want NPOL to include school board members, make a proposal in the appropriate channels. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing we can use for notability, as explained above. Old article, different times when it was created. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I dug up some articles and left links at Talk:Jake Metcalfe. I had to quit before I could read them all. I think any notability will come from his being a long-time political fixture in Juneau and a powerful labor leader, not a failed election campaign. A major player at the capitol from the way it looked to me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 10:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging up the articles, A. B.. I looked at all of the ones that weren't paywalled, and in each case it was a brief mention of Metcalfe in an article about someone else. There is nothing that I see that is better than the sources in the article, and those don't support GNG in my opinion. All of what we have about him is routine reporting on his time in office. I'm going with delete but will check back in case someone finds a gem. Lamona (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notification message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Melindy

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:BIO, with all sources being statistics. A BLPPROD was removed after sources were added. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Ice hockey, and Canada. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Biography fails to meet WP:GNG. The only sources are to statistical databases with do not contribute to notability. Flibirigit (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found this but that is not enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourced only to databases, plays in the low minors, fails the GNG. Beyond that, at the very least that edit summary in the article creation is pure attack, ought to be revdel'd, and the article creator ought to get a trout slap over it. Ravenswing 18:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Woodward (marketing executive)

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

The best source in this article is Associated Press: "Scott Woodward’s career has been nothing short of remarkable. With his keen eye for creativity and unwavering work ethic, Woodward has risen to the top of the advertising industry through a journey that has been both interesting and unexpected." we are told - the issue being that this is 'contributed content' - a press release. Little else exists here to demonstrate notability - passing mentions, (gushy) interviews and pieces about the brands the subject has worked with. The edit history would also appear to involve the subject's own work on this page. All in all, we clearly fail WP:GNG once we get beyond the window dressing. Even the picture was uploaded by an SPA... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Advertising, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Athletic director out in Washington State that has coverage, nothing for this fellow. Flowery language and PR stuff used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe contributions of this subject seem noteworthy. It also aligns with WP:GNG. Additionally, the account that was editing the page was tagged for vandalism and all their edits have been reverted. Please check history of the page to confirm. The sources can be improved with research but the page should be kept. Editingforgk (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, very standard professional profile. If the subject meets WP:N, delete history / TNT and allow interested editors to write an encyclopedia article in its place. —siro χ o 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this person. Possibly some COI here as well. User:Let'srun 18:20, 3 August 2023 (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 Draftify‎. Solves to the deletion !votes and because the creator is amenable and willing to do the work. Star Mississippi 02:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujawal Jha

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

Not convinced that there is enough independent coverage here to establish notability Sources read like promo pieces/advertorials. Previously draftified [45] KH-1 (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Sun piece seems iffy, feels PRish and is only half a page long; the "person" that wrote it doesn't even capitalize their name. Not sure why Nigerians are concerned about a routine individual in Nepal, but it's what it is... Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep: The signing of social worker bill into law by the Nigerian former president and Ujawal Jha offering a helping service to the country ought to be the reason he has such coverage see
reports have it that he plans to focused on developing initiatives that empower individuals to overcome challenges independently in Nigeria.
— https://thenationonlineng.net/buhari-lauded-for-signing-social-work-bill/
Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No independent sourcing. No specifics on what he's supposed to have done. All I've learnt from reading the article is that you can pay Nigerian sources considered generally reliable (by at least one of our scripts) to publish biographies with not even a pretense of objectivity. It does not help that a Nepali social worker has more coverage in Nigeria than in any other country, Nepal included. All the sources are parroting the same thing too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems new prince has born in Nigeria. nirmal (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep: It’s a decent enough page. Relevant citations and notable subject. Because it isn’t “mainstream” doesn’t mean the subject lacks credibility. Amaekuma (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not impressed by the souces I looked at. Often no byline, several referred to him as "she" so they couldn't keep his gender straight and the content was mostly vague goals he had and few details on what he has actually accomplished in his short life that might make him notable. It's great that he wants to help people and empower women but many people do and they do not have articles on Wikipedia. Also, the page creator cut and paste this article in main space so there is still an existing draft at Draft:Ujawal Jha. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, as others have noted above, standing up a Nepalese person's article with Nigerian paid puff placements is not only odd, it's pointless. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- These sources are not Nigerian, It shows he has received significant coverage outside of Nigeria [[46]] [[47]] [[48]][[49]][[50]][[51]] the article needs improvement and not deletions197.150.98.87 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Junk. First one is written by "Freelancer" and the about page says "Due to the number of articles and photographs shared by contributors, Chiang Rai Times cannot verify all the content of the articles or photographs." If there was any doubt, there is none now. The whole thing is just spam. The article creator should be blocked for UPE and all their articles summarily deleted. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Please, KH-1 can the article nominations be withdrawn and move the article to draft, so I can have enough time to work on it and summit it through AFC for approval, I would have summited the earlier one move to draft for approval but I don't know the template to put on it so it will be summited for review, please if possible help to move the article to draft let's me work on it from there.And also assist by putting the template on it so it will be easy for me to summit for review if I am able to find more sources. And I still don't have issues if the article is deleted and for me to be allowed to work on the one currently on draft but will kindly need an assistance for an editor to put the template for me to summit once I'm able to get more sources while working on it through AFC.. Thank you Fmnoble (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2023 (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. Ultimately the disagreement came down to whether the "+" in the NYT+ sources were sufficient, and it wasn't settled. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Burleson

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

Non-notable radio personality. The one NYT article is fine, but that's about all there is for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about. This person is more of a social media personality than a radio guy, and there seems to just about be enough sourcing to justify an article, including in the NYT. It's fluffy stuff, but pop culture generally is. Flip Format (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Most known for hosting Fallen Media's TikTok interview series, "What’s Poppin? With Davis!" " and consensus has been consistently that's not notability, right there. NYT, fine - although I can't access it and suspect it's an interview - but even if we count it towards WP:GNG, that's one single RS piece. Other than that, we're at Footwear News (an interview) and I'm not buying. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The NYT article is actually not an interview; it can be accessed here through the Internet Archive. While this piece is mostly an interview, the paragraph that precedes the actual interview is enough to constitute significant coverage. There's also this article, as well as this tangential coverage in Business Insider. WP:BASIC allows us to combine non-substantial coverage from reliable sources to meet notability guidelines, so I think this is already enough. Pinging Alexandermcnabb to make them aware of the NYT article. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. The NYT is all there is to be said in defence but it is an interview, albeit with a gushy intro. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tupper (physician)

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

Proposing deletion under WP:N failure. Subject is noted in sources mainly for:

being the father of Martin Farquhar Tupper and marrying into a family with notable people (WP:BIOFAMILY).
for having notable upper-class patients (WP:INVALIDBIO).
for having been offered a Baronetcy twice (both times refused). This itself indicates that perhaps the subject was notable at the time, but there doesn't seem to be any information out there to back that up, other than him being a well-regarded doctor. At least one of those times it sounds like he was a backup choice: "Dr Tupper had twice refused a baronetcy. In 1817 he had been offered by his friend Lord Liverpool the reversion of a baronetcy refused by his brother, Peter Carey Tupper (who had distinguished himself as British consul at Valencia and Barcelona). This he declined because he was the junior partner in his medical firm and did not wish to provoke jealousies among his seniors. In 1829 the Duke of Wellington renewed the offer in regard to Dr Tupper's own services, which had by then placed him at the head of his profession. Again the honour was refused, apparently because the doctor doubted whether the family fortune was sufficient to sustain it, and felt that the arrangement might be detrimental to his four younger sons." Hudson (1949), p. 53
for being a member of significant societies: but Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS.

Currently the article sources are mainly primary or relate to his son, in which Dr Tupper is only mentioned in passing. His son's main biography and autobiography don't contain anything that indicates Dr Tupper was particularly notable. It doesn't help that his famous son is also called Martin, but I haven't managed to find anything else.

References

Hudson, Derek (1949). Martin Tupper: His Rise and Fall. London: Constable. p. 53. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Medicine. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His son wrote about him [52], not sure how that affects notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's the autobiography I mentioned, there are only passing references in there from what I've seen. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Fellow of the Royal Society clearly qualifies per WP:ANYBIO #1. Wikipedia certainly doesn't have a biography of everyone who was ever an FRS or FGS. No, but it probably eventually will have (being as Wikipedia is a work in progress). I don't recall any FRS ever being deleted at AfD. It's the most prestigious learned society in the United Kingdom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing this submission. Being an FRS certainly counts as an honour, but as per those guidelines, it doesn't guarantee that the person actually is notable. I think the lack of any other sources speaks to a lack of notability, and that being an FRS is not in itself notable.

His page on the Royal Society doesn't show anything: no associated archives, activity, or sources. Even his nomination doesn't name anything:

Martin Tupper Esqre FGS residing at No5 New Burlington Street, a gentleman much attached to Science, and particularly to Chemical Science, being desirous of becoming a Fellow of the Royal Society, we the undersigned do, from our personal Knowledge, believe him to be highly worthy of that Honor
Garnet-Septagon (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fellow of the Royal Society? He's in... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, FRS is enough on its own, but one has to remember that in the 18th C, those who were developing science were a small and intimate circle, of which this gentleman is an acknowledged member, accepted into a very select group by his peers who were laying the foundations of modern knowledge.[53] He wasn't Humphry Davy, but it is quite correct that we should record who he was, as secondary sources have done. Elemimele (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2023 (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. to Merge to User:BD2412's new article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Arguelles

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. Failed nominees for federal judgeships are not inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But article will need a rework for BLP issues, as it's not focused on notability right now. I see quite a bit of independent secondary coverage of the subject's judicial opinions and aspects of their background eg [54][55][56][57], and much more. —siro χ o 01:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the same reasons mentioned above.

~~MIAJudges (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider User:BD2412's proposal. Unfortunately, article has not been created yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If my proposal is accepted, I'll create the article. It shouldn't take long. BD2412 T 00:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I closed another AFD based on your proposal, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirk B. Paloutzian) but, to be honest, all of these judicial AFDs are running together in my memory. I had no idea there were so many judges on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, and the additional sources presented don't really cover him - they're all about the state's governor. Non-notable judicial nominee. SportingFlyer T·C 12:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not much feedback on BD2412's proposal so I guess this discussion will have to close based on the response of participants alone.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal of BD2412 - that sounds like a good idea to me. I'd be happy to help on that article; if it is created, please let me know on my talk page. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2023 (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. But content can be Merged to User:BD2412's new article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Richmond

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

Is not notable under WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (retracting !vote due to below sourcing which I cannot access) Comment. (Updated !vote: Weak keep based on judicial nom + local coverage below for BIO.) Aside from the fact of the nomination, coverage all seems to be statements from the subject, not secondary/independent sigcov. The only secondary source I found, presuming it even is this subject, is this reference to an interview [58]. ~~Possibly meets BLP1E as exclusionary, but doesn't meet BASIC/GNG either.~~ —siro χ o 00:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo: Go to WP:LIBRARY and after clicking on the Database access link, scroll down to the ProQuest link. APK whisper in my ear 06:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I have successfully parts of the Wikipedia library before but didn't realize you could access ProQuest like that! —siro χ o 06:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. Besides the sources mentioning his nomination, I found this article covering Richmond's philanthropy and this article where the local lawyer's association gave him a Lifetime Service Award. APK whisper in my ear 05:51, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable WP:BLP1E for his failed judicial nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable BLP. I've done some research and can possibly see why his nomination to district court failed. He's an attorney aged 63-64. This source repeats what others sources say. He has "tried over 15 cases" and "argued 17 appeals" Lower down in the same source it says, "he argued 14 appeals".("Rick Richmond at Republican National Lawyers Association". Republican National Lawyers Association.) That's not much for an attorney of that age. Neither this source, nor others, say his cases were successful. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: Merge with others in this group into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. BD2412 T 04:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth J. Drake

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Let'srun (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to meet BLP1E. —siro χ o 01:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge content per below proposal As the article creator, delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Safiel (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process and why the nomination ultimately failed. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect as well. —siro χ o 19:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So hold on, now we're listing expired nominations in a judicial controversy article? Why? What about Drake is/was controversial? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a fair point. I withdraw that proposal for this article. Let'srun (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there was another discussion started about changing the titles of that series of articles Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What "controversies"? to better reflect their content and intent. —siro χ o 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be good with this proposal. Safiel (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the midst of proposals and counter proposals as consensus is far from clear and each AFD in this subject area is being closed differently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a nominee but not an actual judge. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamin Manneh

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

I created this bio, however on reflection I don't think it makes the cut. Diplomats are not inherently notable and the routine coverage here likely fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Rwanda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG - diplomats are not inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are multiple prominent people in Gambia with this name. I suggest searching for "Lamin Manneh"+"United Nations"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to William Robertson Coe. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Augustus Coe

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

Only notable through his son. Google and perplexity.ai have nothing. Wire723 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Robertson Coe. No BLP issues to consider. —siro χ o 22:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability found. Zero. Thus, there is also no justification to merge the subject to a notable bio just because the subjects are related. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to justify the merge. There is information in this article that is useful to a biography of William Robertson Coe, like details about that article's subject's immigration (ship, destination, where subject settled, etc). This is essentially a good faith WP:CONTENTFORK (a semi-WP:REDUNDANTFORK) and should be merged into the correct article. I volunteer to handle the merge if that is the consensus. —siro χ o 20:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a reasonable WP:ATD. This is a possible search term and verified information can well be placed in the son's article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2023 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moravsky

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

Non-notable obstacle course racer. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's lots of coverage on this guy through Google News - https://www.google.com/search?q=Joe+Moravsky&client=firefox-b-1-d&tbm=nws&ei=DBqwZOr2Ieyi5NoP7aSsiAI&start=20&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjqrOjLgYyAAxVsEVkFHW0SCyE4ChDw0wN6BAgEEBk&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KatoKungLee stands correct. Even if we discount "American Ninja Warrior Nation" to the fullest extent, the subject would still pass the GNG per sources identified. The article does need improvements, for example in keeping personal and career apart. Yet AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm reluctant to keep an article based on a link to a Google search results page. Have you found any reliable sources you can link to to demonstrate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 August 2023 (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 Windsor Beauties#List of Beauties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hon. Frances Brooke

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Seems mostly known for being related to other people. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom - the 'notability' seems to be inherited through subject's relatives Karnataka (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windsor Beauties#List of Beauties - I have not been able to find any significant coverage apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Her main claim to notability seems to be her Windsor Beauties portrait, so it would be an apt target for redirection. Some minor additional info about her may be added as long as it is within scope there and sourced. ~UN6892 ^t_c 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, otherwise redirect to Windsor Beauties#List of Beauties per Username6892. I'm not familiar with The Fair Ladies of Hampton Court but it was at least published by a major publisher (Little, Brown & Co.) and gives the appearance of representing fairly thorough and sober research. It devotes five pages to a biography of Brooke, which seems like very substantial coverage to me. And then there's this approximately one-page note in Notes and Queries by William Francis Prideaux, a biographical researcher of some note in his day. Add in the lesser coverage to be found here and there and I think there's a reasonable amount of encyclopedic material to work with. (And to the extent this might still be a borderline case under NBASIC, while Dryden is certainly not a reliable source, such an indicator of contemporary significance should IMO weigh somewhat in favor of an article.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got a keep, a redirect, and a delete... relisting for more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Berger (cinematographer)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is one possible source Marineland. There is also a mention in White Zombie: Anatomy of a Horror Film. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a second go around
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of mentions in books, but nothing in-depth to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, including the sources from SailingInABathTub above. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:56, 25 July 2023 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BoND

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

Sources exist that prove this business entity is in existence in New York, United States. Existence is not notability. Based on my evaluation of WP:NCORP, the sources present do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH.

Shortly after I PROD the article, someone objected it and dropped a NY Times aticle, as an external link. The Hunt is a column in which NY Times is acting in the capacity of a local paper covering house search in NY and the newly added article fails to provide any coverage of BoND as a business. per WP:INHERITORG, coverage on the proprietors do not permeate into their company even if they are individually notable for reasons other than the company in question. Graywalls (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Graywalls (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment searches for "BoND" generate a thousands of extraneous hits for "bond". I suggest searching using "Noam Dvir" +"Daniel Rauchwerger", the two partners. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage in the world about one of them individually, or about the pair have very little weight to establish notability for the legal entity; unless significant, in depth, independent coverage and analysis of them with relation to the company they've established, or about the company itself can be found. One has to be broadly circulated. Their house hunting endeavor in their personal life covered in The Hunt column of the New York Times acting in their agency as a local paper don't have any notability weight. The only thing that article did is to be a reliable source that the two men were correspondents for the Haaretz paper at one point. So, it is reliable source to verify that, but not to establish a grain of notability for their company. Graywalls (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BoND is a two-man design firm. It could just have easily been named "Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger" - we have these sorts of BLPs that cover two closely-connected people together. I think we're wrong to focus on the "legal entity" alone. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified Peoplelikeyoulikeme, the article's creator --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources I found online; I'm sure there are more out there; these 2 men are prominent:

General:
Baird-Remba, Rebecca (2 February 2021). "How Two Israeli Newspaper Reporters Started Their Own Architecture Firm". Commercial Observer. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Reviews of their work:
Reginato, Noni (20 April 2023). "This tranquil New York loft was designed around a striking art collection". Vogue. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Howarth, Dan (8 April 2023). "BoND uses pink scaffolding at New York "embassy" for fashion brand PatBo". Dezeen. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Niland, Josh (16 December 2021). "BoND's new Company Gallery space offers a unique showcase for Queer artists and for themselves". Archinect. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

De Conti, Massimo. "Due architetti e un bilocale a New York trasformato nella casa dei sogni". Corriere della Sera. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Yerebakan, Osman Can (5 January 2022). "BoND Designs Company Gallery's New Lower East Side Location". Interior Design. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Goodman, Wendy (15 March 2021). "How This 1856 Chelsea Parlor-Floor Apartment Got Its Glamour Back". Curbed. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

"Two Architects Bring the Glamour back to their 1856 Chelsea Apartment". Yellowtrace. 3 August 2021. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Howarth, Dan (28 April 2018). "BoND turns dark, divided Chelsea apartment into light-filled home". Dezeen. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Gibson, Eleanor (26 July 2020). "New York hair salon Hawthorne Studio is designed for social distancing". Dezeen. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Quigley, Annie (22 May 2023). "Beneath the Surface: A Railroad Apartment in Manhattan with a Surprising Amount of Storage". The Organized Home. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Quigley, Annie (21 October 2019). "Urban Oasis: A Stone Orchard House in Tel Aviv, Redone by Two Architects". Remodelista. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, here's the link to that New York Times article mentioned above:
Cohen, Joyce (29 June 2017). "For Building Designers, a Customized Apartment". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

Personally, I think it's more relevant than Graywalls says but I suggest others take a look and decide for themselves.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The said reference was already present as a source in the article when I stumbled upon it and I don't see the justification why a duplicate was copied into "further reading". This is in The Hunt column section of the NYT which you can see at https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-hunt which solicits people to contact them about their recent home purchase. The select few chosen gets in depth coverage about their home purchase. In the case of these two men, it was about their personal purchase. The article does not touch about the business they own. Any amount of notability the pair accumulated do not pass through to their business. This is made clear by inherited notability guideline which says ownership by notable people do not bestow notability into the business. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:ARCHITECT item 3:
” The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)”

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you're quoting is not relevant here, because this article is about their company. Similarly, bands or band members qualify through WP:NBAND, architects through WP:ARCHITECT. Architectural firms, recording companies are evaluated through WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few more. Some links are to Google translations into English. Starting to look sorta famous in interior design circles:

Beath, Joe; Price, Elizabeth (19 October 2021). "Chelsea Apartment". Never Too Small: Reimagining Small Space Living. Smith Street Books. pp. 113–119. ISBN 9781922754929. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Zamora, Francesc (16 February 2021). 150 of the Best Apartment Ideas. Harper Collins. ISBN 9780063018884. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Johnston, Georgina (29 January 2021). "New York's socially distanced hair salon solution". World Architecture News. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Baird-Remba, Rebecca (1 December 2020). "Swiss Energy Company Axpo Gets Minimalist Midtown Office". Commercial Observer. Retrieved 10 July 2023.
"A Sense of Airiness Defines PatBO's New York Showroom, and Other News". Surface. 11 April 2023. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (1 December 2020). "Axpo Holding AG US Headquarters / BoND". ArchDaily. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (7 December 2020). "Hair Salon in New York / BoND". ArchDaily. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Bajić, Lorena Majcen (18 May 2023). "Ostavlja bez daha: Evo kako je Liza Tedeschi dizajnirala milijunašev stan u New Yorku". ("It leaves you breathless: Here's how Liza Tedeschi designed a millionaire's apartment in New York"). tportal.hr. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Queiroz, Luiza (3 August 2020). "Este salão de beleza em Nova York foi desenhado para manter o distanciamento social". ("This beauty salon in New York was designed to maintain social distancing"). globo.com (Brazil). Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Talawadekar, Vaishnavi Nayel (27 October 2022). "Step Inside This 470-Square-Foot Cozy Chelsea Studio: BoND infused the 1920s NYC rental with queer cheer". Architectural Digest. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Mahmud, Nurul Husna (31 July 2020). "Tata rias jarak selamat". ("Safe distance cosmetology"). Harian Metro (Malaysia). Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Gonzalez, Maria Francisca (20 December 2018). "Chelsea Apartment / BoND". ArchDaily. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Hunt, Grace Beuley (27 January 2022). "The Design Couple Shaping New Visions Of Home—For All". Luxe Interiors + Design Magazine. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
"At architects". Label Magazine (Poland). 27 May 2021. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Mather, Lindsey (6 September 2017). "You Won't Believe This 550-Square-Foot Apartment Remodel Was Done on the Cheap". Vogue. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Reggev, Kate (21 June 2018). "Vivid Accent Colors Turn This Tiny Abode Into a Dreamy Oasis". Dwell. Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Testoni, Paola (10 July 2018). "Buio e Frammentato, questo Appartamento di West Chelsea diventa un Open Space Luminoso". ("Dark and Fragmented, this West Chelsea Apartment becomes a Bright Open Space"). Elle Decor (Italy). Retrieved 11 July 2023.
Salerno, Rita (28 December 2018). "Best of 2018: 10 Modi di Intendere la Parola Restyling". ("Best of 2018: 10 Ways to Understand the Word Restyling: The top ten most viewed renovation projects in 2018"). Elle Decor (Italy). Retrieved 11 July 2023.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you name the two or three out of those that you would suggest for the purpose of establishing business notability so other editors are not burdened with having to go through every single one of them? This is often a significant hardship in deletion discussion in people, product and company articles. Those authored by the same journalist, or from same publication counts as one. Those based on interviews with company personnel or press releases do not pass. WP:ORGIND Graywalls (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping Wikipedia clear of unsourced articles. However, I think you're overly focused on establishing notability as a business independent of the married couple that are the business: Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger. There's just two people. BoND is short for "Bureau of Noam & Daniel"

There are no articles that are only about "BoND", a company.

Should we just rename the article "Noam Dvir and Daniel Rauchwerger", turning it into a people article? They've gotten coverage in multiple countries. Also, in their pre-BoND period, they did some noteworthy stuff at Harvard.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can certainly chronicle their journey into forming the company in the background or history section; but those do not contribute towards notability. This article is about their architectural firm, a company. The proprietors chose to play off their names but coverage about them as individuals do not credit towards the business. In Wikipedia, a tuning shop owned by a renowned former race car driver can not piggy back notability off coverage that is not significant about the shop. It does not matter what how the business is named. If the coverage is not for the business, it does not count towards notability. We need CORPDEPTH and AUD passing coverage on the BoND, not about their proprietors outside of the article subject business. Graywalls (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the above discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The standard to be met here is NCORP so standard notability is irrelevant. Please can we refocus on that and identify the sources that meet the standard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just randomly selected three articles from the above (picked the clearly international ones) that don't pass WP:NCORP, but there's also a lot of press - what are the best WP:THREE articles please? SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 26 July 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Eskandari

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

NN pilot. Article had significant promo issues, but author requested AFD. Removed promo material. Unable to determine validity of claims. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides confirmation of him flying, the sources don't prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. I believe that original creator doesn't understand notability as this is one of a number of their articles that has come to AFD recently. Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are wrong--Patricia (Talk) 12:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep Actually appears to pass WP:GNG even with the sources in the article. 2 sources add--Patricia (Talk) 12:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added two more - British sources in English fwiw. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added by @Phil Bridger. Okoslavia (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like we may have a case of WP:HEY; in addition to seeking further editors' input, editors who have argued for deletion are invited to reaffirm or revise their !votes in response to the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to say keep on the basis that there appear to be Persian references that support the idea that he is/was a prominent Iranian aviator and that this would be enough to show inclusion if he had a different nationality. That said, some more tidying is necessary to ensure a neutral tone. JMWt (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Rosguill said.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This article sources doesn't prove WP:GNG and WP:V also. ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 04:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see the Persian (Farsi) article for more potential refs: fa:محمود اسکندری.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

these refs are good enough--Patricia (Talk) 13:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::added two refs: in english:no:3:here and no.4 here--Patricia (Talk) 11:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Pellett

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality and public transit announcer voice, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be reliably sourced as the subject of coverage and analysis about their work to independently validate its significance -- but this essentially just states that he's had jobs, and is referenced solely to his staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-building source as it doesn't represent independent attention being paid to his work by people without a vested interest in it. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted an actual, you know, rationale, 'Stand clear of the doors please' is really, really not the stuff of WP:GNG. As a Bloomberg anchor, there is no presumed notability and none in RS presented (or evident with a BEFORE) regarding the subject. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Epicgenius, siro and Oaktree b are wise. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that (that it's not the stuff of GNG)? I remember a big fuss being made in the media a few years ago when the person who voiced the "mind the gap" message on the London Underground retired or died or something. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to New Technology Train. I conducted a BEFORE search and only found a few sources about him. They all seem to be related to his announcements for New York City Transit, which are already covered in the NTT article. Besides that, Pellett unfortunately has no standalone notability. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems ok to me Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to New Technology Train#Recorded announcements seems best for the encyclopedia. —siro χ o 19:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many reliable sources starting with this one. NYC Guru (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That source actually talks primarily about a different announcer, Bernie Wagenblast. As far as I can see, the source only mentions Pellett once, so it isn't significant coverage of him. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not seeing any policy-based rationale for deletion here, and nom doesn't seem to have done even a perfunctory WP:BEFORE. We have at least the following: 106 words (excluding quote) in The New Yorker, approximately 300 words (excluding quotes from subject) in The New York Post ("no consensus" on RSP), over 1000 words with significant biographical content in Straus News, 107 words on Vox (not independent of New Yorker piece). I would also note substantial portions of this 4-minute news clip (I think this might have been what NYC Guru meant to link to above?) from NBC New York, which is probably not GNG material but certainly helps to show that the article subject is WP:WELLKNOWN for BLP purposes. I would assume there are more as that's just when I got tired of searching. This seems to meet the GNG threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, where "significant coverage" requires that no original research is needed to extract the content. And while these sources mostly aren't optimal for article-building, there are plenty of non-independent sources to fill in non-controversial biographical information. -- Visviva (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the NY Post, its RSP entry states that there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics..., but it excepts sports reporting. My reading is that in this case, as it's neither politics or sports reporting, it is still generally unreliable. Hence, unless I am missing something, I'm not sure where you got that there's "no consensus" on RSP. (However, I have no strong opinion on the NY Press source and am not making a !vote now.) Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still caught between Redirect and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sourcing is there to support this WP:BLP - the New Yorker coverage isn't really significant and the best feature story is a neighbourhood newspaper. SportingFlyer T·C 19:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated my above !vote from just redirect to keep or redirect. I'm fine with either option. —siro χ o 20:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the reliable print sources that have been added in the past week (which are enough right there), there are also a number of media occurrences, including video clips from Conan O’Brien and The New Yorker.LingLass (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justification to delete speaks about the article being sourced only to something written by his employer. But searches indicate there is news reporting about his voice work, which is described as one of the most famous voices in New York. Independent reporting about his work is what the nominator said was needed. I think arguably, he meets WP:CREATIVE criterion 4c, but less arguably the justification to delete is incorrect, a searches as per WP:BEFORE identify more sources than are discussed in the nomination.

CT55555(talk) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the subject meets WP:Notability. Let's analyze these three sources and see if they meet the GNG. Here is a source assessment table:

Source assessment table prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker	Independent media.	New Yorker meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
ABC	Independent media.	ABC meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
CBS	Independent media.	CBS meets journalistic standards	Enough to be significant.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sure, we said "last relist" once already, but that was before new sources were unexpectedly presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think the CBS source has significant coverage as a passing mention, but I agree that the other two sources count toward GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Significant for sure. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2023 (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. Sandstein 10:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yadollah Khalili

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

NN pilot. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually appears to pass WP:GNG even with the sources in the article. Probably more Farsi-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly meet WP:GNG--Patricia (Talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is atrocious - the newspaper article in Donya e Eqtesad barely mentions Khalili (in a long eulogy to various fighter aces, titled 'Myths of Iranian Skies' - it merely notes "One of the best F-14s, participating in long air patrols, many times single-handedly drove away several enemy MiGs", while other pilots get paragraphs devoted to them. The aerospace talk link seems to be a forum but is in fact a broken link. The other source, rahrovan-artesh, is based on a blog and recounts his exploits in prose that makes GA Henty seem like Enid Blyton. In short, we have no RS-based factual evidence (and I note the claims in the article are not cited) regarding any record as a fighter ace and on that basis, unless someone can find reliable sources in Persian (and I note the Persian article is the same text as the English and same sources), Imma go delete. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is artrocious?! i dont think so. use this word: Artrocious, its not fair.--Patricia (Talk) 13:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. Oaktree b (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: add another source blonge to pakistan air force about subject:IRIAF badass airaces--Patricia (Talk) 13:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow, @Patricia Mannerheim... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see source no:1--Patricia (Talk) 15:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added another refrenc. Now it's no.2. The ref is in English. Actually appears to pass WP:GNG.--Patricia (Talk) 15:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Not seeing enough in terms of solid secondary RS. Intothat darkness 19:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

added one ref: Cooper, Tom; Bishop, Farzad (2004), Holmes, Tony; Hales-Dutton, Bruce (eds.), Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat, Osprey Combat Aircraft, vol. 49, Oxford: Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1-84176-787-5.--Patricia (Talk) 15:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an Iranian ace deserves an article. But the refs just aren't there.
- First, I checked the book, Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat. I don't have it so I went to amazon. When I use amazon.com's look inside feature and search for Yadollah Khalili, I come up with nothing. Then I look at the index and see why: the book only lists aircrew for a small fraction of the total F-14 victories.
- "IRIAF badass airaces". Pakistan Defence - mentions Khalili once in passing
- "Memories of the Greatest Air Fight in the World". Oral History. - good enough for me to believe, but not enough for our rules
- مستند نبردهای تامکت پخش شده از شبکه یک صدا و سیما جمهوری اسلامی ایران. No link, no description
- "اسطوره‌های آسمان‌های ایران". روزنامه دنیای اقتصاد in my browser's very sketchy translation doesn't seem like it's about Khalili or aircraft
- ماجرای ثبت طولانی ترین گشت هوایی رزمی جهان. - عملیات ها و دستاوردهای نهاجا در جنگ - رهروان ارتش - links to a message board - not a reliable source
- قهرمانان نیروی هوایی - صفحه ". www.aerospacetalk.ir -- My browser couldn't find that domain.
  - Note that the URL is: www.aerospacetalk.ir/vb/showthread.php?t=23519&page=7
    - If it's to a discussion thread, it would not meet our requirements.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:24, 8 August 2023 (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 11:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Dashtizadeh

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

NN pilot. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the two linked sources in the article are passing mentions. However, it would be reasonably likely to find sigcov in a non-digital Farsi source. —siro χ o 10:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally kept articles on flying aces, who are likely to have reasonable coverage in non-digital sources (in Farsi, as Siroxo says). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I Do added another source (digital english source):source no.2/ articles on flying aces are kept as allways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricia Mannerheim (talk • contribs) 12:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence the gentleman was a flying ace. Searcing the first ('Razoux 2015' is hardly helpful) and third source for the subject returns no result The second source, a Pakistani blog, gives a passing mention of the subject sourced to the Wikipedia list of Iranian flying aces article which itself is sourced to our friend M. Razoux. The fourth source is a bunch of old photos of pilots in which the subject is merely named in a group caption. The fifth, Mehr News Agency, source does not mention the subject. So in total, we have here a whole bunch of precisely nothing and it needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see these: Razoux, Pierre (2019), Le siècle des As (1915-1988): Une autre histoire de l'aviation (in French), Place des éditeurs, ISBN 978-2-262-04827-3. and Razoux 2015, Table 1.3: Victories by Iranian pilots (3 or more victories), p. 571.--Patricia (Talk) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Also there is no policy that aces are automatically notable, rather becoming an ace usually brings significant coverage which then satisfies GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sourcing. Other then a mention in the chart in the book above, nothing found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inherent notability in being a flying ace. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's interesting that if this ace was British or American (or even German) we'd have a flood of keep votes and it wouldn't have a chance of being deleted. Consensus in the past has clearly been to keep flying aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my point above, there is no evidence the gentleman was a flying ace... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks inherent notability as a flying ace, and without proper sourcing, it fails to meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:BIO. SaurabhSaha 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp

Agree. thats the point u mention.--Patricia (Talk) 14:00, 28 July 2023 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno PlayHard

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

YouTuber, Twitch streamer. Nominated for an esports Brazil award, didn't win it. Not notable, fails WP:GNG - coverage owned media, self-fulfilling platforms or passing mentions in gamer titles. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Websites, and Brazil. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't create the article here, but I'm the original creator on ptwiki. It clearly meets WP:GNG with presence of significant coverage on [59] [60] [61]. Plus, he appeared on Forbes Brasil's 30 Under 30. Skyshifter ^talk 23:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only one keep !vote I'd like a little more input before closing one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources above are either interviews or passing mentions. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Loud (esports), though I would weakly support for deletion. There is enough for me to say that he passes GNG. That is, there seems to be enough interest in the Brazilian media from the refs in the article (WP:THREE: 1 2 3). They're not all great, but they demonstrate to me some notability. SWinxy (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2023 (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. At this point there's no consensus that I can see. No prejudice to a renomination in, say, a month from now if there's no clear improvement. Randykitty (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaya Alnasser

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

Hello all,

First: The article does not meet the criteria for personalities, there are no real achievements, and it is clear that the article was created for promotional purposes only.

Second: The article was deleted four times from the Arabic Wikipedia, and whoever created this article was banned due to vandalism and published the article over and over again.

Obviously, this article is for promotional purposes only. Osps7 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Osps7 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally disagree with you. Actually it meets the criteria for personalities, She is famous, has real achievements, popular in her country. Always appear in TV shows. She got several prizes. She is very well known business women. Google her name in Arabic (سمية الناصر) you will find many trusted sources. Mazin suliman (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I reviewed the Arabic version of this article which was deleted by you.

First of all: the Arabic version was direct translation of the English version. It is not new article. The translation took place after the English version was published.

Second: The user was not banned. You got in conflict with him. As result you came here to English Wikipedi and ask for deletion of this article to force your opinion which is not fair.

Again, the article meet meet the criteria for personalities. She got several achievements and got many international prizes. She is famous and popular. Mazin suliman (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of coverage. Other than CNN, rest are non-RS or promo. I only find two hits in Gnews, neither of which seems like much. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oaktree,

Thank you so much for your replay. regarding the coverage, I can mention more than 100 trusted sources.

Here are examples:

Forbes Middle east listed her among the top 100 influential women in middle east: see here name listed in #98

[62]Forbes Middle east

Also, English Vogue and Arabic Vogue talked about her

Other popral trusted sources: Mille , ELLE, harpersbazaararabia. Haya, abouther Hia, popsugar, Youm7 , Okaz (government newspaper), Sayidaty, al-madina (government newspaper) , gheir, foochia, almarsal, hayatouki., healthmagazine, all of these magazines, websites, newspapers talked about. I can add more if you want.

Kindly, take into account the following topic Women's rights in Saudi Arabia which may create many challenges. Mazin suliman (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Oaktree b, I improved and edited the article by adding more reliable sources. I hope this addressed your conncrns. Thank you for your comments. Mazin suliman (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the personal squabbles to yourselves, we're here to review the article on the quality of the sources. The rest is immaterial. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank you so much. Mazin suliman (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with the comment that "Famous and popular =/= Being Notable on Wikipedia"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've gone through the article and according to my knowledge it meets the notability guidelines for WP:BLP and criteria for WP:Notability (people). As per the research, the subject has many credible citations and mentions on notable platforms, newspapers, and media outlets. Therefore, it can be improved and made better in future.

I think the below source is not merely a passing mention and can be used:

The National News

The below link also clarifies the fact that she was among the top 100 influential women in middle east. Furthermore, I think the source is quite reliable as well.

Gulf News

Moreover, I've removed the amazon book listing link the article had. --Leojuan (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The listed sources do not have any international reference, and I suspect that they are paid news.

Also, the discussion is to delete the article, not to gather votes!! Osps7 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Osps7. I guess you're mistaken here. You should have gone with UDP (Undisclosed paid) tag, and not deletion right away. You've opened a deletion/discussion log for this article, which makes clear sense to me that it needs suggestions/votes to either keep it or remove it. Coming back to the fact where you mentioned that the listed sources do not have any international reference. Can you elaborate on that? Gulf News is considered to be an international source to my knowledge. Maybe I'm wrong here. But it still doesn't make any sense to open a deletion page and not taking suggestions for keeping or deleting the article. Thank you! Leojuan (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The articles from The National (Abu Dhabi) (1) and Arab News (2)look okay to me (although they seem quite promotional), but I don't see much other significant coverage. Other editors should assess if those sources are sufficiently independent and reliable to constitute WP:SIGCOV. Suriname0 (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems we have basic here. Okoslavia (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to hear from some experienced editors. I'll admit I'm skeptical of "lifestyle coaches" no matter what their nationality. Coaching is an interpersonal activity and it's hard to demonstrate notability in it. I also wonder how she could have possibly, at 41 years of age, trained 200,000 people...that's a small country! So while there is a rough consensus to Keep, I'm skeptical enough about the claims of the article to warrant a third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on searching the title of the Arab News source "Peace without Borders announces first Saudi peace ambassador", this appears primarily based on a press release, which includes the extraordinary claim, "She has trained more than 200 thousand people". Beccaynr (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Liz, I share your skepticism about 200,000 trainees. I've spent 2 hours on refs. Sadly, I went through all the chaff before finding the reliable stuff. Ms. Alnasser, to a certain extent is famous for being famous in the Middle East. Also, from reading the local news coverage in translation, some of her fame is the novelty of her messages (such as self-care for women) in Saudi Arabia - stuff that seems self-evident in other cultures. She is also a great self-promoter.
Looking at the sources:
- - Vogue, Mille, Hia are interviews. See Wikipedia:Interviews.
  - Harper's Bazaar article appears to be written by Sumaya Alnasser
  - Haya-online.com is used as a ref in only one article.[63]
  - AboutHer.com is owned by Saudi Research and Media Group. We use it as a ref on 50+ articles.[64] The article is bylined and gushy.
  - PopSugar is an article/interview hybrid.
  - youm7.com is very brief
  - The foochia.com article is too short. It's fluffy. Only 5 articles use that site as a ref. Similar issues are with refs to gheir.com (3 article use that site) and healthmagazine.ae (3 article use that site).
  - "Peace without borders" is a 3-word phrase that shows up many times. The organization mentioned in the article seems non-notable. The domain pwbparis.org no longer works; here is Archive.org's history
    The Kawa, Okaz, Gulf Daily News, almrsal.com articles are brief articles about Sumaya Alnasser winning their award or being named a peace ambassador.
  - The hayatouki.com link didn't work.
  - The Forbes Middle East article ranks Sumaya Alnasser 98th on the list of 100.
(Warning, my web translator did a very poor job with this article- another honoree's name was translated from Arabic as "Orgasm of the Runes")
- - See WP:FORBES. This is probably a reliable list.
    
    The Sayidaty article is about the Forbes list. Ms. Alnasser gets a sentence.
    
    The Gulf News article gives less than a sentence.
  - The National (Abu Dhabi) article is a solid in-depth profile.
The Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity seems like a legit honor (compared to 98th on the Forbes list and the mythical Peace without borders honor)

Here is the Arab Wikipedia deletion log.(Google translated version) Interestingly, one of the deleted articles was created by a now globally banned admin with 200,000+ edits. Looking for a paid editor for your bio - go for the top guy!

Conclusion: String together the solid The National (Abu Dhabi) article, the non-interview part of the PopSugar article + maybe a few pieces of other stuff (carefully selected) and I find marginal notability. That said, I won't cry if Liz deletes this.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Content substantially similar to the press release also appears in the 2018 source by The National (Abu Dhabi): Saudi life coach Sumayah Alnasser: 'The more I meditated, the more I noticed everything improving', including a "more than 200,000 clients around the world" claim. The National source is largely based on her statements and has a focus on promoting her meditation CD The Back Door - the writer does not provide their own secondary commentary about the CD. The 2018 Vogue interview The First Female Saudi Life Coach on Her Top Tips for Success says she "delivers courses in Arabic to thousands of clients worldwide," and offers several "quick-fire tips" (quotes) from Al-Nasser, and promotes The Back Door at the end of the interview. The 2018 Health Magazine source noted above, "The Path to Loving Yourself – Renowned Saudi Life Coach, Dr. Sumaya Alnasser on Cultivating Self-Relationship" is a press release; the Gulf News source noted above UAE expats among 100 most Influential women in Middle East is reporting on a Forbes list and the presence of some expats on the list for the first time - Al-Nasser is only briefly mentioned in a reprinting of the full Forbes list of 100 most influential women in the Middle East: "98. Sumaya Al-Nasser, Founder, Sumaya 369". Beccaynr (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be sufficient support available for WP:BASIC notability at this time, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. In my comments above, I identified sources that appear to draw on press release content and/or are based on interviews, and/or otherwise lack secondary context or commentary to help support notability. Other sources include a 2018 Pop Sugar interview You're Meditating Wrong, According to This Saudi Life Coach which includes a quote of what she "previously said" and quotes from what she says, followed by "five steps to getting started" with meditation that are not clearly attributed to her. I think reporting on the Forbes list can help show its significance; an Al Riyadh (newspaper) source was added to the article (Google translated: "Six Saudi women are on the Forbes list of the most influential women in the Middle East") and states (translated), "As for the last Saudi woman in the Forbes list, Sumaya Al-Nasser, the founder of the “Sumaya 369” company specialized in the consulting sector, ranked 98 in the classification.") However, an Argaam source, titled 6 Saudi women on Forbes most influential list repeats the "has trained more than 200,000 people" press release claim in its blurb about her. The Forbes list itself says (Google translated): "Founder, Sumaya 369, consulting sector, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia". And as noted above, there are various sources briefly reporting announcements, e.g. Okaz about the 2018 Peace Without Borders peace ambassador with a brief general blurb about her work; Al Madina (newspaper), reporting (Google translated) "The Prince of Al-Sharqiya honors 20 Saudi winners of the Sayidaty Award for Excellence and Creativity"; she is listed as one of two honored in the humanitarian and social work category. In the 2019 CNN interview source, (Google translated), there is "the presenter’s astonishment that she holds a doctorate in interpretation and the sciences of the Qur’an and is not veiled" reported, which seems more substantial than interviews promoting her CD or offering tips on success or meditation, etc. While she appears to have some independent recognition, most sources appear promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, or the secondary context or commentary needed to support notability and help develop a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beccaynr, Your assessment is different from mine, so the admin should probably look at the two I noted and decide for themselves.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the policy reasons supporting my !vote: I used a search method that can be helpful for identifying advertisements masquerading as articles, i.e. finding press release content incorporated into other sources, particularly in sources with other signs of promotion, such as The National, with its reliance on her statements and lack of independent secondary commentary on her work, while other sources, such as Vogue and Al Riyadh, do not repeat the extraordinary claim also made by the press release.
Our notability guideline has two prongs - first, whether there is support for GNG or its functional equivalent - there do not appear to be sufficient independent, reliable, and secondary sources with which we can build an encyclopedic article; second, whether this article should be excluded by the What Wikipedia is not policy - the sources largely appear to demonstrate that this article should be deleted, because of the need to protect the encyclopedia from promotion and advertising. Beccaynr (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wursteisen

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. If not deleted, may be a fit as a merge into the early life section of Galileo, or to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the latter of which is the article about the 1st source. Source 3 is an IP link. Gscholar reveals very little. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Science. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to something like Cristiano Vurstisio or perhaps Identity of Cristiano Vurstisio instead, because that is what the topic that meets GNG is truly about. A merge as nom suggested may also be appropriate, but should be kept either way. some coverage [65][66]. —siro χ o 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Galileo or Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, does not seem independently notable beyond that historical connection and other sources are hard to find. - Indefensible (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor a move to Cristiano Vurstisio per Siroxo. That would require a modest rewrite to encompass other theories, which I am happy to do if pinged. No real objection to a merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, although it seems to me that having more than a glancing mention of someone who himself is only glancingly mentioned in that work might be a bit undue. -- Visviva (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The historical person is not notable apart from the possibility that he is to be identified with the "Christian Wursteisen" of the Dialogue (who could not have been Christian Wurstisen). Srnec (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2023 (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/Andrea Bonetti Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muppala Sridhar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Ameya Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajith Jagadnandan