Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haritha Gogineni

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic is not meeting WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Macbeejack ☎ 07:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails notability guidelines at WP:PRODUCER/WP:DIRECTOR. Redtree21 (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Redtree21, a search for coverage of her in reliable secondary sources in English and Telugu (హరిత గోగినేని) turned up only passing mentions and the usual Tollywood PR mill. At the last AFD, she had produced Lucky Lakshman. Now she's also directed Fear, which appears to still be in post-production. That's about it. Wikishovel (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC),[reply]
Delete. Not regarded well known who has produced a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. There is not much on her in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly failed WP:N, also WP:THREE. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Producers are totally run of the mill, and are not automatically notable, so the usual WP:SIGCOV, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:BLP apply. Arguably, the subject is notable because of two stories in the Times of India, a paper of record, but they are essentially interviews. I'm not convinced this is notable, but an argument could be made. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abtin Abassi

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and United Kingdom. Macbeejack ☎ 07:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination

GoggleGoose (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Maker here. Meets GNG because article in The Telegraph / British GQ / Vice / more I will keep finding. I will try to add more Deondernemers (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Article by GQ here is a paid piece, the second source by The Telegraph is self-published here. I doubt the Genuity of the other sources as well. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This Forbes citation is unreliable an written by a contributor. According to @Jamiebuba, the British GQ article is also a paid one. Promotional theme failing business related guideline. No GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseOh

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

There is some in-depth coverage, but afaict, none of it, sportskeeda (WP:SPORTSKEEDA), The Tech Education ([1]), Venturejolt ("Venturejolt.com isn’t like any other blog you’ve ever visited"), is a WP:RS, even less so for a WP:BLP. The Esports Illustrated paragraph is probably ok, but it's not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Entertainment, and Internet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TO THE CLOSER OF THE ARTICLE:
Here is why I believe that this article should be kept:
- CaseOh is a quickly growing streamer on Twitch, over the past few months he has grown substantially, reaching MILLIONS of subscribers and followers on multiple different platforms. He is extremely well-known, especially on Twitch and Tiktok, and (saying this as an exaggeration), you could ask pretty much anybody on these social platforms who CaseOh is, and they will immediately know. His channels have grown exponentially recently. I understand this alone does not prove notability, but it shows that he is well-known, so more sources about him are likely to appear very soon.
- CaseOh has received multiple awards. He has received the silver play button and the gold play button from YouTube. Although there are many people who have received these rewards, so they may not be super significant, but they are well-known, which is criteria in WP:ANYBIO for presumed notability. He has also received an award from The Streamer Awards, and was nominated for 2 other awards. These awards are both significant and well-known. Very few people have received an award from the Streamer Awards, less than 100 based on the amount of Streamer Award shows that have taken place. However, the event is growing quickly, it reached 645,000 concurrent viewers this year, according to this main source, but also many other sources like this one and this one. I believe that this definitely passed WP:ANYBIO, due to the significance of that award, and the 2 nominations. There were also many internet celebrities attending this event, along with it being broadcasted on many places on the internet, with articles about it being made from large companies such as IGN, who made not one, but two articles about it.
- According to WP:SNG and WP:Notability, it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG. For WP:ANYBIO, it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards.
- Even if you say I am wrong and meeting WP:SNG does not overwrite WP:GNG, I still believe that there are at least 2 sources in the article that meet WP:GNG. As I stated in my reply to another editor, "I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assessment, as he marked the sources from VentureJolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they "publish too frequently". Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliability, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG. However, that is up to the closer to decide. If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia." He also marked the articles from ESportsIllustrated, a reliable source, as "Little more than a list entry", but these articles do not just list CaseOh, they talk about him and his streams, and even feature him in multiple large images in the articles.
- I strongly believe this article should be kept, but if my arguments for keeping it are not enough, I request that this article gets draftified until more sources can be found. However, once again, I believe that shouldn't be needed, because I think the article should be kept on the mainspace (just maybe with a banner to encourage finding more citations). Thank you.
Antny08 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the gold and silver play button information even being sourced. Cortador (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaseOh - YouTube He has over 2 million subscribers, which means he has earned both the silver and gold play buttons. Here is CaseOh receiving his gold play button. Antny08 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subscribers alone don't guarantee you the buttons. YouTube sometimes choose not to award channels the buttons e.g. music or news channel generally don't get them. Case evidently got his button, but if all you have is a primary source, that won't contribute towards notability. Cortador (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaseOh is obviously not a music or news channel. According to WP:ANYBIO, this does contribute to notability. As long as you are able to prove he has received the award (which I did prove), then it counts. Antny08 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. EDIT: Changed vote to draftify, as arguments from others do make sense. Tosay he is not notable makes absolutely no sense. If you have a social media account you will almost guaranteed know who CaseOh is. He has not thousands, but MILLIONS of followers. According to WP: Notability (people), significant awards automatically make the subject presumably notable. CaseOh has recieved the silver and gold play buttons, both very significant awards, but most importantly, he won the Best Variety Streamer Award (with multiple great sources to prove it), which is a very significant and rare award. These awards alone are enough to make CaseOh presumably notable. The sources in the article are reliable enough and provide enough coverage of CaseOh to finish out that notability. CaseOh is known by millions upon millions of people, it does not make any sense to say he is "not notable enough for Wikipedia".

Antny08 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention sources like this [2], which are also from ESports Illustrated. Not only is it a reliable source, but it literally says he is the 5th most popular streamer on Twitch and the MOST POPULAR variety streamer. To comment on your writing about venturejolt, the link that you sent does not state it is a blog anywhere on there. Also, that very page you sent says this “At VentureJolt, we uphold the highest editorial standards to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our news content. Our team of experienced journalists and contributors follow rigorous fact-checking processes and adhere to journalistic ethics. We strive to present news in an unbiased manner, providing you with a well-rounded perspective on the stories that shape our world.” That shows they have high editorial standards there. Antny08 (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity isn't really a factor for whether a subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards. A subject is notable if that subject has already been written about extensively by others who are independent of the subject in published reliable sources, and I'm just not seeing that here. The best alternatives are indeed the awards, or WP:CREATIVE which I think we're even further from. On the subject of awards, there are various sites which claim there are tens of thousands of gold play buttons awarded so I doubt that these are at the level of significance intended by WP:ANYBIO. I've briefly been through the sources in the article as it stands at the moment, and I agree with the nominator that there isn't really enough significant coverage (see table below which I've barely even populated and yet it's still entirely red on the right hand side). On the subject of ESportsIllustrated, (whether or not it's reliable) the information there about CaseOh is purely as a list entry with almost no coverage. I've not properly assessed VentureJolt/TheTechEducation, but they do give me vibes of being content-mill websites rather than sites with journalistic integrity. The author of the VentureJolt article appears to be publishing about 5 articles daily, which makes me nervous how much time and effort is being put into each article. The author of the TheTechEducation article appears to have an even faster publish rate. stwalkerster (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure The Streamer Awards would survive an afd, but it might. It exists, that much we know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The Streamer Awards is a well-known events that gets tens of thousands of viewers. 645 THOUSAND PEOPLE WATCHED IT!!!!! You cannot say that is unknown of!!!! Antny08 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re still ignoring the fact that he has millions of followers and is so highly known and recognizable on many social media platforms. If you ask somebody on TikTok or Twitch or YouTube who CaseOh is they will know. Antny08 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're ignoring follower counts because it's simply not relevant to WP:N. stwalkerster (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there are new sources bound to come about him at some time. Maybe instead of deleting this article we could draftify it until more sources are released? Please let me know what you think. Antny08 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed at publishing does not affect the reliability and you cannot just assume it’s unreliable just because you don’t like how fast he publishes. Publishing frequently can actually be a sign of reliability, not the opposite. The streamer awards alone proves notability for CaseOh. There are multiple articles about it. The Streamer Awards received 645 THOUSAND concurrent viewers this year. He was nominated for not one, not two, but THREE different awards and won an award from the event, the BEST VARIETY STREAMER. The Streamer Awards were highly broadcasted online and had many famous figures and viewers. This shows notability. Antny08 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied on my talk page, a high speed of publications from a single author makes me doubt that any substantial research and fact-checking has gone into any of the articles published by that author. It also makes me doubt that anyone is giving proper editorial oversight over that publication. Neither of those are good signs for the journalistic integrity or reliability of those sources. Sure, it's just an indicator and not a firm point, but a relevant one. stwalkerster (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but once again due to the length of the articles and the potential of them being made before-hand, it doesn’t make sense to consider them completely unreliable. Antny08 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That shows what they say about themselves. You may or may not find this essay of some interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that his win at Streamer Awards prove him notable for Wikipedia, but, if the consensus still disagrees after my arguments, then I suggest that we Draftify the article until more sources can be published. Antny08 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to draftify. This discussion will be closed in a week or so, we'll see what the closer thinks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any problems with this article. He's notable, gaining popularity in the past few weeks, and, sure, the article may be a little short, but that's fine.

Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, according to WP:SNG and WP:Notability, it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG. For WP:ANYBIO, it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards. CaseOh was nominated for 3 different awards at the Streamer Awards and won one of them. This event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, and was broadcasting everywhere online during its airing. It is a very popular event with many famous people attending and watching. I believe this proves the notability. Antny08 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start reading higher up on the page:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This is followed by

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." My emphasis. That means, if they meet the following standards, WP:BASIC sources are likely to be around. If they're not, they're not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his cultural relevance, I think it's safe to assume Baker is worthy of an article. A testament to this fact is the myriad of satirical content published about him (for example popular YouTuber Meatcanyon's[3] recently published satire about Baker and his streams). By merit of his growth and awards I believe him to be worthy of an article, although more sources would be optimal hitherto expansion of the article. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that there are reliable sources in the article. I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assesment, as he marked the sources from Venturejolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they "publish too frequently". Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliablility, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG. However, that is up to the closer to decide. If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia. Antny08 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEW SOURCE:

[4]

Here is a new source for CaseOh, just released. It is from thesportsgrail.com, which is used as a source in hundreds of articles. This source may meet WP:GNG, please let me know. Antny08 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:stwalkerster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_/games			Stats tracking only	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/@caseoh_/about	Subject's own social media page			✘ No
https://venturejolt.com/2024/02/25/who-is-caseoh/		High frequency publishing from author	I'm feeling charitable	✘ No
https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-who-caseoh-twitch-streamer-s-meteoric-rise-popularity-explored		WP:SPORTSKEEDA		✘ No
https://thetecheducation.com/who-is-caseoh/		High frequency publishing from author		✘ No
https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_			Stats tracking only	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-feburary-27th-to-march-4th			Not much more than a list entry	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-best-streamers-and-games-feb-19-26-2024			Not much more than a list entry	✘ No
https://streamscharts.com/channels/caseoh_/subscribers			Stats tracking only	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5m5eTY3xug		user-generated content		✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikestubbs/2024/03/08/how-jynxzi-became-the-biggest-streamer-on-twitch/		WP:FORBESCON	Name drop only	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-nominees			List entry only	✘ No
https://www.tubefilter.com/2024/01/25/2024-streamer-awards-nominations-kai-cenat-jynxzi-hosted-qt-cinderella-pokimane/			List entry only	✘ No
https://thestreamerawards.com/winners			List entry only	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-winners			Little more than a list entry	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete For failing WP:NPERSON - the source analysis seems right on the money. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to WP:ANYBIO, he meets notability guidelines. Please reconsider. Antny08 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the WP:THREE best sources then? I don't see even a single source that is both reliable and significant, much less multiple ones. ANYBIO simply suggests the person is probably notable, proof is still required in the form of sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested we should draftify the article, until better sources can be found. Please consider changing your input to draftify rather than delete so we can provide time for better sources to emerge. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see evidence that draftification will save the article. You say "give time to come up with sources" but they would have come to light already if they existed. If you want to preserve the article you can do it locally but I wouldn't recreate it, even as a draft, unless the sources are there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseOh is a popular figure with his popularity only growing. New sources are inevitable to appear soon. Draftifying the article will allow it to be accessed by Wikipedia editors and allow for new sources to be added. Antny08 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He will get popular, trust me" is not the most compelling argument as it has no obvious date where sources might appear, compared to a work of media, for example. I don't mind userfication of the article, but I do think that proving notability within the 6 months required for a draft to stay active will be a tall order. So, you are free to put it in your userspace until such time it merits being a draft per WP:WOOD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not delete this article. I have spent so long on it, if it gets deleted I will probably leave Wikipedia. I really like this website so I do not want to. New sources will definitely emerge in the next few months, it will not even take 6 months. CaseOh is a popular figure so new sources are bound to emerge. Antny08 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I apologize, can you explain userfication vs draftifying to me? I think at may be a bit confused. Antny08 (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is putting it in draftspace. However, drafts are still expected to be an article fairly soon and are deleted after a period of inactivity. Userfication is putting it in your WP:USERSPACE. They can be kept there indefinitely and are more suited for pages that might be notable but which there is no proof it will happen anytime soon.

I'd not suggest WP:BLACKMAIL however, as it's not going to sway anyone to your side. People are generally not Wikipedia editors for only a sole article, that suggests some degree of not being here to build an encyclopedia. One has to be open to a "you win some, you lose some" mentality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I did not mean to come off as blackmail, but if the article gets deleted then it will double my deleted edits count, which will strongly hurt my chances of getting administrator someday. I want to be an administrator to help people out and to help build Wikipedia, and I do not want all of my hours of work to be for nothing. If putting it in my user space does not mark the edits as deleted, then I am fine with that as well. Antny08 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here, having stuff we write changed and deleted is part of the WP-learning process. It's how we learn how stuff like WP:RS and WP:BLP works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if I have a lot of deleted edits nobody is going to want to vote for me to become an administrator. I work really hard on my edits, 99% of them are non-automated edits, so I do not want my hard work actually ending up looking bad for me. Antny08 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you check some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA, I think you'll find it hard to find one where discussion about deleted edits had any effect on the outcome. People look at other things, excellent content creation, understanding of PAG, etc. But, off-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually being worried about how something will affect one's adminship later is going into the realm of WP:HATCOLLECTING. Otherwise I'm not so sure why you'd be so concerned about it, given that it's essentially a purely janitorial role. You can't do "whatever you want" as an admin so it's something you naturally get when you are already doing the work of an admin and require the tools to expedite it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userspace: There is no doubt in my mind that CaseOh will eventually qualify for inclusion; but as said by others above, I'm not sure it's now. I'd say we incubate it until we get even one or two reliable sources. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since all refs currently in the article are from January and forward, there is also a WP:SUSTAINED problem. Give it a year or two, maybe he will have staying power. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:SUSTAINED does not define what length of period counts as being “sustained”. Due to other text in the WP:SUSTAINES and sections surrounding it, I believe it is more talking about flash events like a shooting or something like that, where sources are very new (>1 month) and are likely to go away soon. The sources about CaseOh are multiple months old for some, and there will most likely be new sources emerging rather than not. This does not fall under WP:SUSTAINED Antny08 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Userfy - Sources present do not demonstrate notability, and I can find none elsewhere. While I don't think there will be any significant coverage from reliable sources in the near future, draftifying/userfying is probably the best route. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I am also okay with deleting the article, to avoid no consensus. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There will be reliable sources in the future. Case’s popularity has been growing and is still growing since I wrote my first message about his popularity growing. There is no reason to delete the article, since new sources are bound to emerge. Antny08 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been moved from my talk page, as it is more relevant here – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that CaseOh should be deleted from Wikipedia? You did not present any arguments, other than the fact that you said “you don’t think that any new sources will appear”. Multiple other people have stated the exact opposite, including me, so I do not understand why you would think that. Case’s popularity is constantly growing, and new sources will definitely come out. Please reconsider in your vote for deletion. Antny08 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: As I said, there are not any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Saying new sources will definitely come out is a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument. CaseOh does not meet WP:GNG. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my reasons to keep that I created for the closer, I stated how 1. If he meets WP:SNG (which he does), it says he does not need to meet WP:GNG, and 2. Two of the sources in the article I believe do meet WP:GNG. I do not believe it is a Crystal argument. He is a very popular figure with no stop in popularity, so based on the rate of sources now there are gaurenteed to be more soon, it’s hardly even an assumption since it’s pretty much gaurenteed. You are saying you don’t think that more sources will appear, you are the only one who said that, but most people including me believe the opposite. Deleting the article makes no sense, since time should be given to improve it. Antny08 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: I do not believe that he meets that SNG criteria. The sources present have one of two problems: (1) If it is a reliable source (e.g. Esports Illustrated), then it does not contain significant coverage of the subject; and (2) If it contains significant coverage of the subject, then it is not reliable (e.g. Sportskeeda). It is absolutely, 100% a crystal argument to say that sources will exist in the future. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then isn’t it also a crystal argument to say sources won’t exist in the future? Also, WP:SNG is not WP:GNG. All you need to do is prove that they won a significant award for WP:SNG, which he did and the sources do prove that. I think at least some of the ESports Illustrated articles provide significant coverage of him. It is more than just a list entry, there is a whole paragraph talking about him, and there are 2 photos featured of him in one of the articles, including in the main photo of that article. Antny08 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: Yes, it is a crystal argument to say that arguments won't exist, and while I did mention that I don't believe sources will come in the near future, that was not my rationale. For one, I do not believe the subject meets WP:NBIO (the Streamer Awards is hardly a well-known award). Moreover, if you read NBIO, you would have seen that meeting one or more does [criteria] not guarantee that a subject should be included. Lastly, if the most coverage from a reliable source that we have is "a whole paragraph" and a few images, then the subject certainly is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:Notability, it states,

“A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.“

It says it must either meet GNG OR SNG. The Streamer Awards is not hardly a well-known award. This year, the event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, with similar amounts in previous years. It was broadcasted by many popular celebrities and internet streamers, along with many celebrities in attendance. Less than 100 people have won something from the Streamer Awards, making it significant. That viewer count also definitely makes it well-known. Antny08 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The (intentional) problem here is that the "well-known" is subjective, so it is a matter of opinion. I am aware of the viewership, and I do not consider that to be a significant enough number to be deemed "well-known". Well-known awards would be the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Grammy Awards, ARIA Music Awards, The Emmy Awards, etc. Lastly, a presumption of notability is not the same as a guarantee of notability. A presumption of notability means we give the subject an initial "benefit of the doubt" at AfD. It does not mean it gets a "free pass" at AfD. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it does not seem like anybody is giving CaseOh the “benefit of the doubt”. Also, the ARIA Music Awards only received less than 300,000 (238,000 to be exact according to https://tags.news.com.au/) viewers last year. So if you perceive that to be well-known, then so is The Streamer Awards. 645,000 viewers is well-known. That would be like the entire population of Luxembourg watching the Streamer Awards. The 645k figure is just the peak concurrent viewer amount, not the total viewer amount. While there does not seem to be a total viewer count (I have not researched that much), it is likely much higher than the 645,000. Antny08 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: If you are trying to argue that the three-year-old Streamer Awards are a more well-known event than the 37-year-old ARIA Music Awards, we are done here, I believe. Again, what "well-known" means is a matter of opinion, and I have stated mine numerous times. I will WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the AfD run its course. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 16:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can end this debate here. Personally, I have never heard of the ARIA Music Awards. What matters it that currently, the Streamer Awards are much more popular. “Well-known” is subject to interpretation, but you can most likely agree that viewership plays a major part. Have a good one Antny08 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources are from non-reliable places (examples include WP:SPORTSKEEDA) Yes he is very popular, but that doesn’t constitute most things. Remember WP:BFDI lvrlol / sv1ad talk 14:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFDs like this one, with voluminous comments, are why bolded votes are helpful. There is a lot of debate going on here, like comparing viewer count for awards shows (?) that is not helpful for coming to a consensus. Several reminders: Do not bludgeon this discussion and reply to every comment you disagree with, this rarely convinces people to change their minds. Secondly, we base notability on existing sources, in the article or brought up in this discussion, not on hypothetical future media coverage. Finally, I am wary of Draftifying options as I think the article would stay in Draft space for a few minutes before being moved back to main space and then we would start AFD2.0 immediately afterward. Let's not do this whole thing over again in a week or two. But regardless of my apprehension, consensus will be honored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: I would not move it back to draftspace in a few weeks. I would be fine with waiting multiple months if needed until new sources emerge. Antny08 (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a comment. All right, I will try to summarise my perspective from the discussion above. First, kudoz to @User:stwalkerster for the reference analysis table, until I learn the ins and outs I will always have praise for those who do the table. What we have here is someone who has recently gained some sort of popularity in a niche environment, and there is minor coverage of this through sourcing that is very weakly relevant in terms of general notability, at best. Significant policy has been pointed out, for instance, that follower and viewer counts don't really add up to notability; viewership may play a part, but it's also minor. I seldom do outright delete indications and rather do comments, but this case is rather clear. In short: If this person does turn out to be generally popular in the long term, with solid references and sustained coverage of his work, then it will be time for an article. We don't do crystalballing as to what might and what might not transpire. That time has not yet come, and we do not guess, it's as simple as that. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing with your claim, but then suggest userfying it. It doesn't make sense to delete unless you think it will NEVER merit an article. Antny08 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Nikopol (played by Thomas Kretschmann) from the movie Immortel. Ad Vitam - I think so, I'm not sure, but above all - I don't know. It would still need to be heavily amended with proper referencing to fit mainspace. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you draftify / userfy it, so it can be worked on by Wikipedia editors over time, adding references and making the article better. Antny08 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Antny08 has created Draft:CaseOh (streamer) via a copy-and-paste move. Depending on the result of this AfD, this article should have its history merged into the draft, or the draft should be deleted as well. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be merged there if it is decided to draft. If not, I can remove the draft. Antny08 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stwalkerster's table above, the sources listed do not seem to pass the notability test. Perhaps in the future, but this is too soon. Recommend moving to the userspace or draftify for incubation and re-publishing if/when reliable sources that support notability are found. nf utvol (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written in a promotional tone. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning in source analysis table. I don't doubt subject will become notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines eventually (with emphasis on Wikipedia's notability), though CaseOh is undoubtedly notable in pop culture. Unless reliable sources can be found, we don't need the article as-is. I think a draft is absolutely fine, provided that the quality of sources is improved and the writing avoids a promotional tone. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient depth of coverages from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, per analysis table. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Aware of the socks and now-blocked nom and participants. However consensus is clear and disruption does not merit a redo. There is no consensus here for a redirect, but one can be added at editorial discretion if desired Star Mississippi 00:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Schnetzler

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

Submitting for discussion to see if notable. Some Articles seem to be paid/undisclosed payments. Juli Wolfe (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juli Wolfe (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'll also mention that citation source 9 is patently false, the career part of this wiki article it states that "Luca started his career at a tech start-up company called Ring Doorbell, in 2015." read the yahoo finance shows NOTHING\ about stating him being involved with starting his career there at Ring fake.. Juli Wolfe (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several interviews online and Youtube that state Luca Schnetzler worked at Ring in 2015. It is not fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIBgOKAXPA

Please actually do your research before requesting an article of someone notable to be removed. (Personal attack removed)

I'm reporting you for falsely requesting a takedown of this article. Yfjr (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user @Yfjr Has been subjected to personal attacks seen right, multiple copyright violations, using statements claiming because of their "donations" they can enforce amazing editors like me and you to be kicked off the website, as well as trolling creating false threads & trying to vandalize user pages seen here. Juli Wolfe (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
::•Delete: Reason being Not notable person, I see here you cited a YouTube video link. I read through the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and it says that there needs to be reliable credible articles cited not YouTube interview links. Also I can see he has a lot of what looks like paid for press articles/news links, which is strictly against Wikipedia's policies. LucasNotGettingOne96 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, California, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong + Speedy Keep Firstly the bio of the person is the CEO of Crypto NFT Network Pudgy Penguins. They are also featured on Financial Times, BBC, NYTIMES, The Verge, The Guardian and many other WP:RS sources and the sources which are mentioned as reliable per Wikipedia. Secondly, the nominator has really weak background as they haven’t participated in any AFD before and as a creator of this article i wasn’t even notified regarding the AFD which is suspicious that the editor intention is to clearly harm the article without properly researching the citations. The page was reviewed by experienced NPR Moriwen Many press has stated here that his previous company ring doorbell was acquired by Amazon [5][6] DIV IN E 12:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @DIVINE. (Personal attack removed) Yfjr (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~DELETE + Speedy deletion~~: I disagree here. Hey DIVINE, I read through all and notice that quiet a few of them in this are not notable/credible I will go over the few. Some of the ones you mentioned here- He his not been featured in "The Guardian" the site you are referring to is Guardian.ng Nigeria: https://guardian.ng/features/netz-capital-by-luca-netz-is-the-latest-entrant-in-the-angel-investment-arena/ and there is no sight of the editors name who created the article it just says "Editor" which clues to it not being notable. Citation source 9 is patently false, and a proper reliable citation is needed. In the career part of this wiki article it states that "Luca started his career at a tech start-up company called Ring Doorbell, in 2015." I read the Yahoo Finance shows nothing about stating him being involved with starting his career there. And I seen here that in a podcast2] here you claim him saying it, but where is there an article of that being said? No where. [1] This isn't a reliable notable/credible source, you have to read through Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Others like sea.ign "Southeastasia IGN" that is cited under this and the other articles cited in the Wikipedia article are just mentions of him in there mainly talking about his company, just mentions of him included in there. There's no NYTIMES.com cited, no BBC.com cited, no TheGuardian.com cited. Remember, Wikipedia wants things to be true and cited. Editors like me and you do a great job at that, I seen that you said that my intention was to "clearly" cause harm without properly researching citation, which is Clearly not true as to how I went through and corrected your mistakes. And I see that you do a good at your edits as well as you have a lot of background on your end. Juli Wolfe (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Google says there isn't enough reliable sources from major news outlets, the only major and reliable news source that I know of are Business Insider which really isn't enough to satisfy SIGCOV. There is also not much on reliable sources and not any major news outlets talking about her. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:• ~~Weak delete~~ I agree that it also fails WP:GNG. Doesn't show much of reliable sources from major breaking outlets seems very fishy needless to say as well since a user named DIVINE above stated a reply to someone saying that "his previous company ring doorbell was acquired by Amazon" this Luca guy or whatever never even founded Ring it was by a guy named Jamie Siminoff. It is not Luca Shnetzlers company. This is why it is important that we must read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully and that doesn't matter if you are a veteran editor is a new editor. LucasNotGettingOne96 (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)(you can only cast one vote at an AFD but since you just created your account today, I wouldn't assume you'd know that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. Just a reminder to all participants that each editor can comment all they want but can only cast one bolded "Vote". I've stricken extra votes editors had made. And the nominator's deletion nomination is considered your vote although it appears right underneath so I've left that there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. His company may be borderline notable, but he definitely isn't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an UPE creation. Not notable yet. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pudgy Penguins, the company may be notable but he is not. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion. Little independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 05:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. For editors who object to Deletion, it all comes down to policy and having multiple, independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage. The same as every other article on the project. You can always work on a better sourced version in Draft space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishuddhananda Paramahansa

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, specifically WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV aspect and has never been reliably sourced since it was first created in 2015. While some attempts have been made, no edits have stuck due to unreliable sources (blogs or wikiclones that clearly sourced past versions of this page which again, offered no reliable sources). Zinnober9 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hinduism. Zinnober9 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to have a website and several facebook pages, about the extent of coverage I see for this person. Not meeting notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable independent sources are found in Bengali or other languages.Mccapra (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and simple search brings up blogs and Facebook pages. No independent reliable source I can find that can run parallel with what's on the page. Page fails notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this page. He is a great spiritual master and was extremely influential in his era and has done huge amounts of service to humanity. We will update the page soon with all details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.47.72 (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After removal of CV, there is effectively nothing remaining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont delete this page. Vishudhananda Paramhanshaji is a Jesus Christ like figure among his his followers. Below are some credible links that support his existence and contribution:-

Credible news reposts like indiatimes have quoted and acknowledged his contribution

1) Refer the below link in Hindi

https://www.indiatimes.com/hindi/trending/human-interest/gyanganj-math-land-of-immortal-mysterious-places-in-himalaya-614266.html

2) refer chapter 5 of this book 184.19.192.234 (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Olsen

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

I can find nothing about this person online. The only sources cited here that mention him are listings of his entries into school science fairs. Can't find anything about his company, or that he appeared on Fox & Friends. Falls well short of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Engineering, Technology, and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of this person. Lots of obituaries, one local article about a student with the same name who was sent home to change over supposed "offensive" wording on a shirt, which wouldn't help with notability even if it was this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It appears this person is referred to Chris Olsen. Found this from Times Herald-Record, though I'm not sure if it is independent enough. TLA^tlak 13:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktreee b BrigadierG (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. L. Thangavel

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

Candidate for the upcoming election in India, fails WP:NPOL. No other apparent claim to notability. There has been a general consensus that Wikipedia is not a publicity forum for election candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only coverage I could find of him online in English or Tamil (கே.ஆர்.எல்.தங்கவேல்} was passing mentions of him in routine coverage of candidates, and not even an interview with him about his candidacy. Wikishovel (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Karthick (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Karthick (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Iamakarthick we are all only allowed one vote. She was ^afairy 02:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of his positions nor his candidacy hold notability, and nothing substantial for sources was found on my search. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Murch

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

I don't believe this footballer meets GNG. He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one, but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.

He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I just found mentions of him in an archive search. Dougal18 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG—only appeared at rather low levels of semi-pro football with no distinguishing characteristics to supersede that fact. Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koustav Bagchi

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

BLP of politician who has not held elected office. Coverage relates to his switch from one party to another. Article does not detail any other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politician left one party and joined another. This is all we know about him. Politician is not notable, significant, who has received any great attention to be recorded. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added that he served as a congress leader. More of him is known apart from the recent switch, for instance that he was arrested previous year. I added it to the article and a bit more. More information could be found. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep due to the edits that 82.174.61.58 (talk) made I believe it might make sense to keep, but it still seems like the person might not be quite notable. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NPOL, i searched a lot, but found nothing special. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search shows entirely nothing from Independent sources, apart from press releases. Does not convince much of WP:NPOL. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, NN politician, fails WP:NPOL.Sk1728 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Dewsbury

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

I don't believe the subject meets GNG yet. It may be a case of TOOSOON. He has made a single substitute appearance against a non-professional team. Although he has been noted as one of the youngest players to appear for his club, I don't think he has attracted enough attention for an article yet. It could also be draftified if anyone wished to work on it further. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Yep, perfect situation for this. Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but there's a good chance he'll make the cut at some point. Anwegmann (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic TOOSOON; teenager player who might or might not succeed. I do not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per Bearian, the outcome of WP:TOOSOON is usually draftify, and this would work well here. TLA^tlak 15:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Briden

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

There is, of course, local coverage, but I wasn't able to find sources indicating notability. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to East Providence, Rhode Island. toweli (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, United States of America, and Rhode Island. toweli (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find any non-independent sourcing showing that either his legal or political career was notable, and East Providence is not large enough to give inherited notability to mayors. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be little coverage of him beyond the routine and local. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage beyond local newspapers. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and for two additional reasons. As a mayor of a city of 47,139, he fails my standards for mayor, and also my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Smith (baseball)

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

I wasn't sure how/where to propose this. It shouldn't be deleted but probably made into a redirect to the List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Until recently, this player was misidentified as "Tom Smith," hence his having a standalone article and not being on the aforementioned list from the get-go. But now that he's been reidentified, the baseball historical authorities have removed all of his misattributed biographical data. This player is different from all of the other players on that list, however, because we have the initial of his first name. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 13 games with one RBI, hardly even worth having an article about the unknown Smith. I don't even see the value in a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every player on the list I mentioned is a redirect to that list. I can't see a reason why he shouldn't get a redirect. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names per nom. Not notable for a standalone article due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant list, as that is what is done with similar cases, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. As an aside, there are brief bios about this player in The Rank and File by David Nemec and Players and Teams of the National Association by Paul Batesel, but it would be tough to argue that they provide SIGCOV, and in any case, some of the information they provide is now known to be incorrect. Hatman31 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names: Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jide Johnson

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

Fails WP:GNG, current sources do not help towards WP:BLP and a BEFORE also suggests they're non-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable and per source WP: THREE never found. No result per WP: BEFORE popped a result. This, fails GNG All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Teye Agbove

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Article has many issues with sourcing, very dependent. He works for MFWA, The Fourth Estate, and pieces from thefourthgate are used 10 times in this article. Other pieces are mostly passing mentions, some awards by the organisation he works for, others, non-notable. ModernGhana and newsghana.com.gh are unreliable publications. Thus, non-notable investigative journalist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most sources are unreliable and/or not independent and/or do not show significant coverage. Luke10.27 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion last month however this was kept, not sure why.. maybe because the nom was sock? anyways, this one is clearly promotional BLP about a non-notable advocate. as mentioned in the previous nom, there is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Saqib (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no it was held to be ineligible for soft deleted. 175.107.25.226 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has held state/province–wide office, that is chairman executive of punjab br council, hence clearly passes notability criteria for politicians see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people). Moreover, He is member of legislative body bar council since 2010, it does secondary legislation. Had position held by him was not notable President Zardari and then CM Shehbaz Sharif would not congratulate on his being elected as chairman executive. see https://www.nawaiwaqt.com.pk/E-Paper/Lahore/2010-01-31/page-1/detail-11. This is also a source directly about him. His name is in the headnote. International media coverage further strengthens notability. see https://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100808/cth1.htm. if any editior finds anything promotional in this article, the said content may kindly be pointed out and removed. 202.83.170.202 (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Bar Council is not a political position. The article is largely PROMO in its entirety. I'd remove most of it, and then what's left is a simple line or two. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.83.170.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Licensed lawyer" per one website, about sums it up. NO coverage to indicate anything different for notability than the other thousands of lawyers in the world. Largely confirmation of where he's worked, being a simple bio. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article itself should be kept because the person held an elected position as former head of state/province–wide office statutory body The Punjab Bar Council, hence clearly passes.WP:NPOL. However, some information needs to be removed particularly last section of this Article. It passes WP:GNG especially because sources do not have to be available online or written in English. DavidSchop (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— DavidSchop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Bar council is not sufficient for WP:NPOL. Fails WP:NBIO, sourcing seems like just passing mentions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear if you would like to see in detail, the Punjab Bar Council is different, it not only does secondary legislation at state/province level but also under the constituion of Pakistan sends its reprensetative for appointment of superior judiciary. Moreover, Sources are not passing mentions, some of the Urdu language sources mention the name of this person in its headline. The fact that he held elected position makes him politiican at state/province level. DavidSchop (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Rawlings

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. None of the sources in the article are independent of the subject, or SIGCOV for that matter, and I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search. The best that I could find was an interview from 2018 that didn't contain any independent prose from the author, who also states that she has collaborated with the subject in the past. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Iceland, and Canada. Alvaldi (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Language, and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources seem to support established notability, and she has a new area of notability as the nominated candidate for 2024 Icelandic presidential election on behalf of a glacier. PamD 09:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I might be missing something as I'm not seeing significant and independent sources in the article. Could you please link to what you beleive are the WP:THREE best significant sources about the subject? Note that being a candidate in itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added one scholarly paper for a start, 20 pages analysing her major poem. Works based on that same poem have appeared in various festivals. The 2012 Poet-in-Residence post is notability in itself: there will be extensive coverage, possibly in offline sources, in Australian media. PamD 12:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And added a review in The Antigonish Review, not open-access but available online via Wikipedia Library. PamD 14:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I have added some more reviews of the Wide slumber for lepidopterists. Perhaps too many. But these seem to me to help establish notability (subject of multiple independent reviews). (Msrasnw (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Kathrin Dern

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

Fails WP:NBIO, apparently the creator is the subject of the article. Awards don't appear to sufficient for notability. IgelRM (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Music. IgelRM (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: blatant self-promotion, the page is essentially a resumé and the subject fails WP:COMPOSER notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Turner (therapist)

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

Unable to find sources meeting WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, (in particular, we are lacking in significant coverage) there may be something meeting WP:NACADEMIC but I have not been able to find it. Page sources mostly amount to profile pages, interviews & unreliable sources (Metro, Medium) ASUKITE 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Organizations, Medicine, and Australia. ASUKITE 14:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the editor User:Human Insider has been indef blocked as a sock puppet. — Maile (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: any reliable source is directly quoting Lisa Turner about a different subject. She was ^afairy 10:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per User:Shewasafairy above, no SIGCOV yet in reliable sources, just interviews, quotes and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Yep, too much quotations in reliable sources guarantees that they are interviews, aside from unreliable content. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only mentions are insufficient to prove the subject's notability and no reliable references were found.Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hammed Kayode Alabi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are bunches of unreliable, paid puffery, interviews, passing mentions, which can not align with WP:BLP. Non-notable entity. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Social science, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source [7] and the second [8] were quite editorial, but a bit flawless since ita all about a non notable camping. The third source here [9] and the fourth source here [10] were just interviews and doesn't credit to WP:N. The fifth source [11] look like a freelance writing and is generally unreliable (unreliable news web). The sixth here [12] is same as third source–interview. The paragraph, ...became the first young African Board Member at Peace First in 2020. is not a notable achievement and skeptically fails for the seventh source [13] and the eight [14] Obviously a blog. I haven't seen how [15] supports the cited statement when only the line in the source reads: Speaking at the panel session, Kayode Alabi, the founder of Kayode Alabi Leadership and Career Initiative, noted that the organisation had been leveraging technology to enhance learning among children with disabilities and their teachers. Source [16] and [17] seems not noteworthy and were both interviews failing WP:INTERVIEW. Without borders, I am skeptical whether this UN Transforming Education Summit is notable. Well, serving as the delegate doesn't constitute notability though it's note keep by the video in [18]. Seemingly [19] is from an unreliable source Business Ghana while the delegate as claimed wasn't what I saw in [20] which he was placed under "Youth Intervention." Source [21] was same as [11] still an interview that constitutes nothing but just the subject speaking anything about himself. The sixteenth source [22] was well to show the book title : 5 Years: 10 Lessons Life Taught Me and it was also ten tical that it was self published and fails WP:NBOOK. The seventeenth here [23] was a freelance article written on SUS Africa, a generally unreliable source; doesn't target the cited word and was written from a view or self made author bio at the end of a written article/work. Source [24] was an Amazon link which is an unreliable source that leads to the Authors Bio where none of the books presented seems notable. Self published. The next citation [25] is still an interview already repeated in the article and [26] was technically a link from "TED Bauchi" undoubtfully which was a non notable one compared to eg. Ted Euston and more. Western Union Foundation Fellowship is not regarded notable like MacArthur Fellowship, Mandela Washington Fellowship and many more. So, [27] fails while [28] was a well written one seeming sort of paid stuff and the last [29] was a repeated interview. From my analysis, it is also wonderful especially in articles like these when there are many sources even from reliable ones but specifically doesn't contribute to notability or cited words. A critical case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwo Ogunwumi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either passing mentions, dependent, or primary. BEFORE makes no difference. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, Social science, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Piramal

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

Non-notable, no WP:SIGCOV apart from her coming out of the closet as LGBT. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and is the Vice Chairperson of VIP Industries s India's largest luggage manufacturing company.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sustained significant coverage, like this Forbes India (staff writer) bio, this in the Economic Times, this in the Business Standard, and so forth. Admittedly many Indian news sites are sometimes dubious, but this much coverage across lots of different major news sources still seems like enough for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Subject was on Forbes list and had coverage in sources like Bloomberg. Per Moriwen, much coverage in reliable news sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. These are not suitable to be discussed as a group. Feel free to re-nominate immediately, individually if there is merit. Star Mississippi 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Merchez

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

Fails GNG and I believe this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Delete as this astronaut is just an astronaut candidate not flown to space and wouldn't fly. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap, astronaut candidate is notable if he/she is assigned a mission like Aleksandr Gorbunov (SpaceX Crew-8 just flew Alexander Grebenkin so out) or has flown to space, has dont anything else notable other than just being astronaut candidate. No improvement is there in this article since creation: WP:ATD-R Can be redirected to List of astronauts by year of selection#1992.—🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 17:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more articles on researching —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found after researching will report more if found

Collapsed list of notified projects for AFD readability. Schazjmd (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to have slightly different additional notability (or not). Keep all, unsuitable for a mass nomination. —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all of these articles will require individual research into a WP:BEFORE search so a mass nomination is not appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep unsuitable for a mass nomination. Also, someones job is not a single event. Furthermore, SIGCOV is what dictates their notability, not whether they have gone to space or not.Alvaldi (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Procedural keep mass nominations is almost always a bad idea, with rare exception of trivially decided cases. - Altenmann >talk 19:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: in general, biographies tend not to make good bundled nominations, given the wide variability in potential notability. That's not a recipe for the clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy bundled noms are supposed to be. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Poor WP:MULTIAFD nomination. Your interpretation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap's outcome is completely wrong and the WP:ATD-R suggestion does not apply for all the other nominations you have made. No improvement over the years does not mean they are not notable. It's evident that no WP:BEFORE search was done before the nomination, as I significantly expanded Valentin Filatyev from the first Google Books search result. You are clearly trying to "avenge" [30][31] WP:POINTY. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above – it's not feasible to try to evaluate all of these in one discussion, especially because some of them will likely require looking for sources in different languages to see if they meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: sorry I subscribed the topic but no notifications arrived, so late reply. Wikipedia:ATD-R is good to add at these depreciated and spaceflight focusing articles where they didn't even flew for those missions. Still even if you think delete is harsh send them to draftspace, but these depreciated articles are clearly not ready for mainspace. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (TALK) 14:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per all the above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vinheteiro

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

This article about Vinheteiro fails to meet WP:NMUSIC.

Details about Vinheteiro in the article are not cited in accordance with source, which makes it seem to have reach the requirement of WP:NMUSIC e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro participated in Brazilian programs such as Jornal Nacional (seems to meet criteria 12), while the source 'Jornal Nacional' was about his video of playing of JN's theme song went viral. e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro performed in China with local musicians (seems to meet criteria 4), yet the source was about his videos' popularity on Chinese online video platform, Bilibili, where he launched online music courses.

If the article is considered as Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability rather than WP:NMUSIC, I doubt its sources are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. --EleniXDD※Talk 07:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The YouTuber has notability, including internationally. [32] [33] Svartner (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i cannot access the second source provided above, but the first source appears to be an interview and does not contribute to notability. ltb d l (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this source is extremely reliable, one of the top 2 national news outlet in Brazil, with a reach to more than 200 million people. Meets by a long margin criterion 12 of WP:NMUSIC. Contributor892z (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable internationally, and there is comprehensive coverage and sources about this subject in the Portuguese Wikipedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. Check the Portuguese wiki for better sources.Contributor892z (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Drummond

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ENT. He's a lawyer who's had some notable clients, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The book is self-published, and the only review of it I could find in reliable sources is the St. Joseph News-Press review cited. He has appeared on some local news broadcasts, appeared once on Court TV as a legal commentator (at 4:00 - 8:26 in the source cited), and wrote a commentary piece for the News Journal, but the sources for that are all primary. All I could find about him in a WP:BEFORE search of secondary sources was passing mentions, with no significant coverage of him, apart from him speaking publicly about cases where he was counsel. Article creator is a declared paid editor for another Las Vegas company, and both the unsourced personal details and repeated uploads of promotional photos suggests conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Law, Military, and Nevada. Wikishovel (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns regarding the notability of the subject as per Wikipedia guidelines. However, I would like to clarify a few points regarding your assessment.

While it's true that Craig Drummond may not meet the notability standards outlined in WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:ENT, it's important to note that notability is not solely determined by a person's profession or the significance of their clients. As you rightly pointed out, the book associated with Craig Drummond is self-published, and the coverage of it in reliable sources is limited.

Regarding Craig Drummond's appearances on local news broadcasts, Court TV, and contributions to the News Journal, I acknowledge that the sources provided are primarily primary in nature. However, these appearances and contributions do demonstrate some level of public engagement and recognition within Craig Drummond's field, albeit not to the extent required for Wikipedia notability.

Furthermore, I'd like to address your concerns regarding conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing. While it's important to remain vigilant against such practices, it's equally important not to make assumptions without concrete evidence. Accusations of conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing can be damaging and should not be generalized without proper verification.My last article was marked as 'paid,' but that doesn't imply that this article is also paid. I have been working on this article for the past month. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for Wikipedia to consider marking it for deletion with proper evidence rather than making assumptions.

In conclusion, I appreciate your attention to detail and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines in evaluating the notability of subjects. However, I encourage further discussion and collaboration to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented in the article. Potpart (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: as irredeemably promotional per WP:G11. Alternatively, delete because the only arguably significant coverage is about the one book he's published (which doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR). I will note that the article creator's comment above is almost certainly LLM-generated and pretty much consists of arguments to avoid. voorts (talk/contributions) 07:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per what Voorts said. - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 14:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May Mabel Adamson

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

It's a person who became a teacher then a headteacher. I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, and Australia. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

Therefore this can't actually be used as an argument for !keep. JMWt (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think everybody is included in national biographical dictionaries then? They're very selective. To my knowledge, nobody included in such a publication has ever been deleted at AfD, indicating clear consensus that it counts as sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague "I don't think she's notable", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't simply offer presence in a national dictionary of biography as a slamdunk, the ~~policy~~ guideline you've literally pointed to says so. There is no guarantee of inclusion, as it says. I say this is one of the cases when this person hasn't met the inclusion standards because they've not done anything notable.

If you want to argue on the usual basis, then kindly offer 3 significant independent reliable sources in the usual way. JMWt (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such requirement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was a requirement, I just said this is how we usually conduct these discussions per WP:3SOURCES JMWt (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3SOURCES is an essay and it provides no actual evidence that the alleged "Wikipedia community norms" actually exist. (An RfC would be an example of something that would be evidence of consensus.) James500 (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. It is not "how we usually conduct these discussions" at all. Another misconception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp, and pace the nominator's rather boorish commentary, here and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Hannah Adamson. Let's see if the other visitors to this page agree that being included in a national biographical dictionary is enough. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [34] [35][36] [37]. Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointments in newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. James500 (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC. So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 4 is slightly longer but still is only a few paras. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The ADB article is not trivial. James500 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:JMWt, please just accept that you are arguing against longstanding consensus here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, we've butted heads plenty of times, but I think we both have a decent understanding of our guidelines, and the whole "how we usually conduct these discussions"--you and I have been in enough AfDs to know how erroneous that is. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JMWt, you appear to be arguing that being a teacher is not significant enough to be notable, but that's not how most of our notability criteria (including the ones for this case) work. If someone has depth of coverage in multiple good sources (or in one extraordinarily good source, or as in this case both of those things) they're notable, even if you don't think what they did was significant. If someone does not have that coverage then they're non-notable even if you think what they did was significant. If a source doesn't describe any accomplishment you find significant, and instead provides depth of coverage in information about the subject that you think is insignificant, it is still in-depth; depth and significance are different things. If you want to push Wikipedia towards a more significance-based standard of notability, and away from its current emphasis on sourcing over significance, then I'm very sympathetic, but deletion nominations for people who clearly pass the existing standards are not a good path to that goal. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
Keep She is in ADB and I found more refs to her in Trove than previously indicated. She won the University of Sydney Botany medal in her senior examinations, she was an educator and university graduate at at time when women had only just been admitted to Australian universities, the manuscripts and papers of the school she was principal of are kept in the State Library of Queensland and she is featured in them. I can fill out her article, show she is notable and add more refs later.LPascal (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hannah Adamson

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

It's a person who became a teacher then a headteacher. I see that there is an entry in an Australian biographical dictionary but I'm not really seeing what the claim to notability is in terms of the en.wiki inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Schools, and Australia. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Education. Skynxnex (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That would be WP:ANYBIO #3! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JMWt, Necrothesp is correct. The fastest way to handle this is to withdraw the nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ANYBIO:People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
  As it says, meeting one or more doesn't guarantee inclusion.
  If you think this person should be included then stop inferring WP:ANYBIO is a slamdunk when the text clearly says it isn't.
  I am not withdrawing anything. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - JMWt, no one is kicking your dog. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I’ve no idea what that means. Discuss this topic or don't. JMWt (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll repeat what I've already said elsewhere: Do you think everybody is included in national biographical dictionaries then? They're very selective. To my knowledge, nobody included in such a publication has ever been deleted at AfD, indicating clear consensus that it counts as sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. What do you think the point of WP:ANYBIO #3 is, exactly? It's essentially to point out that it would be utterly ludicrous if Wikipedia didn't consider someone notable when a reliable biographical dictionary did. So, yes, it's a perfectly valid argument. Far more so than your vague "I don't think she's notable", which is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not how we do discussions. I can understand your frustration but I'm not entertaining engagement with you where you try to imply guidelines say things they don't and where you imply somehow I'm not acting in good faith.
        
        I don't believe someone who has been a teacher and headteacher is notable. I don't believe that simple statements in newspapers would 'normally' count towards notability and I don't believe that we should consider presence in a dictionary of biography as a slamdunk. You don't like it, that's fine. We have a difference of opinion.
        
        Either discuss the notability with regard to guidelines and policies of en.wiki. Or don't. That's it. JMWt (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I am in no way implying that you are not acting in good faith. I am saying that you are arguing against longstanding consensus (which is a policy, by the way). You may not realise that you are, but when several other experienced editors tell you that you are then it's time to concede that you may be wrong instead of trying to tell them that they're wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Satisfies criteria 3 of ANYBIO with an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. Also has coverage in Trove, in particular: [38] [39] [40]. Also has coverage in Dazzling Prospects: Women in the Queensland Teachers' Union Since 1945 (1988) by Roberta Bonnin. James500 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE - simple statements about appointmentsin newspapers are not usually considered sufficient for notability. JMWt (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ADB article satisfies GNG, so trying to pick off the newspaper articles in Trove is a red herring. However, WP:ROUTINE is a guideline for the notability of events, not the notability of people. An SNG is not applicable to any article outside the subject to which the SNG actually applies. I should also point out that the articles in Trove are actually biographies, and are not merely simple statements about an appointment. James500 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's fair. Let's look at WP:BASIC which is part of the notability guidelines for people. It states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

The ADB does not on its own satisfy the standard of WP:ANYBIO and trivial coverage is not usually sufficient to establish notability per WP:BASIC. So let's look at the Trove articles you supply. 1 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. 2 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment 3 is coverage amounting to a few paras of an appointment. These are by definition trivial. The only source which could count towards notability is the book you mentioned. JMWt (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of coverage in the ADB article is substantial. The depth of coverage in the newspaper biographies is also substantial. The newspapers may be using a recent appointment as an excuse to write a biography, but each biography is not actually about that appointment. They are about the whole of Adamson's life over a period from at least 1926 to 1949. The sources are not trivial. James500 (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO#3. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with my keep opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May Mabel Adamson. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP: ANYBIO. Basically appeared in a National Dictionary proves notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Dict Nat Bio. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There was some debate over the question whether becoming a CEO at the age of 14 is an event. Regardless, the achievement received a sufficient amount of significant coverage in mainstream, national news outlets over several years so as not to fail the third prong of BLP1E, as the Keep views correctly argued. I see no basis in policy that coverage has to be international, and don't find WP:NOTWEBHOST to be relevant here. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close amended to no consensus with no prejudice against immediate renomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman

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

non-notable WP:1E, WP:NOTWEBHOST Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and Tamil Nadu. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline- As the event she is reported by multiple newspapers was about her acheivement. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – biography only notable just because she is the youngest CEO, so BLP1E applies. I do not see anything that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:1E does not appear to directly apply here - what is the event in question? How is being 14 an event? ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her contribution to animation seems minimal, and all the coverage of her company (Seppan) only seemed to highlight that the CEO was 14. I would like to know if there are sources in foreign-language media that comments on her or Seppan's contribution to animation. Otherwise, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 3 and 10 are in RS, not an overwhelming keep, but we have enough confirmation of her notability. A Guinness record isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources are are more like an interview with the topic and doesn't seem independent. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I checked, the sources are either dead or churnalism and sponsored posts. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I feel that WP:BLP1E shouldn't apply all that well to age. Especially because we have sources starting from 2011 and spanning to 2019. I agree that there is likely churnalism for some of the sources here, but there is at least 3 generally reliable sources that can be used. Part of the sources do contain interviews, but some either do commentate or introduce the subject before the interview, which constitutes just enough WP:INDEPENDENT for me. TLA^tlak 10:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Achievement is that she is the youngest CEO and that is all we know from one or two reliable sources and this was news in 2011. I do not see sources where the coverage was an international recognition. I did not find articles where her achievements were highly notable. Simple search now also takes you back to Indian news media links from 2011, 2013 and one from 2016 by hindu.com. I do not find her notable because there are many other young CEOs who are and can be considered notable because they were listed in Fortune 500 magazine but Sindhuja made into no such list. Maybe a page like List of youngest CEOs where I could have decided to redirect or merge to but I did not find any such page here. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Nikolaychuk

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are OBITs with all the normal problems. BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason to delete this article Salfanto (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What could keep the article from being deleted? Also I got a notification saying that the article had been reviewed Salfanto (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Salfanto (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one "vote" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The reason for deleting this article is stated in the deletion nomination. There has been no rebuttal of these points of policy and simply stating "Keep" is not an effective argument on why they are not accurate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 22:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuan Yuan (actor)

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

The article (more of a filmography list) has no inline citation. Has no corresponding article in any other wiki (rare for a foreign actor). Has one generic external link reference. The majority of the roles played by the actor were minor and were part of mostly non-notable works. I was unable to find any significant in-depth coverage from reliable publications (in English) that warrants GNG or WP:NACTOR. If anyone's able to find sources in foreign languages, please list them. X (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Japan. X (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Chen, Bin 陈滨 (2016-07-13). ""配角"袁苑《解密》里再火一把演技在身才是硬道理" ["Supporting actor" Yuan Yuan became popular again in "Decoded". Acting skills are the last word]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via China News Service.
  The article notes: "近40年的演艺生涯，大大小小一百多个角色，虽然一直以反派大配角著称，但其实袁苑的戏路非常宽，正反两路驾轻就熟，无论是大“配”还是小“配”，抑或和当今最吃香的“小鲜肉”同镜，袁苑都会各自出彩，散发出角色的魅力。《解密》中，袁苑这个传达室的“王主任”，和众腕飙演技互斗，成为推动剧情不可或缺的重要力量。袁苑目光炯炯，63岁依旧保持一副硬朗的身板，除了一头白发显示出年龄，那张有名的“大扁脸”配上粗黑的眉毛，棱角分明里还藏着一种年轻人勃发的气息。"
  From Google Translate: "In his acting career of nearly 40 years, he has played more than a hundred roles, large and small. Although he has always been known as a villain and a supporting role, Yuan Yuan actually has a very wide range of roles, and he is very familiar with both positive and negative roles, whether it is a major "partner" or a small "partner" ”, or in the same scene as the most popular “little fresh meat” today, Yuan Yuan will shine in his own way and exude the charm of the character. In Decoded, Yuan Yuan, the "Director Wang" of the communication room, competes with the acting skills of the actors and becomes an indispensable and important force in promoting the plot. Yuan Yuan has sharp eyes, and he still maintains a strong body at the age of 63. In addition to his white hair that shows his age, his famous "big flat face" with thick black eyebrows, there is a kind of youthful exuberance hidden in the sharp edges. breath."
2. Yi, Fu 伊夫 (2001-04-13). "袁苑、吴颖--走向成熟的明星夫妇(附图)" [Yuan Yuan and Wu Ying - a celebrity couple reaching maturity (with photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  The article notes: "外貌粗犷、棱角分明的袁苑，早在80年代就已经成为影视圈的明星。鉴于他的表演生动、形象鲜明，因此他所塑造的一系列角色都给观众留下深刻的印象和好感。当电影尚未在大陆失宠的日子里，袁苑便在电影界及早地占据了自己应有的位置。"
  From Google Translate: "Yuan Yuan, who has a rough appearance and sharp edges, has become a star in the film and television industry as early as the 1980s. In view of his vivid and vivid performances, a series of characters he created left a deep impression and favor on the audience. Before movies fell out of favor in mainland China, Yuan Yuan occupied his rightful place in the film industry early."
  The article notes: "如果仅凭外表判断，袁苑看似一个粗人。然而，袁苑不仅擅长在台前公开表演，同时也能在幕后做导演和干制片。曾经袁苑与夫人吴颖就联手独立制片、编剧并导演了一部20集电视连续剧《喇叭声烈》，这部作品凝结了他们夫妇的心血，也展示了他们的才智。此外，袁苑又以独立制片人的身份，陆续与上海电影制片厂等多家电影制片厂合作，拍摄了《夺命惊魂上海滩》等一系列影片。"
  From Google Translate: "If you judge only by appearance, Yuan Yuan looks like a rough man. However, Yuan Yuan is not only good at public performances in front of the stage, but can also be a director and producer behind the scenes. Yuan Yuan and his wife Wu Ying once teamed up to independently produce, write and direct a 20-episode TV series "The Sound of the Trumpet". This work condensed the hard work of the couple and also demonstrated their talents. In addition, as an independent producer, Yuan Yuan has successively cooperated with many film studios such as Shanghai Film Studio to shoot a series of films such as "The Beach"."
3. "人才天地 article". 人才天地 (in Chinese). 1984. p. 33. Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: ""渐渐地,他和那个时代所有的孩子一样,他的梦模糊了,幻灭了,袁苑在十六岁那年穿上了军装。三年后便复员到北京汽车修配公司当了工人。当他拖着疲惫的双腿走在回家的路上,儿时的彩色的梦又浮现出来,并且渐渐清晰了。当海员,阴错阳差,误了报考时机;那么,去演电影,对,当一个电影演员多神气! .他精心浏览了当时唯一的几部片子,看到影片中人物的矫揉造作,他的信心更坚定了。他愤愤地说: “那都叫什么?假模假式的。我能比他们演得好! ”当人们知道他想当电影演员时,就有好心人拐着弯劝他死了这条心: “袁苑,你很聪明,也很能干,有表演天才,可是 ..." ,"
  From Google Translate: ""Gradually, like all children of that era, his dreams became blurred and disillusioned. Yuan Yuan put on a military uniform at the age of sixteen. Three years later, he was demobilized and worked as a worker in a Beijing automobile repair company. When He dragged his tired legs on the way home, and the colorful dreams from his childhood resurfaced and gradually became clearer. To be a sailor, by some mistake, he missed the opportunity to apply for the exam; then, to act in a movie, yes, to be a movie The actor is so impressive! He carefully browsed the only few films at that time, and his confidence was strengthened when he saw the artificiality of the characters in the film. He said angrily: "What are they called? Fake." I can act better than them!" When people knew that he wanted to be a movie actor, some well-meaning people persuaded him to give up his ambition: "Yuan Yuan, you are very smart, very capable, and have acting talent. But...""
4. An, Li 安力 (2008-03-05). "著名演员袁苑慰问大会堂外围执勤女警(图)" [Famous actor Yuan Yuan pays condolences to the female police officers on duty outside the Great Hall (photo)] (in Chinese). Qianlong. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "今天是全国人大会议召开的第一天，下午，首都艺术家协会副会长，著名电影演员袁苑带领协会的演职人员来到了西长安街派出所"
  From Google Translate: "Today is the first day of the National People's Congress. In the afternoon, Yuan Yuan, the vice president of the Capital Artists Association and a famous film actor, led the actors and actresses of the association to the West Chang'an Street Police Station."
5. "自己制片自己演袁苑人到中年再搏一把" [Producing and acting by oneself, Yuan Yuanren will try again in middle age] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2000-03-30. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  The article notes: "做演员已经十几年的袁苑，因为长像不讨好，一直以演反派人物为主，这几年，脸谱化的反面形象不时兴了，袁苑也就没戏可演了。"
  From Google Translate: "Yuan Yuan, who has been an actor for more than ten years, has always played villains because of his unflattering appearance. In recent years, facial expressions of negative images have become out of fashion, and Yuan Yuan has no role to play."
6. "资料：演员袁苑个人档案(附图)" [Information: Personal file of actor Yuan Yuan (with photos)] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2008-04-23. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.The page notes that Yuan Yuan was born in Beijing in December 1953.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yuan Yuan (Chinese: 袁苑) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for the chance for folks to assess the sourcing Cunard identified
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources above are fine, I think we have notability. I can't find anything extra to add, but given the person's age, they are likely to be found in paper sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rodriguez (writer and podcaster)

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

Consistent target of the Robertbenjamin UPE sock farm. Of the sources present in the article, 1 and 2 are brief mentions, and 3 is a book from a self-publishing source so is not reliable. While the name is relatively common, I did run searches with several permutations of words related to the Beatles and the name of the podcast to narrow it down, and still cannot find sufficient reference material about this subject to indicate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Music, Radio, and History. Skynxnex (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's (and his podcast) have been the subject of three Forbes articles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2019/12/09/podcast/?sh=167e5f076ba1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2021/12/16/how-a-niche-podcast-landed-the-best-interview-with-beatles-get-back-director-peter-jackson/?sh=6b0e05c67727

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2022/01/28/as-the-beatles-get-back-moves-to-theaters-director-peter-jackson-talks-next-steps/?sh=289eb3695295 2600:1008:A011:426B:2C21:5B4:7F7E:789E (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those, I'm afraid, are by "Forbes contributors", and as such are generally considered self-published and not reliable. Also, two of them only briefly mention Rodriguez. I did run across those while searching, but they wouldn't help toward notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Needs more to attain notability. Analysing the sources per WP:THREE, the first source [41] gave nothing except talking about the Beatles which the Chicago tribune [42] also analysed. The two sources were centered lessly on "his" podcast which did not pass WP:PODCAST. Most of the books were self published and per WP: AUTHOR, doesn't confer notability. The second source was from Google book link which is neither a reliable source but just a primary reference and the books also doesn't seem to cross WP: NBOOK. The sources were few and the subject isn't notable! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:FORBESCON doesn't work, the Chicago Tribune article is direct quotes, a self-published book won't work, and the "The Beatles in Masculinity Study: Male Fandom Sustaining the Beatles' Success and Longevity" piece only cites work by this article's subject. WP:SIGCOV is the issue here. TLA^tlak 14:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Kovic

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

Fails WP:GNG, and Seed & Sprout fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable awards and local interviews are the only coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards won are minor and fails WP:BIO for lack of in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hatch

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

Fails WP:BIO, I think. WP:NOTINHERITED. Literally. jps (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to find not much about him online, except for routine business stuff. I don't think the not-inherited argument holds water in his case. It's not that we're claiming notability based on having a notable father, we're claiming notability based on the fact that he's a lobbyist with a massive conflict of interest (because his father is a politician). Most of the articles I found that address this are actually more about his father than about him, so my inclination would be to redirect to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties, which is all about exactly this subject, and better referenced. Elemimele (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: LA Times is fine, but that seems to be all there is. There's an NPR article about a biologist with the same name, I assume it's a different person. I don't see notability with the sources we have. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties per Elemimele, as he already referenced there. Per nom. and Oaktree b, it fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, not notable based on the available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination or redirect per Sal2100 good suggestion. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties: notability is not WP:INHERITed though sourcing is not bad. She was ^afairy 03:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pelloe

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

Little on the page to suggest this cleric meets the inclusion standards. Middle ranking Anglican clerics do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and England. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do the sources in the article--mostly offline--say about him? It'd be premature to say that this should be deleted when we have sources that aren't obviously improper: Someone added them to the article at some point. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two are notifications of appointment, one is in a directory of all clergy. The only source which could count towards notability is presence in Who Was Who. JMWt (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can find significant coverage of this cleric in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Polar Society

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article is titled as if it is about a topic. It's just a list of members without any real context as to why the members are notable or what the purpose of the society is. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Organizations. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Environment, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? I'm not really sure what the procedure is for when the topic has a lot of available material but the article is only minimally present. I'm pretty sure this article in Polar Record gives the most detail on what the organization actually was for, but of course, that's the one I don't have immediate access to. Still, the journal published obituaries of people in the field (pdf here) and the one for APS founder August Howard gives some context. This biography of Louise Arner Boyd also appears to dedicate a couple of pages to the society and Boyd's interactions with it on page 289+. Also, I'm not sure if it matters for inclusion standards, but Ohio State University's library maintains a special collection of the society's historical records. Lubal (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A ton of coverage in Gnewspapers [43] talks about it. It's described here [44]. Obituary here about the founder [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looked at the sources, there are some indepth content that can be used to expand the article beyond NOTDIRECTORY. Passes notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. There's enough reliably-sourced coverage here to easily pass WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ellis

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

This seems to be a vanity page without any refs about a non-notable person. Hardyplants (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hardyplants (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing that adds up to notability.Athel cb (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTRESUME Written like a personal web page. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability guidelines as per WP:NBASIC. Redtree21 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is pretty rubbish and resumé-like, and the subject suffers from the usual problem of being an academic working in industry just at the point when computer science was moving so fast that no one was writing about what people like him were doing. But is there any mileage in a redirect to Mark V. Shaney which is notable, and in which he seems to have played a major role? I think this would be more helpful to our readers than complete deletion. Elemimele (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Australia, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Closing this as Delete on the basis of arguments that a person of their position does not meet WP:NPOL. If our policy expands the definition of what NPOL covers, this closure can be revisited. Thanks also to editors who thoughtfully comment on AFD discussions that have gone through 3 relistings...your participation is what we hope for when we decide to relist discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Alhabsyi

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

No indication of importance person. All the sources not a reliable sources.. Stvbastian (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you clarify why you think the sources in the article are not reliable? They seem reliable from a glance; whether they provide WP:SIGCOV or not is another matter. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm admittedly not an expert in Indonesian politics, but he appears to hold a seat in an Indonesian provincial legislature, and thus would pass WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. I'm willing to reconsider if I'm wrong about what the North Sulawesi Regional People's Representative Council is, but provincial legislators are important topics for us to have articles about — so the article can be tagged for {{refimprove}} if you feel strongly that the sourcing isn't adequate, but there's no such thing as a non-notable provincial legislator. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indonesia is a unitary state (not federal) so typically membership of a subnational legislature would not meet NPOL#1, unless this is a Spain-like situation where the provinces have tremendous autonomy. I am also not well-versed in Indonesian politics so do not know if this is the case. Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Curbon7 and Bearcat.. For sources, in Indonesia, we have some well-known newspaper that usually used in Wikipedia article such as: Antara, Kompas, Detik, and Jakarta Post (has been proven to be verified by the editor before publication). Sources in that article not a well-known source. Source #1 is a primary source. And why i said "no indication of importance person" because the main article of the Provinicial Parliament page is a redlink --> North Sulawesi Regional People's Representative Council, and this person did not make a big impact in the provincial politics, has not provided any achievements in other fields, so it does not receive enough attention from reliable media.'Thank u Stvbastian (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only members of the National House of Representatives are presumed notable per WP:NPOL, not members of regional houses. Therefore, the coverage requirements outlined in WP:SIGCOV apply to the this person, in which he falls short. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy WP:NPOL, Indonesia's provincial representative bodies are akin to municipal councils (administrative powers, rather than legislative), with the exception of Aceh (there's a possible case for the West Papuan ones, but that is much weaker IMHO). I do not see any sourcing satisfying the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, previous AfD discussions, where members of subnational bodies without legislative powers have not been accorded presumed notability under WP:NPOL: France, Netherlands, Japan (further details at WP:NSUBPOL and this 2019 discussion). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As explained by Goldsztain, it does not appear that Indonesia's provincial representative bodies pass WP:NPOL and there is no indication that GNG is met. --Enos733 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nnamdi Chife

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Current sources do not count towards GNG and a BEFORE makes no difference. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for advertising and showcasing. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Yet another text that's well put together but gets posted up here for all the wrong reasons, vanity and promotion. The plethora of citations is meant to impress though it's full of irrelevancies. -The Gnome (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Lack of SIGCOV. The article in The Nation is arguably okay, but much of it is based on an interview. Article in Naira Metrics is almost plainly an interview, failing independence. TLA^tlak 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one and losing, and on and so forth — but the referencing is based almost entirely on Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about other things, not substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are WP: LOTSOFSOURCES. None can't relatively talk about the subject. Clearly fails WP: SNG, WP: NPOL.. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. As per the DRV result, no need to wait any longer--or at all--before closing this.

Firstly, neither G4 nor G5 apply here. The article has been edited by various good-faith editors, and is no longer essentially identical to any deleted version. I also find no basis in policy or guideline that coverage for North American people must come from North American sources. Promotional tone should be fixed editorially, and is not a valid deletion criterion unless the page meets G11, which this one does not.

Conversely, I also find most of the Keep arguments weak. Being famous in certain circles or starting a big teenage media company are not P&G-based arguments. In the end, as always, things boil down to source assessment. And on this front, the Delete views correctly argued that in marginal cases like this, WP:BIO compels us to delete the page. If the subject was indeed as notable as the Keep participants claim, surely there would be sources offering more significant, independent coverage than the few interviews cited, as pointed out by several participants.

Finally, a proposal to Draftify received limited support here. Without a concrete plan to work on the page, including both editors ready to do the work and potential independent sources to prove notability, all within the six month timeframe, moving a potential BLP violation to draftspace seems ill-advised. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin (entrepreneur)

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

I can't find any reasonable purpose for a standalone article. I noticed this could be vandalism since the parenthesis isn't movable except by an admin. Well, I can't find sources which didn't provide me enough reasons to be inclusive. Fails WP: GNG. The founding company doesn't seem to be notable or reach any WP: ORG and some of not all seems to base on the company and not the subject (there could be mentions) but still Notability is not inherited. While I believe Notability is not permanent, The young subject can be notable in the future All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: hello, I'm the person who accepted this out of AfC. i agree with you that the company is not quite meeting notability, which is why i rejected it, as the sources are clearly predominately about the founder. the sources in question, though, include Billboard, The Source, El Caribe, and Independent Nigeria, all of which profile Justin Jin quite in-depth and are generally reliable. She was ^afairy 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have found that before nom'ing this, as the article is a G5G4 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG G4 applies for the articles which are accepted from draft too. What i knew or personally believe was only for mainspace articles. DIV IN E 11:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your point is here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you’re administrator of english Wikipedia, i want to know from you that does G4 applies for the Wikipedia articles which were approved from draft where multiple contributors has already participated? DIV IN E 14:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can read it yourself at WP:CSD#G4. But yes, drafts moved to article space are included, as long as they are still substantively the same as the deleted article. It matters not that other editors have touched it, only that the material is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn’t identical then why we re’ debating here in deletion discussion. DIV IN E 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fails WP: ANYBIO, WP: CREATIVE and WP: BASIC#1 since it clearly states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability where the articles if not all talks about the teenager and a non notable company he founded. I am also sensing WP: UPE since this page from the previous AFD discussion and salting when i wanted to move to Justin Jin (removing the parenthesis). I have tried to take info from all the sources, but they kept talking the same thing about the subjects media industry. I meant there is no context or importance of meeting notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G5G4 of Justin Jin - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't quite make sense where your G5 vote is coming from, UtherSRG: if the article's author isn't blocked, and in any case, i believe i've already applied some relatively substantial edits. She was ^afairy 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I should have said G4. I've amended. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not sure that works here. the above discussion took place one year ago, and according to the source assessment table, 0 of them are repeated? She was ^afairy 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 is about content, not sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it applies to sufficiently identical copies, and according to the wayback machine, there are very significant differences, completely failing G4. She was ^afairy 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sufficiently identical is vague. The content is essentially the same. There is no new information in the new article, there are no new assertions of notability. For me, that is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors. For instance, comments by editors like "I don't see what is special about this kid" is borderline derogatory. (I'm excluding sports people by the way, who have relatively lower requirements for notability). I came across this person when creating a draft of a different person of the same name, which firsthand pulled up a USA Today Contributor piece, which does not establish notability, and hence why I disregarded it. The sourcing presented here is strong (~~six~~ four generally reliable sources), though I'm not going to place my vote just yet.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://billboard.ar/la-carrera-musical-secreta-de-justin-jin/		WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://www.elcaribe.com.do/gente/a-y-e/de-nino-le-encantaban-los-videojuegos-ahora-justin-jin-esta-construyendo-un-imperio-mediatico/		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/trending/justin-jin-entre-la-innovacion-y-la-travesia-en-la-era-digital/1636100		established Mexican paper	~ ChatGPT?	~ Partial
https://thesource.com/2023/12/28/inside-justin-jins-poybo-empire/	s	WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://independent.ng/teenagers-are-building-africas-youth-media-empire/		WP:NGRS	WP:100WORDS	✔ Yes
https://nl.mashable.com/entertainement/9316/minecraft-made-justin-jin-a-star-now-hes-a-media-mogul		~ WP:MASHABLE		~ Partial
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/leaders/exclusive-teen-mogul-justin-jin-agrees-to-divest-some-media-assets-to-expand-african/fqfvl4l	Prob press release	~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	~ WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/meet-the-billion-view-digital-upstart-and-its-16-year-old-founder/		WP:NGRS		✔ 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}}.

TLA^tlak 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY: Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are interviews. Interviews are not independent and do not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An overachiever in Silicon Valley who has been discussed in a myriad of publications including ones presented in the “source assessment table”. According to the General Notability Guideline, “Significant coverage” is a factor and these reliable sources do address Mr. Justin Jin in great detail. 205.220.129.230 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does three or four article talking about a media company and their founder notable? The articles is lacking context and should not be inherited from his "media company." Otherwise, It fails Business People guideline. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha your line of inquiry in this discussion appears to be quite flawed, and overall a bit questionable. isn't there much more than three or four articles which all vastly revolve around Justin Jin? how are they lacking context? you should also probably review WP:INHERITED. the hyperfocus on Justin Jin is why I believe the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP. the articles profile, analyze him, but not exactly much about what the company itself does. the company is likely a too soon case. i agree with TLA's summary, although I think business insider should be treated completely as a press release and routine coverage. She was ^afairy 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By TLA's summary, if you're referring to the source assessment table, I've already pointed out that interviews are not considered independent and are deemed as primary sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to adjust my table, but from what I understand is that the independence of interviews depend on the actual content. Is there anywhere that specifically states that interviews are not considered independent, full stop? TLA^tlak 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that says "independence of interviews depend on the actual content"? WP:PRIMARY says Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the interviewer is obviously involved, and the interviewee is the subject who is talking about themselves. For clarity, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:ALLPRIMARY and WP:SPIP discuss interviews as sources. Majority of the sources here are interviews, which do not count towards GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for clarity because I participate in AfD often and reviewing pages. I've come across that in many other AfDs (I don't want to link to them to canvas) but there is one going on right now in which two autopatrolled+NPP users have stated although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. In addition, the WP:PRIMARYNEWS you linked to me contains an example of an interview primary source: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. If the reporter simply relays what the politician says that is primary, and a talk show host interviewing a celebrity is just a plain question & answer, and that's primary. These sources are far from that. I also see that you said below that WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, and that is true, but it is useful and there really is no other place that writes extensively about a rather relevant policy. TLA^tlak 01:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists or news publications typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution). But, the gist will not have significant coverage and the point here is that they do not count towards GNG. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and has no weightage in AfDs. Not sure if you have noticed the last part of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, "...can be considered as evidence of notability". Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "myriad"? Surely that's an exaggeration. Deb (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Interviews can be a secondary sources per WP:INTERVIEW. The Source and the Daily Trust articles only have 10-15% quoted from Jin, the rest is analysis or comparison, so this meets biographical notability requirements. Captain☎ 10:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CaptainBottle (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
CaptainBottle: WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're relatively very new perhaps days to Enwiki. The article may be filled as WP: REFBOMB. There can be WP: LOTSOFSOURCES yet no credibility. I know how Nigerian Media works per Independent Nigeria, Daily Trust, etc and I must say; the sources just treated the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry. In analysis, there is always a way to show Notability. I can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier, or any award for media excellence since he is the CEO of Poybo. Being the CEO of Poybo is not enough to be inclusive and the media industry is not notable per WP: ORG/WP:N unlike Amazon, Dangote Group, etc or like business moguls who had won awards of excellence or profiled as an influential person". I believe I have cleared that Many sources are not enough! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Otuọcha this is rather incoherent. If the pubs you are referring to are treating the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry, what do you mean by can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier? Poybo doesn’t have an article for notability inheriting and awards are not necessary for establishing notability. I would also advise against the possible WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion. TLA^tlak 03:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be my last comment. I don't understand when you stated WP: BLUDGEON. Well, per WP: SATISFY, "Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." All I am saying is this article is a G4 which I realized later after trying to remove the unnecessary parenthesis. For the article in question, it fails GNG and not quite SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is really thin making it a borderline case for the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG; a compromise is inadvisable in a businessperson biography. Nor am I convinced of the "independent" and "multiple" aspects of the sources presented. Regarding the latter, all the sources are saying more or less the same thing, which is very little. Regarding the former, I am taking into considering previous history of the article, the fact that non-regular editors have shown to vote keep on this article which was never indexed and is under a title with disambiguator. The fact that the sources say more or less the same thing also contributes to a lack of confidence in them regarding independence. Also adding to the same, is the fact that the sources presented are of Latin American and African origin while the subject is Canadian, though there is no convincing case made that the subject has predominantly and exclusively worked in those far away places. Finally, the claim to notability in itself is really thin. I get the idea that it's a young person who's been doing some things, but it's hard to see a coherent and persuasive picture of the totality of his activities, how integral he may be to those and what if any lasting impact they might have. I see an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the coverage that exists and in a potential presumption of notability we might make. If he stopped doing everything he's been doing today, would we consider him a notable businessperson in 2044? The answer for me is a firm "no", on the merits of the sourcing presented. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is no inheriting in terms of notability from the Poybo company here — it actually seems the other way around or at the very least equal. As well, Poybo doesn’t have an article for inheriting. Coverage revolves primarily around the subject, not the company. WP:G4 is also utterly inapplicable — not only being a speedy delete, the previous AfD (12 months ago) cited none of these new applicable sources as Shewasafairy noted, the current article writes about a new company, and has potential for expansion. The African sourcing does make sense per the selling of a subsidiary or whatever, but that really shouldn’t be hypothesized/considered about and is not a policy. As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG. With WP:Interviews#Notability and reviewing past AfDs and discussions regarding the independence of interviews, interviews can help establish notability, and regardless the interview sourcing used here has considerable secondary content. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing. I’ll also say that the nominator’s rationales throughout has been a bit contradictory, maybe that's a language thing, but that doesn’t play into my analysis. Neither the previous history of an article nor whatever SPA may be going on here should be any part of determining notability. Unless, of course, an article is recreated under G4 with no substantial changes or additions to sourcing, which is not the case here. WP:CRYSTAL should apply to the Wikipedia project, not apply to the coverage itself; on the other hand, if I’m going to counter crystal, what person would stop doing everything he’s been doing today, and would more coverage appear rather soon that would undoubtedly push this arguably borderline subject over the edge, much less by 2044? I think so. Finally, the claim to notability — having founded what a couple sources deem the largest teen media companies — here is strong enough (it was added a couple hours after Usedtobecool’s vote). To be fair, WP:TOOSOON was originally a potential consideration for me, which is why I was a little hesitant to place a straight-up vote, but with further review of the sourcing and that the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here, this meets and exceeds our notability criteria based on real policy. TLA^tlak 02:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very weak argument expanded into wall of text. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. I believe he fits none of the categories. Stop bringing essays into XfD arguments, they are not policies. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing, Could you please provide the sources in the reply below? I would like to review. While the secondary content from interviews can be added into the article, the interview source as a whole is not independent. Therefore, it does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not my intention to make a wall of text/essay. My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes. TLA^tlak 11:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Entertainment? you’re modifying your own comments. DIV IN E 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above users, Fairy and TLA, what has to be noted here is that while WP: Interview is not fully reliable, the articles written so long before the interview or partial interview are subjected to reliable sources. DIV IN E 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote not made in good faith; see Special:Diff/1217066849. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. it may be worth disregarding the G4. i disagreed with it, but after the changes added a couple days ago it objectively directly addresses the concern with no new assertions of notability. She was ^afairy 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my comments regarding the source assessment table and WP:INTERVIEW essay [46][47]. I am willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide three independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with you directly calling these sources containing small portions of an interview a non-independent source, but here are just three with nothing quoted from the subject, two of which are RS and one is an established WP:NEWSORG: Billboard, Independent, Excélsior (this reads slightly promotional from the start, but later on Pacheco writes this success comes with increasing scrutiny of the company's labor and ethical practices, especially regarding the exploitation of young creators and the hiring of workers in precarious conditions in developing countries (translated) so it's probably a Google Translate issue. TLA^tlak 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside for a moment the fact that, again, it's Billboard Argentina covering a Canadian figure, not Billboard US or Billboard Canada, are we sure Billboard Argentina is the real deal? Looks like you're inheriting its reliability and reputation from Billboard, a US organisation. The links in the about section of that article just reload the page, and the twitter link takes you to an account with 200K followers compared to 14M for Billboard. Clicking through Billboard Argentina indicates its ownership and licensing belongs to an Argentinian company, compared to Billboard Japan or Billboard Brasil which state in the lead that they are associated with the US Billboard. I go back to concerns I raised in my !vote again. We usually associate this kind of brand theft, if it is that, with covert advertisers and spammers, and often even covert Wikipedia UPEs. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the real deal. TLA^tlak 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are inheriting the reliability and reputation from the US Billboard, yeah? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They co-publish a chart and Billboard Argentina is a frequent writer for billboard.com. At the moment, my assumption is that it is reliable. TLA^tlak 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it calls an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul", a word usually reserved for the likes of Rupert Murdoch, I am thinking not so much. In any case, I think you should amend your source analysis table, lest people think RSMUSIC lists Billboard Argentina as a reliable source. When you take out the rumors, speculation, unattributed quotes and empty praises, there really isn't much there. One of the sources of that piece is "google search". The most it can give is: "Justin Jin is a media entrepreneur and youtuber who owns Poybo Media Group." — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for publications to use an eye-catching word in the headline. The definition of "Mogul" certainly vague, and the piece does actually verify a connection to a 500,000 monthly listener "secret music career" from the Poybo producer. TLA^tlak 14:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Excélsior article is a joke. There is no significant coverage about him on the article apart from the PR fluffery. The article only has praises and admiration about the subject, but not a single detail about his life or work in-depth. I am yet to check the other two sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I don't really like that source either, there is a section without praise, but it reads somewhat like an edited AI entry. Jeraxmoira, as you mentioned once that reputable publications need analysis and commentary, I suggest reading Daily Trust, and that secondary sources typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, I also suggest checking out The Source. Both are RS. TLA^tlak 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop sharing sources before analyzing them yourself. The article from Independent does not have significant coverage. Daily Trust and The Source are interviews. Do not selectively quote from my previous comment, I only said "Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists... - ... which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution)". I never implied that it counts towards GNG. At this point, I am only repeating what I have said all this while, so I'll not be responding here unless you have something policy backed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did analyze them. The Independent meets WP:100WORDS, an essay but what constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself is vague. I'm maybe going a bit far here, but I have seen in this AfD (I think I remember seeing another one but I can't find it nor do I want to hunt for it) you state the Hindu article contributes to GNG, while the Hindu article contains considerably more quoting than the two interview sources I mentioned as well as that canvassed (?) user.

Are you saying here that any interview = not contributing to GNG? There is very minimal direct quoting in many of these sources containing interviews. For now, I don't want to get involved further in this as we are practically going nowhere, and will be retaining my keep vote. TLA^tlak 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop selectively quoting my comments out of context, [48]. The paragraph on Independent has very little detail about him i.e., 'he is 17' and 'he leads Poybo'. This is nowhere near significant coverage. All the sources say the same. Does the source have anything new to add or is this a WP:BLP1E candidate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on source assessment would be more helpful than arguing about applicable guidelines or speedy criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Analysing the sources. The first source here [49] was from the citation doubtful of the subject when this writing was made: A mysterious artist profile, 50mMidas, was discovered late last year while scrolling through Spotify's top song charts. The account, with an equally random Instagram page, has been rising through the ranks, becoming a competitive music artist on the platform with over 500,000 monthly listeners and another paragraph began; A Google search revealed that the artist likely belonged to Justin Jin, the teen CEO of the world's largest teen media company. Accessing the first citation was without doubt it was bias-written from related point of view.The second citation here [50] was written by a contributor and sounds promotional. For me, it may have been created from a related view since some wordings lacks editorial pass. The third source here [51] was written focusing on "one Muraty" with a/few mention of the article's subject "Jin". I won't say it is inclusively a source. The fourth source [52] was marked yellow by my citation highlighter meaning; the source is likely to be reliable. Looking into the article, it systematically wasn't news, it's a bit of few quotations of "Jin". The source was created perhaps by a contributor since there was no indication it was written by an author at Mashable. The [53], [54] and [55] for the article were cited for, Jin lives in Ambleside, West Vancouver. He goes to Mulgrave School. As of 2024, he hasn't attended college All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has a very PROMO feel to it. No coverage at all in Canadian sources, only a few conferences. Coverage in Argentina and in India [56], which seem to me to be undeclared paid promotional content. The IBT source is a non-RS, so this has PROMO-vibes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "PROMO-vibes" is not a strong assessment. the ib times source is not even used here. 6/9 of the sources here are green-label (reliable). She was ^afairy 02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The colours don't necessarily represent consensus. Even if they did, there's always more to source analysis than whether it comes from one considered generally reliable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence. TLA^tlak 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's most fit when citations are from reliable sources. Like @Usedtobecool said, its more to verifiability (considering the basis of the citation and at some cases: what it cites). It is not regarded to take for example a hoax that cites, "John Doe was born in Italy but grew up in Iowa. He is a socially influencing personality known for his diverse way of accepting fact of his company in Iowa also. His parents were the first CEO but handed it over to him because he was a good and god-fearing child. Even I, the editor love such narrative!". Looking at that above, it may have been written maybe by Mashable, NY times, Al Jazeera and many others. Are you saying it passes GNG when it came from a reliable source but fails verifiability, credibility and editorial..ity? All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment came across a sh*t storm. Leaning towards keep and improve. so this Kid Justin Jin at first glance appears to meet the the notability criteria for biographies on Wikipedia WP:BIO, particularly as an individual who has gained recognition in the media industry as a young entrepreneur and media executive. The issue I am having hard time believing that with the sources, is if we all couldn't find 2-3 reliable sources... Some of the sources do seem unquestionably strong. There are no required set amount of sources to establish notability.
  - The references provided suggest significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including international media outlets that discuss his international work and impact on youth-led media WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV The comparison to established media figures like Henry Luce and Rupert Murdoch indicates that Jin's activities have sparked attention beyond trivial mentions. However, the article would benefit from additional citations to address the [citation needed] tag and to strengthen the claims made, particularly with regard to Poybo Media's status as the world's biggest teenager-led media company. The [better source needed] tag also suggests that a more reliable source is required for the Business Insider claim. This kid looks like he is doing youth activism according to the sources, and while this article needs cleanup. I also saw users saying the WP:intertviews weren't valid, becauase: "thats an essay on wikipedia" well we hold essays to high standards. WP:Draftify is an Essay, yet if fail to follow the guidelines set out in that essay, you can lose perms for not following. I am going to do some scrolling. Before casting my vote. I am really confused as to why it seems like an us vs him thing. It gets to the point where others may make interpretations of WP policy based on their understanding of it.
  Comintell (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Justin Jin, being a media 'mogul', will obviously have a good enough PR team to set up interviews for him. Unless you have a very strong reason as to why WP:INTERVIEWS should be considered in this case and why Justin Jin should be treated as an exception from GNG, please don't waste your time bringing up the essay again. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Its only primary if its based on a vanilla/routine interview right? Which don't contribute to GNG (like a talkshow/whatnot??) WP:Interviews seemed appropriate towards the argument for the ones you brought up with @I'm tla, because they didn't seem to be the exact definition of a routine interview like this one from The Source, which appeared to be an article that featured original insight and analysis + quotes from the subject? Are you sure that references like that don't count towards GNG? What throws me off is the fact that they don't seem to be routine "interviews," which is what I thought didn't count. This entire AfD seems split divided.
  
  Even though i'm still not 100% convinced that the page should be deleted, I am going to just drop the stick considering there's a mixed bag of opinions in this discussion. I hope you see where I was coming from and why I brought up WP:Interviews. Hopefully my response is up to the high standards you've framed. Sorry if I upset you. I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Comintell (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Let me summarize. I am not going to be lenient in this particular case just because he gave interviews to several news media outlets. Despite being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company and working in the media/entertainment industry, the absence of independent coverage is a huge red flag. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I guess I'm going to continue my involvement here. I don't know about you, but being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company rings a bell at WP:ENT#2. It might also be worth mentioning that while the number of subscribers certainly cannot determine notability, it can only help at WP:ENT. The independent coverage I presented above satisfies me, but it appears I missed Dana Mathews' (GQ's Entertainment Director) profile of Jin here from being on the cover of the GQ's Power Issue.
  
  WP:BLP1E really does not apply here. Founding a company is not an event, and I don't see how starting a (presumably) high-profile one would make a person remain a low-profile individual. Citing an essay again *sigh* WP:BLP1ENOT. TLA^tlak 09:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is the second time you've brought up WP:ENT in the discussion. Have you even checked the first line of WP:ENT before assessing the subject for criteria #1 and #2? You mentioned he was a comedian previously, but none of the sources I've seen so far have indicated that. Can you please stop introducing SNG criterias you're not familiar with as it is prolonging this AfD thread unnecessarily. And the GQ article you mentioned was posted, archived on the Wayback Machine and deleted on the same date (March 15, 2024). Another red flag? How you came across the archived version is a question for another day. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, I think I am familiar enough with WP:ENT. See WP:YTN, and I would, again, say that memes = comedy.
  
  The GQ piece is in the article itself. I'm tla (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but I am done. I don't think you have enough competence to understand what the other editors and I are trying to convey. You first cite WP:INTERVIEWS and then once it failed, you dug up WP:ENT. It was clearly explained and is also well known to anyone who is part of this AfD that the subject is not known/notable for his meme(comedy?) videos and to add on, the channel has been inactive from 13 June 2023. Now, you have stumbled upon another essay, WP:YTN, which also mentions that only 7% of articles have been kept of subjects with < 100k subs, but you seem to ignoring it. You can keep digging up more and more essays, but justin jin does not pass WP:GNG and the rest of SNGs do not apply to him. The GQ piece is very suspicious as I have already mentioned that it was created, archived and deleted in a single day and now you have the archived version with no trace of it anywhere else. Below, you have mentioned 4 statements that clearly belongs in the Poybo article if and when it is created. There is a reason why the article about Alakh Pandey, the founder of Physics Wallah, was and is still being redirected or merged to the company's article whenever someone tries to recreate it. I am not saying the same outcome should be given here as every AfD needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not by previous consensus on other topics or AfDs. When there are only/mostly interviews by Justin as sources right now, it makes it really hard to verify all the claims made by them as obviously the next interviewer is going to do their due diligence from the previously written sources to add their own secondary analysis and comments in between their interview, which ultimately violates the WP:OR (WP:PSTS section) policy. From what I have seen till now, none of the sources are detailed enough, they are largely just puff pieces. Note to closing admin: The above statement should be considered with my previously casted delete vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Failed? I still partly stand by WP:INTERVIEW and a couple other people seem to have also noted that. Although, thank you for letting me understand that essays can be quite weak in AfDs. That canvassed (?) user noted that 10-15% of the Source and Daily Trust articles are quotes, and using a word counter that is true, so it is far from primary. You noted that the interviewer is obviously involved, involved in what? Interviewing? Obviously. The policy states only those close to an event are not primary, and the examples given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS are very different.
  
  That above makes this subject pass WP:GNG, and I located WP:ENT because that is also passed. My point is that the entire company is based on memes and comedy, both based on the social media accounts I could locate and the press coverage. The company has 7 million followers according to El Caribe. Note that the El Caribe article has an interview, but the conclusion is entirely secondary. Finally, you seem to agree that the GQ piece is strong, but you're saying that it is very suspicious when it is still indexed online. I believe our discussion has been robust and productive, though I don't want us to be screaming in each other's faces so I hope we can agree that the baseline here is a draftify, until good more sourcing is discovered. TLA^tlak 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  GQ website says The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, "cached" or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Good luck with using the GQ article that you think, "I seem to agree that it is a strong piece", Btw nice interpretation of my comments. Entire company is based on memes and comedy and The company has 7 million followers, please proceed to create an article for the company and stop wasting your time here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I wonder how that adds to WP:ENT. @I'm tla, your argument on the sources seems not worthy and biased. You jumped from accessing the sources to ENT. If the company is verbally the largest, give me three worthwhile sources (not interview or reporting what the founder had said) that analysed the bigness../or how its was the largest and I will withdraw! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, that's the point of a discussion.
  
  Billboard: 1. world's largest teen media company.
  
  2. Independent: the startup has been endorsed by several media enthusiasts as a necessary innovation needed to accelerate youth media in Africa.
  
  2. AMG’s Poybo Africa among the largest youth media companies in Africa, according to Business Insider’s analysis
  
  4. GQ: a money-making enterprise often deemed the largest of its kind. I'm tla (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not satisfied with that. For independent news, that should be totally not considered. I know how the media works in Nigeria and this article lacks coverage. Seems to be paid additions to news. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It is very unclear what you mean by For independent news, that should be totally not considered. By the way, the one source out of the four I cited above that is Nigerian is the Independent. I've given you sources that verify it is indeed the largest. TLA^tlak 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep… coming as a bulgarian reader who has known 50mMidas (Justin Jin) from YT. No one asked me to come here, I don’t usually care about such situations but something is fixing up. I have seen young dudes whatnot getting sent to Articles for deletion and then seeing a wave of people voting a delete. Maybe when we are all younger in high school we’ve done something cool, been a smart student, maybe got interviewed in the local paper. But there is a difference between that and the teen who starts a business and gets multiple interviews in reliable news sources about it. Starting a business young won't make anyone notable, even making a ton of money or getting a bunch of subs like this guy won't win anyone notability. But having reliable sources write about your business does start to get you genuine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.68.88 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its good you came as you said. Well, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:INTERVIEWS and see all about them. You argument should be a young teen starting a business is not considered notability because he/she may not be noticeable. But when that teen has appeared on multiple interviews, it shows he/she is notable because it's difficult teens being interviewed. I don't know but that's my interpretation . The article has WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but they are blatantly seeming paid works even. Looking at them, there isn't a coverage, rather ones that do come a time and the other next five days. The argument is that the subject is not notable per WP: ENT and meets no SNG for Wikipedia. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete… Written in a promotional style. Deb (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s eligible if we go with WP:NPOV @Deb ? DIV IN E 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you didn't write it from a neutral point of view? Deb (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious and asking as you’ve mentioned promotional style. While that falls under [WP:ADV]] #CSD and there was question mark ❓ DIV IN E 06:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional article with questionable sources, and the past promotional edits around all of this push me towards delete. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maker here. The Justin is notable. Meets GNG due to source assessment way above that I agree. Even if some are interviews that is okay because they have a lot of evaluation. Language of source does not affect reliability according to GNG policy. Also meets #2. of WP : ENT because of starting the biggest teenager media company in the world. Articles for deletion is not for cleanup so if article is written promotionally I’m sorry my English is not the best but that can be fixed with editing. I see new sources are coming out like recent GQ article added and being published continually. Deondernemers (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not meet WP:ENT to even assess the #1 and #2 criteria listed on it. The GQ source is useless unless you have written permission from Condé Nast allowing the use of the cached version. He did not create or contribute anything unique, prolific, or innovative as the short videos, reels, relatable content and memes already existed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a non-admin closure of "no consensus" was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 27. Any admin may reclose at any time if warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Wasn't going to vote after the last AfD got chatotic originally, but given the controversial previous AfD and the relisting, this isn't ready for mainspace, and as others like TLA have pointed some sources a good, but there may not be enough to establish notability yet given some of the arguments presented by other editors... But there seems to be an indication that this subject could very well pass GNG if more WP/RS become available. Draftification seems to be the most uncontroversial.

Comintell (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only promotional sources. - Altenmann >talk 01:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Among others, a recent solid profile in The Nation which I mentioned at DR. There's also an exposé in The Independent which is interesting. TLA^tlak 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- When keeps rule in raw numbers, but their arguments are exceedingly weak, AFDs usually close as no consensus in my experience. So, I feel complelled to note,with no offence intended to the future closer of this, that this AFD has seen an unusually high participation from inexperienced editors and/or IPs. Now one of the known UPE editors who had showed up out of nowhere to challenge deletion has proactively disclosed he was paid $100 to vote keep here[57]. I suspect this article has been created for pay and still may be being held hostage. In light of this, I implore the closer to give special considerations to concerns about sourcing that I and Jeraxmoira have raised at length, and provide weight to the soundness of arguments and correctness or lack thereof in interpretation of policies that have been invoked, even more so than we usually do in AFDs. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BLP policy, we need to have strong sourcing, and usually, a no consensus on the quality of sourcing should result in deletion of relevant content, which in this case would be the whole article. There have been numerous attempts to put in and to take out this claim for example. Without high quality sourcing, it's against BLP policy to include it, and removing it but keeping the article exacerbates further the WP:NPOV problems which are already close to WP:COVERT, if not already there. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What are the thoughts on this? TLA^tlak 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The newspaper seems to be a generally reliable source. However it is based on primary sources with conflicts of interest, i.e. current and former employees, and it's not always clear which claims have been independently verified. It also contains quotes and information pertaining more to Poybo than Jin. So, I think it could be a good starting point, but often unsuitable by itself as we do not include rumours and speculations, and unspecific claims can not summarised in encyclopedic language. I also don't like that it was produced while we were discussing the article here. We first got spammy sources, then paid WP push based on those sources and when it's come to AFD, they've invited the Nation to talk to them and even showed them internal company docs? I think we should wait a few months or however long it takes to see how it develops, whether we get more reliable sources that help us decide what the NPOV view on Jin really is. GNG requires "multiple", "independent" and "significant" coverage. Used with care, I could be persuaded to count this as one on the way to "multiple". We still need a couple more, and their quality and quantity of coverage would have a significant influence on how usable this source turns out to be. If you or anyone else wants to work in draftspace while we wait for developments, I really have no objection to that. That's the standard practice for AFD-deleted articles anyway. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I would like to add that WP:BLP puts higher requirements on sources. - Altenmann >talk 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The byline reads 'Our Reporter'. Here's another article promoting a business school. There is no way to tell the difference between which articles are sponsored and which are not. If they are willing to pay $100 for a vote on this AfD, it is very easy to get an article in the leading news publications as well. A suitable example will be the GQ article that you shared above. I believe it was written just to be archived on the same day and used as a source for Wikipedia. Also, please stop the canvassing. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  With some digging, while very subtle, you can actually check it here. And the GQ article is online again. What you are referring to was also not canvassing, as I was abiding by WP:APPNOTE. TLA^tlak 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You did not follow what's on WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.
  
  Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.
  
  Draftify at AfD Justin Jin
  
  I see that you are inactive so hopefully this talk page message will notify you. Would you support a draftify at this AfD? Please read the discussion. Also, you can probably ignore the message above, it was added by a now blocked user. - How is this neutral?
  It is not neutrally worded.
  
  Does not have a neutral title.
  
  You haven't used the "Please see" template. (If you had done so, it would have been neutrally worded.)
  
  You did not leave a note here about the notification you gave to Shewasafairy.
  
  The Nation (Nigeria) and GQ
  
  The regular articles and the sponsored articles look exactly the same and no viewer would know that they are sponsored unless you give them the URL that you just found. No reputable news media would do this. Apart from that, The Nation (Nigeria) is accused of spreading fake news stories. How comfortable is it to find the GQ source back online exactly when the AfD was relisted after the DRV and with the updated date? These are all undisclosed paid articles. Most of the keep votes are accounts that are 1 - 8 months old with very little AfD experience( i.e. 0 in-depth analyzed votes on other AfDs)). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeraxmoira and Usedtobecool. Not convinced the sources are strong enough to meet WP:N.-KH-1 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Because this might be a borderline one, I would support a draftify, and keeping it there until there's better coverage. TLA^tlak 16:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even ignoring the contribution of the blocked sock, there is clear consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agafodor

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

PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the grounds that while Агафодо́р might be notable in Russian, Agafodor isn't in English. Hence, Agafodor isn't warranted here. I also note that there are no notable people on Wikipedia with the first name Agafodor. Klbrain (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name is the Russian form of Agathodorus and of it:Agatodoro. Agathodorus (Preobrazhensky) ru:Агафодор (Преображенский) (1837–1919), a Russian Orthodox bishop, is the subject of an article in the Russian Wikipedia and seems to be notable by English Wikipedia standards, even if there is no English Wikipedia article about him yet. The Russian page lists three Christian martyrs by that name (Agathodorus, a saint, is the subject of an article in the English Wikipedia) and Agathodor (Markevich), abbot of the Donskoy Monastery from 1991 to 2009 (no article, so I can't readily say that the person is notable). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dictionaries. If an article can be sourced only to dictionaries then I’m pretty sure it’s not likely to be notable. Even if the bishop is notable, we’d need at least two articles to meet WP:NNAME. I’ll look into the other people further when I have access to my computer. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t satisfy notability requirements due to not being notable. Mr Mangina (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Mr Mangina, you just registered your account today. How did you come to find this AFD discussion on your third edit? Deletion discussions are typically not the first thing new editors participate in. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I do think it should be deleted, I have to agree that this is strange. The argument is essentially "it's not notable because it's not notable". Maybe they saw the AfD and decided to make an account to comment on it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails relevant notability criteria. Certain individual with this name might be notable, but that doesn't make the name itself notable. Yilloslime (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the bishop is even created then I suppose we could redirect it there. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of SIGCOV that establishes notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Tayui

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

An article on an actress, created by an WP:SPA, that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. Looking at her credits, she has largely had extremely minor roles, appearing mainly as unnamed bit-parts (i.e. "Student", "Reporter", etc). The only appearance of any note at all that I can find is as a reoccurring role in The Gorburger Show, but that by itself would not be enough to pass WP:NACTOR. Searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources on this individual. Rorshacma (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Rorshacma (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete little to no third party coverage, credits do not appear to be notable.-KH-1 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansraj Raghuwanshi

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

Failed WP:Artist, also WP:GNG, it has only WP:BLP1E. No in-depth article.Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There is somewhat plausible coverage in media about the subject but the page with poor sources makes the page unjustifiable. I would recommend creator of the page to use more reliable sources that have more coverage about the subject. The subject was praised by Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi for his devotional song , 'Jai Shri Ram,' based on Shri Ram Temple in Ayodhya. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there other supporters for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant independent regional language news coverage with some articles covering their biography. Article in it's current state is indeed in a bad shape, but a quick search turnsup good coverage from reliable sources. Passes #1, #4, #5, #7, #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Jim Carter 18:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Article isn’t well written and doesn’t help establish notability of the subject, but there may be a case there if the article gets some extra work. Because the sources provided are mostly national to India, the article needs to show somehow that these sources indeed demonstrate national coverage as opposed to local coverage.Contributor892z (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: There seems to be a large number of sources, both from my search and what others have listed. Could let it incubate in draft for a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early REFUND if SIGCOV is found. Owen× ☎ 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Attri (diplomat)

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

Ambassador who doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. The citations in the article do not appear to pass WP:GNG, and the closest I could find with Google search was this one newspaper article, which looks a bit short and routine. It is my understanding that diplomats/ambassadors do not auto pass WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Oman, Denmark, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I can't find enough for WP:GNG. However, I consider this a pass of WP:ANYBIO#2 because he's going to come up in writings about relations of India with Oman, Denmark, Zambia. And he passes ANYBIO#1 as a recepient of one of Oman's highest civilian honours. Someone's going to write who all have received that award and there, write something about who he is and what he did to get that award. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he passes ANYBIO#1 as a recepient of one of Oman's highest civilian honours. Got a citation? I don't see it in the article. If Ashok Attri received the Order of Al-Said, I'll withdraw this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae, This is what I found. I don't think this is that. That appears to be for heads of states; this appears to be for diplomats. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae. Ashok received Wisam al-Na'Oman, or The Order of N'Oman per TOI. This is the highest Omani honor for diplomats, which was started by Sulatn Al Qaboos in 1982. You may wish to see Honor's description in this book by Guy Stair Sainty and Rafal Heydel-Mankoo from 2006.
World Orders of Knighthood & Merit - Page 1439.

Maliner (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Attri has served as India's ambassador to Denmark and Oman and a high-ranking member of its missions in Zambia and the US, and took up his last post c. 2010. So it's likely that much of the available sources are a) in Arabic, Danish, Hindi and other Indian languages, and b) in print newspapers. A simple Google search isn't going to find any of that up, and as such I don't think this nomination presents adequate grounds for deletion. Searching just in Danish turns up dozens of sources, especially with regard to the Niels Holck extradition, a diplomatic dispute between Denmark and India in 2011 in which, as the Indian ambassador to Denmark, Attri was obviously a key figure.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] This case was also covered in the English press[66] and doubtless even more so in Hindi and Bengali, but I don't have the language skills to search for those. – Joe (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't find any significant coverage in Denmark. How are the above hits about Ashok Attri? I know from Denmark's neighboring country (Norway) that the only foreign ambassadors who attract media attention about their person are those of the US and Israel. Having a key role in an "affair" is an argument for merging with said affair. Receiving orders is common for diplomats. Geschichte (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there was significant coverage (there might be, I wasn't really checking). My point was that offline sources and sources in languages other than English are very likely to exist and that, unless those are checked, we can't properly assess the level of coverage. I take the fact that five minutes of searching, in a language that I only have limited proficient in, produced eight additional sources as a strong indication that significant coverage is probably out there.

A merge would only be appropriate if Attri had a key role in one event. Given the he was an ambassador or high-level diplomat to multiple countries over at least two decades, I find that implausible, but you never know. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This whole premise gravitates to "there must be sources out there" and "He's bound to be notable in other languages", both of which do not amount to much. -The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that a banned account has created the text is the least of its problems. There's a breath-taking dearth of source-supported notability. All the sources proffered above are about the case of activist Niels Holck where our subject is perforce name-dropped in passing, e.g. here, here, here, here, and so on. We are left with listings such as this irrelevancy, typical announcements by the Ministry of External Affairs, such as this, or, worse, a commercial event which our subject attended. Truly nothing to prop up even a modicum of specific, individual notability. Ambassadors and diplomats are not, as such, notable in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the Gnome's assessment. Ambassadors are not inherently notable and routine coverage does not meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Arab citizens of Israel. While there's no consensus that the article is a POVFORK, all seem to agree that there's a fair amount of content overlap between the two articles, even if the two population groups are not identical. This is a key criterion under WP:MERGE. Once we discard the views that are based on the "not the exact same population group" argument, we are left with a policy-based consensus to merge. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCI)

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

Request to redirect this article to Arab citizens of Israel#Terminology and identity

Why?: Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCIs) are the exact same population group as Arab citizens of Israel (ACIs). In fact, "Palestinian citizens of Israel " is one of at least 14 terms that are used to describe ACIs: as well as

Palestinian Arabs,^[1]
Palestinian Arabs in Israel,^[2]^[3]^[4] (see The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel)
Palestinian Israelis,^[5]
Palestinians in Israel,^[1]
Israeli Arabs,^[5]^[1]^[6]
Israeli Palestinian Arabs,^[2]^[3]^[4]
Israeli Palestinians,^[6]
Arab citizens of Israel,^[5]
Arab Israelis,^[5]
48ers,^[5]^[6] and
'48 Arabs.^[1]

see Arab_citizens_of_Israel#List_of_demonyms.

The list of demonyms/ethnonyms and the implication of each is extensively discussed in the main article for this population group, which is Arab_citizens_of_Israel

Current article insists on an unsupported (and IMO false) thesis: There are no RS stating what the current article claims, i.e. that PCI is a different ethnoreligious group from ACI, because (supposedly) PCIs are those people who "self-identify" as Palestinian (implying that ACIs do not identify as Palestinian). The two sources given mention no such thing i.e. they WP:FAIL verification and I have been able to find no other resource supporting the self-identification theory. Furthermore I've been in extensive discussions with User:Selfstudier who defends that thesis and they have not provided any RS supporting the "self-identity" theory either.

Organizations stating the same group (ACI/PCI) uses the different terms:

Inter-Agency Task Force on Israeli Arab issues which says "Arab citizens’ identities are more nuanced than either “Israeli” or “Palestinian.” Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis"^[5]
iCenter, which says "What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different."^[6]
International Crisis Group which says "The Israeli National Security Council (NSC) has used the term "Arab citizens of Israel". Virtually all political parties, movements and non-governmental organisations from within the Arab community use the word "Palestinian" somewhere in their description – at times failing to make any reference to Israel. For consistency of reference and without prejudice to the position of either side, ICG will use both Arab Israeli and terms the community commonly uses to describe itself, such as Palestinian citizens of Israel or Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel."^[2]

Authors describing the use of ACI, PCI and other terms for the same ACI/PCI group:

Muhammad Amara (author): "Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel. Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians, Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the Arabs inside the Green Line. Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948."^[3]
Columbia Journalism Review: "Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, ’48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs—"^[1]

Press stating the same group (ACI/PCI) uses the different terms

Foreign Policy (2021): "Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called “Israeli Arab,” according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. 'The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is Palestinian in Israel or a similar combination'"^[7]
Mosaic: The question of how both Jews and Arabs in Israel should refer to the country’s Palestinian population has been a vexed one... these “minorities” have often spoken of themselves, and been spoken of in the Arab world, as “the Arabs of ’48” or “the Palestinians of ’48,”...It’s no accident that [Israeli] Jews have insisted on the usage “Arabs of Israel.” ...to erase the Palestinian component from the identity [of the country’s Arab population] . . . to create an artificial distinction between those Palestinians who remained within the borders of the new state [of Israel] and those elsewhere, and to suppress the formation [among Israel’s Arabs] of any kind of national identity. And for this reason, too, more and more Israeli Arabs have in recent years come to prefer the term “Israeli Palestinian” (filastini isra’ili, in Arabic) to “Israeli Arab.” This is a direct result of the Palestinian nationalism... “I am not just an Arab,” the term “Israeli Palestinian” says. “I am one who shares an identity with the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and who belongs to the same people that they do."^[8]
New York Times (2012): "After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs…most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel"^[9]

Press using the term "Palestinian citizens of/in Israel" for the same group (ACI/PCI)

BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, NBC News^[10] Keizers (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Keizers (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC) ________________________________[reply]

Merge into Arab citizens of Israel. Most of the content currently within Palestinian citizens of Israel is already - word for word - in Arab citizens of Israel; as such, it doesn't make sense to have a separate article. BilledMammal (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is in part because nom has partly undone the spinout, copying material from the article under discussion to the article Arab citizens of Israel, see this series of edits on 2 March, for example and in part because nom has created an entirely unnecessary new article, Terms for Palestinian citizens of Israel. Note that it is not Terms for Arab citizens of Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no "spinout", i.e. there was no material in this article that uniquely supported a so-called PCI separate from ACI. All material to support this population group (PCI) supported ACI, as they are the same population group, so it made sense to copy the small amount of unique information over to the Arab citizens of Israel article.Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely how the article was created, as a spinout from Arab Citizens of Israel, as described in my Initial comment below. Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but what I am saying is that literally all of the unique content in this article supposedly about "Palestinian citizens" as opposed to "Arab citizens",, applied to all Arab citizens of Israel, which is obviously going to be the case since ACI=PCI.Keizers (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment Since it seems possible that nom is unaware of the history behind the creation of this article and for the benefit of other editors, please see the RM of 27 October 2021 proposing the move Arab citizens of Israel → Palestinian citizens of Israel. The result was "Not Moved" with the closer commenting The main argument against was accuracy/precision, particularly as not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin. It is notable that this latter argument caused one of the support voters to change their !vote and as such was particularly persuasive.

Immediately following the RM closure, the discussion Talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 8#What should we call the new page for Israelis that identify as Palestinian? concluded that the best way to proceed would be to create a new article, the closer of the RM opining "I think the best way to proceed may be just to write the damn article and then see which title fits best when you've got the first draft down. Or even just boldly create and leave perfecting the title to others." which led to the creation of the article under discussion here. Selfstudier (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More history Following the creation of the article, there was a 6 week (!) RM discussion proposing Palestinian citizens of Israel → Palestinian identity in Israel which resulted in no consensus to move, with the closer commenting It appears to be undisputed that there are some number of individuals who are citizens of Israel, and who identify as Palestinians". The discussion, such as it was, covered the issue of the article being a POV fork as well but notably no-one at the time proposed AfD and the relevant facts have not changed since in that regard.Selfstudier (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers:

2020 figures from Institute for National Security Studies (Israel) says:

"The Muslim residents of Israel are the largest group in the Arab population, which constitutes part of the Palestinian people. As of the end of 2020, this group numbered 1.673 million people—85.6 percent of all Arab citizens of Israeli' and 18 percent of Israel's total population. This figure includes the Muslim Arabs living in East Jerusalem, who are not Israeli citizens. It can therefore be concluded that there are 1.3 million Muslim citizens of Israel (author’s calculation based on the Central Bureau of Statistics, 2020c)." (my bolding)

while Amnesty states:

"As mentioned above, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that "Arab citizens of Israel" is an inclusive term that describes a number of different and primarily Arabic-speaking groups, including Muslim Arabs (this classification includes Bedouins), Christian Arabs, Druze and Circassians. According to the ICBS, at the end of 2019, the Druze population stood at approximately 145,000, while according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Circassian population totalled 4,000 people. Considering the number of those defined as Muslim Arabs and Christian Arabs together, the population of Palestinian citizens of Israel amounted to around 1.8 million, that is some 20% of the total population in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem".

Taking the 1.67mm from first source section and adding the 0.14mm Christians gives 1.81mm reconciles the two sources. Selfstudier (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⇒That is all fine, it says that ACI are Muslim Arab, Christian Arab, Druze and Circassians – it doesn't say that any of those groups are not PCI. Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Here are two scholarly books specifically about the Palestinian citizens of Israel:

a) Palestinian citizens of Israel : Power, Resistance and the Struggle for Space Sharri Plonski IB Tauris 2018

"Other choices were made regarding terms and language that should also be mentioned from the outset. Key among them is the terminology surrounding the main interlocutors of this research: the term ‘Palestinian Citizens of Israel’ is immediately contentious. It sits within a spectrum of labels for the community at the centre of this inquiry. On one hand, it potentially challenges the mainstream Israeli-Zionist conceptualisation of this group as ‘Israeli Arabs’; on the other, it misses the political complexity of the term ‘48 Palestinians’ (a term often used by Palestinian activists inside and outside Israel), which more clearly acknowledges the relevance of the 1948 Nakba (Catastrophe) to the identity and material experiences of this group of Palestinians. The use of the term ‘Palestinian citizens’ or ‘Palestinian citizens of Israel’ in this work is due in part to a desire for clarity."

b) Palestinian Citizens in Israel : A History Through Fiction, 1948–2010 Manar H. Makhoul Edinburgh University Press 2020

"There are many names for the ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’, usually referred to as ‘Israeli Arabs’ or ‘Israel’s Arab minority’. However, most of these identifications are politically and ideologically charged (Makhoul 2018a). My use of ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’ in this book aims to avoid, as much as possible, ideological or political references by being descriptive, that is, to refer to that portion of the Palestinian nation which remained in Israel after the 1948 war, and later obtained citizenship. Nevertheless, the term ‘Palestinian citizens in Israel’ itself can be misleading, because it suggests equality through citizenship. This confusion is a result of Israel’s distinction between citizenship and nationality, creating a hierarchy between the two. There is no Israeli nationality, but a Jewish nationality. This hierarchy has been legally established initially through the Law of Return (1950) and later corroborated through additional legislation and court rulings, aiming to ground Israel as a state for the Jews, according to which ‘[e]very Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh [immigrant]’. This categorisation provides Jewish nationals civil and political rights that are higher than those holding Israeli citizenship"

Also, by the same author, Palestinian Citizens of Israel - Evolution of a Name (2018)

"In this essay, I will show how the terms used to refer to Palestinian citizens of Israel have evolved in the past six or so decades, and how this evolution mirrors the evolution of their identity."

It is not disputed that there exist Palestinians who self identify as Palestinian but this aspect is something of a red herring in regards to a deletion discussion, where the issue is whether the subject is itself notable, There is ample and sustained sourcing for the subject 394,000 results in Google scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selfstudier (talk • contribs) 07:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ Palestinian citizens of Israel is the term preferred by the Arab citizens of Israel to identify themselves. You are simply giving examples where sources refer to ACI/PCI as Palestinian citizens of Israel. Again, those sources do not distinguish PCI as a separate people from ACI. Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and it’s not even close, sustained significant coverage of this topic is found in reliable sources. And no, this is not the same group as Arab citizens of Israel. There are Arab citizens of Israel that are not Palestinian and we have articles on many of those sub groups. There are Druze in Israel, there are Lebanese in Israel there are Negev Bedouin, each of those, like this, is a sub topic of Arab citizens of Israel. The Palestinian population has its own challenges separate from the non Palestinian Arabs in Israel. And they are covered as their own topic in reliable sources. nableezy - 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ 1) Of course there is a lot of coverage of PCI, that is increasingly the more common term for ACI, but nothing indicates that PCI are a separate people. PCI = ACI.

⇒ 2) The example of Druze and Negev Bedouin don't support your argument, as I have never seen any RS say Druze or Bedouin are not Palestinian/PCI. Can you provide one? Lebanese in Israel are a couple of thousand and yes they would not have their origins in the people of Mandatory Palestine, so they would not count, but we are talking 0.1% of the ACI there, and even then we are making assumptions, no RS. Keizers (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge or rename Palestinian identity in Israel. The current title makes it a WP:POVFORK. Number 5 7 11:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is worth elaborating on your 'The current title makes it a WP:POVFORK' statement a bit. I'm not sure it's self-explanatory. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clearly distinct subject, per Selfstudier, Nableezy and in fact the hatnote at the top of the page, which notes "Not to be confused with Arab citizens of Israel". This page has previously been affirmed by multiple rounds of consensus, and for good reason: the subjects are separate. Not all individuals identified by Israel as Arab citizens self-identify as "Palestinian" – a subject that is both prima facie a separate topic and clearly worthy of a standalone page based on the sources already presented above. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323:, can you find a single RS that says that not all Arab citizens of Israel are not Palestinian citizens of Israel? With the obvious exception of Lebanese, and the very weak argument for Druze & Circassians based on 1 RS, Amnesty, which isn't even explicit about the issue. Meanwhile, at the top of this discussion I provided 8 RS that define ACI=PCI (just different terms for same people) and 4 RS that use the terms interchangeably. I would like to also start a RfC that the ACI article be renamedPCI, but that is another fight. None of the editors named can come up with a single source. I just don't understand where this idea comes from. I get that people prefer the term PCI, as do I, but that is not a reason to Fork the article and have two articles about the same population groups according to every RS. Keizers (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arab citizens of Israel - as a WP:POVFORK of that article, and per compelling arguments by BilledMammal. Marokwitz (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source to support that ACI and PCI are two different peoples - somebody? anybody? I just don't understand where this idea comes from that PCIs are a separate group from ACIs, as opposed to 8 RS cited at the top that say ACI=PCI (one people, 15 choices of demonym/ethnonym). I get that Palestinians and their allies (like me) prefer the term PCI, but that is not a reason to Fork the article and have two articles about the same population groups according to every RS. Can anyone provide even one source other than the weak Amnesty one, and the minor special case of the Lebanese? Keizers (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nableezy. It has been shown both that the subject is notable and that it is not identical to an existing article's subject (hence cannot be a povfork). popodameron ⁠talk 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Arab citizens of Israel as a WP:POVFORK of the target. The name Arab citizens of Israel was decided by community decision. I can understand that someone would prefer Arab Israelis or Palestinian Citizens of Israel over the current name. I disagree that such a preference should lead to article multiplication. gidonb (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the conditions that require this page are clear from talk:Arab citizens of Israel/Archive 8#Requested move 27 October 2021, which was about renaming ACI to PCI. As the closer of that RM said: The main argument in favour of moving was WP:COMMONNAME. The main argument against was accuracy/precision, particularly as not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin. Note that some of the merge voters here made the opposite argument at that RM – if what they argued there is true, that "not all Arab citizens of Israel are of Palestinian origin", then clearly it is consistent to have a separate article focused on that subgroup. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This seems like quite a strong argument. Perhaps someone could try to refute it to help clarify things. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nableezy. Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinian citizens of Israel are certainly not "the exact same population group". Skitash (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab citizens of Israel. While, as Nableezy said, the two groups are different, the Palestinian Israelis make up the majority of Arab Israelis and the two articles have a lot of overlap. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think opinion is divided enough to be worth at least one relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Arab citizens of Israel – As mentioned above, the topics cover exactly the same ethnic groups, with the majority of the Arab population in Israel being of Palestinian origin. A single article can record all content. Svartner (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab citizens of Israel per the nomination. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do understand the merge impulse, and it is not unreasonable. However, I am persuaded that there is sufficient distinctiveness between the subjects as to warrant a separate article, generally per Nableezy. And pragmatically, the size of the parent article is such that the reliably sourced, non-trivial information required to provide proper context and treatment of the subject would warrant spinoff in the relatively near term regardless. While that subject, I disagree that this is a POVFORK, this title used by a number of reliable sources and other than a perfunctory mention above, I have not seen the neutrality of this article challenged. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a fork, a notable subset of Arab citizens of Israel, no reason to delete given other than asserting that identifiable subsets are all Arabs, which is false. Merging has made to look more like an option by editing so as to include material from the article into the parent and by creating an unnecessary additional article and transferring information from the article to it. These measures will be undone in due course.Selfstudier (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Berger, Miriam. "Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 4 March 2024. Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, '48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs—
^ ^a ^b ^c {{cite journal{{subst:!}}title=Identity Crisis: Israel and its Arab Citizens | journal=Middle East Report | issue= 25 | date=4 March 2004 | url=http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110313112806/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-date=13 March 2011 | access-date=14 April 2011 }}
^ ^a ^b ^c Muhammad Amara (1999). Politics and sociolinguistic reflexes: Palestinian border villages (Illustrated ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-272-4128-3. Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel. Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians, Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the Arabs inside the Green Line. Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948.
^ ^a ^b Rebecca B. Kook (2002). The Logic of Democratic Exclusion: African Americans in the United States and Palestinian citizens in Israel. Lexington Books. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-0-7391-0442-2. The category of "Israeli Arab" was constructed by the Israeli authorities. As it indicates, this category assumes and constructs two levels of identity. The first is that of Arab. Local Palestinians who remained in what became Israel were designated as Arabs rather than Palestinians. This category refers to the realm of culture and ethnicity and not, clearly, politics. The official government intention was for the "Arab" to designate culture and ethnicity and the "Israeli" - to designate the political identity. ... In addition to the category of Israeli Arabs, other categories include "the minorities" and "the Arab sector," or, in certain sectors the more cryptic appellation of "our cousins." The use of these labels denies the existence of any type of political or national identification and the use of "minority" even denies them a distinct cultural identity. With the emergence of a more critical discourse ... the categorization expands to include Israeli Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinians of 1948, and so on.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f "Exploring the Topics of Arab Citizens and Jewish-Arab Relations in Israel" (PDF). Israeli Arab Task Force. 2022. Arab citizens' identities are more nuanced than either "Israeli" or "Palestinian." Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "FAQ:Arab citizens of Israel" (PDF). The iCenter for Israel Education. Retrieved 4 March 2024. What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different.
^ Berger, Miriam (8 March 2024). "Palestinian in Israel". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 6 March 2024. "I don't use the term Arab-Israeli," said the 30-year-old journalist, who was born in the Galilee and now lives in the northern city of Haifa. "We are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. It's very important for us, the terms and the terminology we use." For Eid, the term Arab-Israeli is too removed from politics. Or, as he sees it, "It puts the Arab disconnected from the Palestinian identity." Arab-Israeli—the official media and Israeli government term for the 20 percent of Israel's almost 9 million citizens who are Arab-Palestinian—is increasingly unpopular among the people it's meant to describe. Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called "Israeli Arab," according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. "The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is 'Palestinian in Israel'" or a similar combination, Smooha said. "I think that's what's going to take over."
^ Philologos (pen name) (23 June 2021). ""Israeli Arabs," "Palestinian Citizens of Israel," or "Israeli Palestinians"?". Mosaic. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
^ Jodi Rudoren, Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens, The New York Times 12 July 2012: 'After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel.'
^ Koningsveld, Akiva Van (6 October 2021). "Newsflash, Media: Israel's Arab Minority Does Not 'Largely Identify as Palestinian'". HonestReporting. Retrieved 2 March 2024.

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. The delete arguments made their case. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. Indira

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

non-notable per WP:NPROF, and does not seem to be meeting WP:GNG. Mentions in secondary source such as Indian Express are running. Also, Chairs/Positions held are non-notable, with multiple department heads/chairs in a single university, mostly on a rotational basis. Publications are journals and chapters(as done by virtually all professors), not full books. Secretary position in said society is below president, and is organisational in nature. User4edits (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and Karnataka. User4edits (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she did receive the Indian Sociological Society Award, although I'm not sure how prestigious that is. Broc (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might at strech be slightly prestigious, but surely not highly prestigious academic award. The subject has previously served as the Secretary of the same society. User4edits (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to her website, she is the author of books in English and Kannada, and the award from the Indian Sociological Society in 2022 was a Lifetime Achievement Award. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are WP:PRIMARY sources. Secondly, almost all professors and academicians have written books. WP:NOTINHERITED. I have said about the award in my above comment. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the president of the ISS (primary sources here and here). The lifetime achievement award seems prestigious to me. She has had two Festschrifts in her honour, according to this non-independent source; that meets NPROF 1c. I agree the evidence could be stronger, and it doesn't help that the current version of the article reads promotional and has had CoI edits, making it hard to separate notability from promotion, but for me it's over the bar. I think we are likely not finding secondary coverage in Kannada; for example, apparently she is a long-term newspaper columnist, but I'm not finding those online, and could not read them if I did. Realise those are SPS, but if they are not coming up in searches then other secondary coverage may also exist but not be coming up. Tacyarg (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said previously, notability of ISS is not demonstrated in secondary sources. Least of the president of ISS. Next, this "non-independent" source is merely a profile of post-doc visiting scholar on a 19 year old university -- These texts put on profile-page are usually provided by the individual themselves only. Not sure that university conducted such an extensive research on her without mentioning any sources or even that is a researched profile. Which makes this "non-independent source" more of a WP:SPS. And hence does not meet WP:NPROF C1 also, as every post-doc/visiting scholar in every university has a profile page of his/her on university domain. User4edits (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Festschrifts that take the article over the line for me. 1c says The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses. Do you think the two publishers, Concept Publishing and Roopa Prakasana, are vanity / fringe / non-selective? I don't know anything about them. Tacyarg (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Publishing certainly resembles a vanity publisher, considering the very wide range of topics it publishes on, including basically illiterate pseudoscientific treatises on homeopathy. I can't tell what's going on with Rupa Prakashana since its "About Us" and "How to Publish" links don't load for me. JoelleJay (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. She holds the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Chair at the University of Mysore. This is a named chair dedicated to research in sociology; see https://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/dr-ambedkar-chairs.html. This satisfies #C5 of WP:NPROF, and satisfaction of one criterion alone is sufficient. Qflib (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib The reference reads: She currently holds the Visiting Professorship of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Chair at the University. That means she does not hold that chair. Nonetheless, chairs are far more numerous in Indian Univs than in the US or Europe, and professors could be appointed chair by rotation or mere seniority in the department. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Given that, I have to change my recommendation to Delete; does not satisdy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil V. Kumar

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

Failed WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR also Wikipedia general notability criteria. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:FILMMAKER as director of multiple notable series.......Added a few sources for verification.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR. Has several notable directions.

Rydex64 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG per WP: SIGCOV. A bit WP: DIRECTOR since some of the films which are inarguably notable were co-directed. As the case may be, the subject passes WP: CREATIVE in filmmaking having been cited in sources for his Entertaining styles and film directing. Fills a bit of WP: ENT All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like XFDcloser failed the "transclude to new log" again on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relisting when a simple consensus is met. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otuọcha, XFDcloser screwed up the relisting. When a discussion is relisted, it's taken off the old AFD daily log page and put on today's AFD daily log page. It looks like neither one of those things happened so it was wise to relist this discussion as no editors or closers would have gone back to the AFD daily log page from March 12th to review this discussion. It brought the discussion up from several weeks ago to this past week so fresh eyes could see it. Unfortunately though, we didn't get any new participants here but it will probably close over the next 24 hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhuan Zhu

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

Subject is not notable and BIO1E applies. I could find pre-Wikipedia sources like this and this but they only mention him as the assassin of King Liao. This seemingly can't be draftified and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a number of sources at the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedias - have any of those been checked? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is frankly an odd nomination. It includes a search on Google Books on the string Zhuan Zhu "專諸" which normally excludes English-only and Chinese-only sources, but despite that the search still return results as stated on the nom. Those are entries on a compilation of characters in Beijing Opera, showing that the story of this assassination is still being performed after 2,500 years (thus BIO1E does not apply). Another thing is the arbitrary cut-off criteria for "pre-Wikipedia sources", as if books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable. Even supposing that this page could not stand on its own, redirecting to Liao of Wu is a perfectly valid option and the "costly" argument is just nonsensical here. Searching on Google Books with the English (specifying "assassin" to filter out unrelated mentions) and Chinese separately gives pages upon pages of results, and for that I say keep. _dk (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is actually stating the opposite: They searched for "pre-Wikipedia" sources and found little of merit; they also searched for Wikipedia-era sources, the lack of both, per the nominator, leading to this AfD submission. Nowhere is it claimed or implied that "books published after Wikipedia's establishment are not reliable." -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per _dk's comment Ominateu (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)~~ striking comment by confirmed and blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What nonsense, AFD! A historical figure from ancient China and a regicide who played a key role in history is clearly notable. You should read the Chinese Wikipedia article first before opening an AFD discussion. Shame on you. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While prima facie the below looks like a clear keep, I cannot in good conscience close as 'keep' a debate on an article which has absolutely no references included. Relisting to ensure that if we keep this article, it is in a suitable condition to do so. While AfD is not cleanup, it's also not a suicide pact.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Underbar dk: Would you be willing to add some of the sources to the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge onto Liao of Wu since subject lacks distinct, independent notability. The opera is indeed well known. -The Gnome (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources have been added, and this seems to have a great deal of notability, considering there's book sources thousands of years after his life giving pages of coverage to him, in addition to a number of modern websites also having stories focused on him. "Merging" to Liao of Wu would likely equate to "redirecting", which would result in a loss of relevant and encyclopedic information on a notable and wanted topic (thousands of views in the past year; only a few people from 2.5 thousand years ago can claim that!). Meanwhile, if we actually did "merge" all this information to that article, the article would then be more focused on the assassin than the king its about! (Not to mention the Chinese Wikipedia has way more information as well.) Thus a standalone article is the best option. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What other-language Wikipedias are doing carries little to no weight as to how we proceed here. As to the predicted "imbalance" in the text in case this is merged to Liao of Wu, if this indeed proves to be an issue, it would be addressed in its own time per WP:WEIGHT, WP:SIZE, and WP:BALANCE. In the meantime, the search for significant, independent notability goes on. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to correctly "balance" it out would be to have standalone pages (and as your main rebuttal, you misinterpret a minor point of my argument with an essay that doesn't really rebut it). As for whether he needs "significant, independent notability" of being an assassin, note that per WP:1E (the policy on that): If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Wikipedia's policy literally uses this type of example as what is an appropriate standalone in this sort of event. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Underbar dk and User:BeanieFan11. The lesson here is that if you combine multiple scripts in the same search query, you may not find much, so that is not really an adequate WP:BEFORE search. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how many as well as how strong notability-supporting sources do we obtain by the correct search? Not enough, really. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty, actually. See below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once again, and without any more feeling than before, whatever notability can be scared up belongs to the assassination itself and the art works inspired by it; most notably the opera. Not the person per se. -The Gnome (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet there's pages and pages and pages of works talking about him (e.g. this book with several pages on him, one of the first results) and the article gets several times as many views as the king he assassinated – all indications are that this is worthy of a standalone page. We could of course move this to "Zhuan Zhu's assassination of Liao of Wu", but the content wouldn't change any and it wouldn't look right because its a biography on a page that is not titled as a biography is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Consensus split between merge and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a highly notable historical figure from the Spring and Autumn period. The article has been expanded, and a strong source, "The Biographies of Assassins," has been added. He is an example of a king killer, and King Helu honored him by holding a state funeral. In the modern era, a street is named after him, establishing a pagoda in his honor. Being a stub article is not a problem, and we don't want to lose such a valuable biography of such a notable figure. Thank you. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work with the expansion, IP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article show that the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. 2A02:1406:6B:9548:68EE:F8E1:674B:2343 has done impressive work on expanding the article, clearly showing the subject's importance and notability such that a merge to Liao of Wu would be undue weight. Cunard (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muzaffar Aazim

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

Poet doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV thus fails WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Macbeejack ☎ 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage about the subject in the sources. Greaterkashmir.com talks about his background, early life, and career. I find that it passes notability and warrants this subject to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is tricky to evaluate without the ability to read Kashmiri, but this article mentions a close founding association with Adbi Markaz Kamraz, and the number of news organizations running obituaries describing him as a major poet seems suggestive.— Moriwen (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No wp:rs, wp:sigcov QueerEcofeminist🌈 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sporadic mentions in Indian Literature over a few decades, which means that offline and/or Kashmiri language sources are likely to exist for someone who primarily wrote in Kashmiri. Mach61 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Muzaffar Aazim is a distinguished writer of the Kashmiri language. There are enough offline sources like The History of Kashmiri Language and Literature initially published by the Kashmiri Department of the University of Kashmir that can verify the notability of the writer. Munajikhan (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Munajikhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
weak keep: Moriwen makes a good point, as does RangersRus. I think this squeaks by on GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete List

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

There are not enough secondary sources about this person for this page to pass general notability guidelines. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Comics and animation, and New York. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides work in animation I think that WP:NMUSIC#10 works. Also does not seem to be WP:BEFORE done since he moved and is in the wrong category. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not meet WP:NMUSIC#10 (a song/clip in a single TV episode is not enough and it's unsourced) but might meet WP:NCREATIVE for his animation work. S0091 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see the subject pass WP: GNG since the WP: CREATIVE aspect is sourced! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The arguments regarding the notability of the article subject—an author and journalist—were effectively votes, without much in the way of reasoning. While there appears to be some consensus that the events recounted in his book might be notable, that has no bearing on whether the author is himself notable. This close is without prejudice to creating a new article, merging content, or starting another deletion/merge/move discussion for this article. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Marshall (writer)

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

The author does not meet WP:GNG. It is all about his one book. Macbeejack ☎ 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, United States of America, and Texas. Macbeejack ☎ 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best option would be to Rename and turn it into an article about the events described in all these articles. There doesn't seem to be a wiki article about it already, and surely it would meet notability standards. The information about Max Marshall's involvement could be a section within such an article. Vontheri (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to draw up a quick stub on that topic and redirect this article to it? -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article can be improved or moved, but those are not reasons for AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions. Before this article could be renamed (and to what?), it must first have a consensus to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose keep and rename to "College of Charleston drug trafficking scandal", "College of Charleston drug trafficking ring", "Kappa Alpha fraternity Drug trafficking ring at the college of Charleston", "Kappa Alpha fraternity at the College of Charleston Xanax scandal" or some similar name. I have no strong opinion on the specific name chosen, just as long as it accurately describes what happened.

The relevant portions of the article as it currently exists can be kept, and work can be done to integrate the countless sources for references into the article. I'm sure non-internet sources exist, too, such as newspapers. Deleting the article would be deleting prose and references that would be useful for those working on the renamed article and thus counterproductive. It would be starting from scratch when the start has already been started. Vontheri (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like Marshall is notable, though the book may be and the events described in the book are. Tacyarg (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a way to create a new article with a title something like the names I proposed above and then integrate the section among the bros from this article into the new article, along with a brief paragraph or two summarizing anything from the rest of the article that is relevant, then I would be fine with that as well. It seems to me like most people agree that the events described in the book written by Max Marshall are notable, even if the person Max Marshall is not notable enough for an article. So as long as the current article isn't destroyed such that anyone working to contribute to the new article has that information in the current article accessible to them as a starting point, then I would personally also find an approach like that acceptable.

I'm not an expert in all the inner workings of wikipedia and all the different options that are available for a scenario like this, (my primary reason for being on wikipedia is to write content for articles; involving in discussions is secondary for me) but hopefully it is clear what my intent is for what I personally think should be done, and assuming others agree with me, perhaps someone else who is more an expert of inner workings of wikipedia can suggest the most proper solution from a technical standpoint. Vontheri (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

People proposed deletions

[cjr1-1] Berger, Miriam. "Palestinian citizens of Israel struggle to tell their stories". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 4 March 2024. Palestinian citizens of Israel—also called Israeli-Arabs, Palestinians in Israel, '48 Arabs, or Palestinian Arabs—

[ICG-2] {{cite journal{{subst:!}}title=Identity Crisis: Israel and its Arab Citizens | journal=Middle East Report | issue= 25 | date=4 March 2004 | url=http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110313112806/http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/israel-palestine/025-identity-crisis-israel-and-its-arab-citizens.aspx | archive-date=13 March 2011 | access-date=14 April 2011 }}

[Amara-3] Muhammad Amara (1999). Politics and sociolinguistic reflexes: Palestinian border villages (Illustrated ed.). John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 1. ISBN 978-90-272-4128-3. Many identity constructs are used to refer to Palestinians in Israel; the Israeli establishment prefer Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel. Others refer to them as Israeli Palestinians, Palestinian Arabs in Israel, the Arabs inside the Green Line. Nowadays the widespread terms among Palestinians are Palestinians in Israel or the Palestinians of 1948.

[LDE-4] Rebecca B. Kook (2002). The Logic of Democratic Exclusion: African Americans in the United States and Palestinian citizens in Israel. Lexington Books. pp. 67–68. ISBN 978-0-7391-0442-2. The category of "Israeli Arab" was constructed by the Israeli authorities. As it indicates, this category assumes and constructs two levels of identity. The first is that of Arab. Local Palestinians who remained in what became Israel were designated as Arabs rather than Palestinians. This category refers to the realm of culture and ethnicity and not, clearly, politics. The official government intention was for the "Arab" to designate culture and ethnicity and the "Israeli" - to designate the political identity. ... In addition to the category of Israeli Arabs, other categories include "the minorities" and "the Arab sector," or, in certain sectors the more cryptic appellation of "our cousins." The use of these labels denies the existence of any type of political or national identification and the use of "minority" even denies them a distinct cultural identity. With the emergence of a more critical discourse ... the categorization expands to include Israeli Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Palestinian Arabs, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, the Palestinians of 1948, and so on.

[itfiai-5] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f "Exploring the Topics of Arab Citizens and Jewish-Arab Relations in Israel" (PDF). Israeli Arab Task Force. 2022. Arab citizens' identities are more nuanced than either "Israeli" or "Palestinian." Members of this population group describe themselves (and are described by others) with many terms. Some common terms include: Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, Palestinian citizens of Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, 48ers, Palestinian Israelis

[icenter-6] "FAQ:Arab citizens of Israel" (PDF). The iCenter for Israel Education. Retrieved 4 March 2024. What are some names for Arab citizens of Israel? Palestinian citizens of Israel, Israeli Arabs, Israeli Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Palestinian Israelis. Each of these names, while referring to the same group of people, connotes something different.

[foreignpolicy-7] Berger, Miriam (8 March 2024). "Palestinian in Israel". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 6 March 2024. "I don't use the term Arab-Israeli," said the 30-year-old journalist, who was born in the Galilee and now lives in the northern city of Haifa. "We are Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. It's very important for us, the terms and the terminology we use." For Eid, the term Arab-Israeli is too removed from politics. Or, as he sees it, "It puts the Arab disconnected from the Palestinian identity." Arab-Israeli—the official media and Israeli government term for the 20 percent of Israel's almost 9 million citizens who are Arab-Palestinian—is increasingly unpopular among the people it's meant to describe. Only 16 percent of this population wants to be called "Israeli Arab," according to a 2017 survey by the University of Haifa professor Sammy Smooha provided to Foreign Policy. "The largest now and the most growing identity is a hybrid identity, which is 'Palestinian in Israel'" or a similar combination, Smooha said. "I think that's what's going to take over."

[8] Philologos (pen name) (23 June 2021). ""Israeli Arabs," "Palestinian Citizens of Israel," or "Israeli Palestinians"?". Mosaic. Retrieved 6 March 2024.

[9] Jodi Rudoren, Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens, The New York Times 12 July 2012: 'After decades of calling themselves Israeli Arabs, which in Hebrew sounds like Arabs who belong to Israel, most now prefer Palestinian citizens of Israel.'

[honest-10] Koningsveld, Akiva Van (6 October 2021). "Newsflash, Media: Israel's Arab Minority Does Not 'Largely Identify as Palestinian'". HonestReporting. Retrieved 2 March 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]