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 redirect‎ to Registered Agents Inc.. There is consensus against keeping this as a biographical article given that the person is apparently covered only in the context of his businesses, but there is no consensus to outright delete. Which leaves us with a redirect as the only possible outcome. Sandstein 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen

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

First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As MrSchimpf explains, this nomination was your first edit in almost exactly ten years. You also have a warning on your talk page for adding spam to National Registered Agents, Inc. back in 2008. You're not helping your case by getting all indignant and verbose about the obvious WP:COI issues this raises. Oh, and WP:NLT absolutely does apply here. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I haven’t edited in ten years. The former disputed article about National Registered Agents Inc. Back in 2008 was not even SPAM. I believe this was a long time before this Registered Agents Inc. Thing ever started. There is no reasonable argument that Keen is notable - if he even exists. If anything, he’s a footnote in the Registered Agents Inc article as a footnote that he is the alleged owner. It is not helpful to have disinformation and mischaracterization of Wired articles as legitimate content. National Registered Agents was a legit major company eventually acquired by CT Corporation which is a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a multi-billion $ publicly traded company.

What is suspect is reading the cites on this article and trying to reconcile them with the hit piece that is the Keen article. I’ve found two potential Dan Keens and nothing connects together. I hope that you can find something to substantiate both his ownership of these companies and his existence. Perhaps the community working together can do this. The cited article is literally about fake personas, and signs point to Keen being one of them. If biographies of imaginary people are a thing on Wikipedia now, yay for that. Nate’s contention that there are “three solid sources” for the article is also very telling. Note that I didn’t even bother to correct the blatant factual disconnects between the article and the cites, but submitted AFD instead. You want me to correct the errors instead? Because then the accusations would really fly. What is Adigao’s agenda here? That is the question. Dougieb (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the community working together can do this. this isn't what AFD is for. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:OR. Currently sources do not suggest he is a fake persona, so using that possibility as a reason to delete the article is misleading, at best. Sources say that according to multiple sources Keen is the founder and owner of the company. That a company founded on secrecy and technically-legal obfuscation would be evasive about this is too boring to bother with. If you have reliable sources, propose them. Alternately, if you have a valid, policy-based reason the current sources are insufficient, explain that reason. If, instead, you think this is a WP:BLP issue, make that case directly, but don't just throw out a bunch of reasons in the hopes that one will stick, because that is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s only a WP:BLP issue if he’s real. If turns out he’s real then yeah the nazi thing would need to be cleaned up. Let’s say he is real… okay he buys this domain registrar that hosted nazi stuff, then he (new owner) gets rid of the nazi stuff, so is it still appropriate to tie him to the Nazi stuff? The company sure. Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dougieb, if you think a WP:GREL source like Wired is disinformation, the place to raise that and make your case is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s disinformation per se. I just think maybe they were duped into this Keen thing perhaps to distract from Havre. Dougieb (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT very-Specifically does not apply here, Grayfell. It is a very heavy link to accuse a fellow editor, IMO, thank you for making me aware of it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don’t have ulterior motives and are being objective, I would think you would also want to include that in the same article, the company denied that “Keen” is an employee or owner. I suspect “Keen” may be one of the fake personas, but if so, why does the company lawyer say he was a “consultant in the acquisition?” There are a couple Dan Keens I found and I’m trying to find out more about them to see if they are “the” Dan Keen. The Wired article states, “ In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition.” So… which is it? And if we find this guy and even if he is an owner or employee, does this warrant his own article? Or should this be merged since his only notariety appears to be his connection to this company. Dougieb (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reliable sources discuss Keen in sufficient depth, thus meeting WP:NBIO. Per the cited sources, including Epik's own press release, Keen's company isn't merely acting as a registered agent for Epik, it is providing registered agent services to Epik's customers. More sources and more context would, obviously, be welcome. There are potential WP:BLP issues here, but these would have to be addressed directly, not obliquely as a WP:CRYBLP attempt to censor the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same exact source. All of these sources end up back at the same source. WP:CRYBLP doesn’t really apply (yet?) because someone first needs to establish that it is even an existing person much less living. The only “Dan Keen” i can find is a musician/producer and while its not impossible that it is actually him, I am unable to connect the dots so maybe someone else can succeed where I have failed. [MrSchimpf] “keenly” (LOL) above noted that there was a user [DunkinIdaho] who has been attempting to edit the page - and the underlying company does have a connection to Idaho, so that is interesting to me. As far as notability, this would be okay if we first could substantiate that the guy exists at all. Since the press release from the company says that he was a “consultant” in the acquisition, that’s the only thing I see that suggests that he does exist, but this company has been accused in the same article of using fake personas and fake names, so it is a dead end. I’m not saying to censor the article at all. Actually I should have suggested AFD-Merging it into the company article. Dougieb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses reliable sources to 'establish' that he exists. For us to try and do that ourselves would be original research. A press release is usable as a primary source, but we generally do not use press releases for contested information, and we do not attempt to interpret primary sources in this way, either, as that is also a form of original research.

If you have some reason to think this source is unreliable, you should explain that, because your personal inability to verify the source is not a valid reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can verify the source. The guy doesn’t seem to exist other than in a Wired article. It is just bizarre. Why isn’t there something else on this guy out there? Nobody is that far off the grid. I just suspect it is another fake name in this group of other fake names. I’d love to use another source… where is it?! In one group people discuss that apparently Keen can’t be served with legal service because no process server can find him or even verify that he exists. That’s original research (and hearsay), so I wouldn’t put it in an article. But what is up here? Nobody is that invisible. Dougieb (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen's existence is not the issue. As you've pointed out twice, a company attorney claimed did not deny his existence but merely stated that Keen acted as a "consultant." Given that Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes state as a matter of policy, do you have a WP:RS that contradicts the other reliable sources cited in the article? Amigao (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Existence, neither here nor there. Learning more about CRYCRYBLP from Grayfell or following WP:RS seems very distractive to me as well, at least currently. If we were to AGF and assume both your wired articles to be a single, independent and reliable source (and it doesn't possibly need in-text attribution to "Ex-Employees" added to furnish it's info)... Where's other WP:SIGCOV so that it can overcome a potential WP:GNG issue here and be more clarifying? Dunkinidaho (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOFT DELETE/DRAFTIFY - The tldr to me is this:

1. This page is NOT enyclopedic in substance AND the author's motives seem...off.

2. This doesn't have a snowballs chance of surviving as a NPOV BLP unless this story develops and builds into something with more sources.

3. The only sources with the subject's name attached are two related stories, both from Wired. I don't think that meets notability standards for a BLP. These sources are non-independent of eachother.

4. If the editor's true intent was to provide information from a neutral point of view, and NOT low-key doxx the subject, this page would be about Registered Agents Inc and Keen would have a section within it. That way you would avoid any BLP drama, the information on this page lives there, and you can follow a chain of facts if you want to know more. But I don't think neutral or straight facts are the intent here.

Expanded reasoning:

The page was written by an established editor here who must know sourcing is thin and is trying to make up for weak sourcing with other articles that mention Registered Agents Inc, which is arguably the actual subject of both Wired articles, and that's certainly the case with everything else that's been used as a source on the Dan Keen page. That's why I suggested on the talk page of this article that the real subject is Registered Agents Inc, just like the actual owner of Epik is also Registered Agents Inc. That's fact and there's plenty of sourcing for ownership of that property (public business records and news articles) just like there's plenty of internal wikipedia sourcing for how to treat a company infobox, but @Grayfell and @Amigao only seem to like rules when those rules back their opinions.

I'm not saying Keen shouldn't be mentioned when talking about Registered Agents Inc. or Epik. But the desire to disregard the company and make a page for Keen when sourcing seems thin, and when asked why not make it a Registered Agents Inc page, their reaction was to tattoo my talk page with a COI tag? That just feels gross. Why not just talk to me first? Also, I’m fairly new here, but is there a non-nefarious reason you purposely Transcluded the UW-paid template onto my page instead of protocol? Your first branding was responded to, promptly, and now you've now done so twice.

For the record, no one is paying me to edit this. I have no vested interest in this company or person, and I very much dislike now being associated with whatever weird corporate shill/thing DougieB is that kicked this thing off (thanks @MrSchimpf. good luck on your deck-stacking attempt--for reference, please see edit history here (keep: as Per nate). that's just lame).

Anyway, I've said Keen's role is unclear in the company because in the Wired article, the company's formal response was to say that Keen isn't an employee or the owner and that Wired's facts were "patently false." On the other side of that is quotes from ex-employees of a business that uses aliases to do most things.

It's wild that that's the company that bought the Alt Right's domain registrar and then was on twitter calling the Alt Right "beta snowflakes" after kicking Kiwi Farms off their platform. Not only is that objectively funny, the whole thing sounds nuts (albeit not too nuts to warrant a mention of Epik’s termination in either article.)

I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago, but back then if you’d asked me, I would've also thought the Wiki-editorial community had a much more academic agenda. Dunkinidaho (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago You were adding PR to the Epik page in June of 2023. Before that you had made only ten edits (enough to get autoconfirmed) and have made a grand total of 36 edits. Your willingness to lecture and insult more experienced editors about Wikipedia policy suggest that this isn't your first account. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "PR" I contributed to the Epik page in June of 2023 should look very familiar. It's the 5th source cited here on this page you're currently defending. You're absolutely right. My Expanded Reasoning did exhibit some "willingness" to stray from discussing this Articles' wiki merit...

As a newer editor (first account, unfortunately) I will be keeping my future responses limited to the substance of the Dan Keen page, as you did in your response to it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL… bro I got your “weird corporate shill/thing” right here. As was noted, I haven’t made an edit in probably ten years but was compelled here because this just doesn’t add up. The only Keen i can find anywhere is some musician and he doesn’t seem like a guy that owns and runs a couple giant companies. It just smelled of a hit piece, but is it a hit piece if the guy doesn’t actually exist? It would hold up a little better if the whole thing wasn’t about alleged fake personas and names. TBH I probably would have let the whole thing drop, but then I also got a COI from the article’s author which made me say hmm… If this guy exists and owns these two apparently large companies, there HAS to be something somewhere on him, right?Dougieb (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epik article. Keen as a standalone page fails WP:GNG as there's nothing notable about Keen aside from Epik and Registered Agents, Inc. The Wired article mentions Keen 15 times, but sources everything to the accounts of anonymous ex-employees, such as: "Keen is described by former employees as a driven but eccentric businessman who is prone to micromanagement and sudden shifts in mood." and "Keen dresses modestly, former employees say, wearing shorts and flannel shirts, and is an avid skier and outdoorsman". What other WP:SIGCOV is there on Keen himself? BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the Feb 8th Wired article mentions him 8 times while the more in-depth March 5th Wired article mentions him 15 times. - Amigao (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also amenable to delete. BBQboffin^{grill me} 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to Epik article. There isn’t even sufficient information (to me anyway) to demonstrate conclusively that Keen exists. The Wired article is the only source and the article talks about how the company allegedly uses fake names and personas. Is this just another fake name? If he does exist, the article could be considered libelous as it alleges neo nazi ties which IF he did purchase Epik, it isn’t clear that they still do. Also, the way the article was written omitting that in the same article that the Companies denied that Keen is an employee or owner suggested to me that there was ulterior motive in its creation.Dougieb (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote You cannot vote! on your own nomination, which is assumed as delete unless you add onto your rationale above. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware. My apologies. My rationale was that even if not deleted per my nom, then alternatively redirect, that is if anything at all. Thank you though.Dougieb (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epik. This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable secondary sources except where the sources are actually covering the company. Optionally also delete before redirecting, since having this article history isn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationales below. Thank you each for your perspectives. JFHJr (㊟) 05:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject does not appear to meet minimum notability standards. The primary or only citations of note are the Wired articles, and those alone seem insufficient. Consider: if the subject was mentioned positively in only a couple of articles like this, would this person merit having biographical articles? There's a much better case for Wikipedia biography for Chris Xu, founder of Shein, for instance -- but, he has no bio article here, either. While notability can be established with relatively few sources, it's typically established with more substantive references than this. There's a lot of what appears to be complete tangents here in the Afd discussion as to the concerns that there has been some COI involved in the nomination for deletion, but all of that seems extraneous to the question of whether the article should exist at all. Again, if the degree of promotion of the person in those articles were the same, but the overall sentiment was positive, would they alone be sufficient to base bio notability upon? Not at all. Those articles established a factoid about possible ownership that appears notable enough to mention in the Epik article, but it's not enough to flesh out an article about Keen. (Simply adding facts about the Registered Agents company instead of specifics about him is also not sufficient to flesh out his article.) Also, I do not see why this name should be a redirect for the Epik article as this is not an alternate name for it, nor would it be likely for someone seeking Keen to desire to be presented with Epik.WmLawson (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given that some editors are now arguing for a Redirect option, I'm relisting this discussion for a few more days, perhaps a full week. Since there is a challenge to the article sources as being insufficient, a formal source analysis would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion. And while it's unusual for an editor to return after a decade away to nominate an article for deletion, some of these Keep opinions look like they are in reaction to suspicions about the nominator, instead of focusing on the merits of the article. If another editor had made this nomination, would you still advocate Keeping it? No accusations, I'm just posing the question. Also, I don't really see a BLP issue with this article as all of the "neo-Nazi" allusions are directed to the company's policies, not the owner or any other individual so they are not being made against a "living person" but a business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources in the article that reference Keen at all are the two Wired stories. While I would agree that these would count toward the bare minimum on GNG, other factors argue against his notability: (1) Per WP:NSUSTAINED, we would want to see Keen's notability sustained over a longer period of time, not just the past month or so since the Wired coverage began to reference him. (2) Keen's notability, such as it is, seems to be related to Registered Agents Inc's purchase of Epik, so WP:BLP1E applies. He is by all (aka two in a single magazine) accounts a low-profile person, not accused of any crime, and that also argues against notability. (3) The two reliable sources provided on Keen provide very little details on his life and career, resulting in a non-encyclopedic stub-length piece that focuses mostly on his businesses. If those are notable, cover those, but the volume of coverage of Epik and Registered Agents Inc in this BLP makes it a WP:COATRACK. For these reasons, until there are more details on Keen reported by more reliable sources over a sustained period of time, this BLP should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the newly-created Registered Agents Inc., where there is heavy overlap. I note that the page creator is the same. The existing Dan Keen page is primarily about the business rather than the person, and so the content is best included on a page focussing on the business. There are already links there to Epik. Klbrain (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that in the new Registered Agents Inc. page, it seems to focus again on Epik. Arguably, there is more about Epik in the first paragraph of the RAI page than there is about RAI. Again, it just smells to me like a hit piece and Keen being the owner still seems like only an allegation at this point. Maybe suspected over… disputed owner? Alleged owner? (Since the company denies it). Dougieb (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of his contributions of all time is changing all mentions of the official Communist Party of China/CPC, to the ethnicized misnomer, "Chinese Communist Party"/CCP. He uses his "twinkle" status to quickly revert all mentions of CPC back to the red scare-y version. Truly a loyal American Imperial Party Anti China patriot. Han75 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there is reasonable doubt against a redirect to Registered Agents Inc. but as a ATD I would swing that way over allowing this article to remain. This article is more about the companies than the intended subject. It falls short of even being an attempt at a biography but a is actually a resume which is Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not. According to the Wired source it is not clear who owns the companies. Since "Wired" is touted as a reliable source then there is doubt about the owner. Anonymity is not a good reason to create a BLP. It might fly for a long time or until some action initiates the piercing the corporate veil such as violating tax laws like failure to report "beneficial owner reports". A legal agent may protect an Undisclosed Principal until such time as the agent may be held responsible for actions of the principle. Two unnamed people identify the subject as owner. Nothing actually reliable there. A lawyer claims the subject is not the owner of either company. I think Wikipedia should bank more on the Wired source that there is an email from a lawyer that the subject does not own either company. The founder and owner of Registered Agents, according to two people familiar with the company, is a man named Dan Keen. In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition. While Registered Agents Inc. might be confirmed as the owner of Epik LLC through a press release there is doubt about the subjects ownership. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Registered Agents Inc.: The only SIGCOV of Keen seems to be in the two Wired articles, which is not enough to meet GNG. However, Keen is a valid search term for RAI. From skimming both the RAI and Epik articles and their sources, Keen seems to be linked more to RAI than to Epik, although search results for (1) "Dan Keen" and "Registered Agents Inc." and (2) "Dan Keen" and "Epik" turned up very few results. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that I'm not sure that RAI is notable. It only seems to have received SIGCOV in articles that are part of a series by a collaboration of reporters, which doesn't qualify as multiple sources for GNG purposes: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this article should remain given the current sourcing, so I would accept a redirect to Registered Agents for purposes of building consensus/closing. However my preference is delete. Dan Keen is mentioned only in the two Wired articles. In the "Far Right's Favorite Web Host" article, the entire reference to him is 1. His name and position (according to two former employees) 2. A denial that he is an employee or owner, but rather a "consultant" 3. A description as being "intensely private" with no website 4. Previously running a lawn care business. In my opinion, this is not SIGCOV, although it does meet the other requirements to count towards notability. The other Wired article is SIGCOV, with about a dozen paragraphs devoted to Keen's background and activities. No other source even mentions Keen. Given the state of the sourcing here, the subject is not notable and additionally there is a real chance of getting biographical information wrong, so delete is the better option. All of the sources discuss Registered Agents Inc. I am not certain that we have CORPDEPTH for them, so I am a bit reluctant to keep the redirect, but it a better option than keeping an article with this sourcing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would redirect and REVDEL satisfy your concern RE the state of sourcing/getting biographical information wrong? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:51, 13 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 23:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funsho Oladipo

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

Article about a non-notable medical practitioner. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are just name drops and passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's not notable, I'd perhaps merge to an article about the hospital, most coverage seems to be about that. He's just a working physician it appears. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise; most of the sources if not all are not reliable, while the hospital is either. Nothing to WP:PRESERVE. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO and per nom and Oaktree b. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a medical person who is the owner of a neither notable company. Sources doses of unreliable written works; more focus on the hospital to the subject. Per WP:NGRS, few if not all seems reliable (but promotional). Case of inherent notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MILL, WP:PROF, and WP:SPAM. This is written as a press release, not an article. Besides that, he runs a 200-odd bed clinic, not what most people would call a hospital. Just to be fair, I checked Google Scholar and found single digits of cites. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Managing director of a non-notable hospital; his position in a non-notable organisation from 2019 to 2023 cannot confer notability either. There are no significant coverage in independent reliable sources either. Best, Reading Beans 06:08, 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. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.

In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.

But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in

India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]

Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?

There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.

Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.

It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 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!} 07:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Joshi

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

Subject is not notable. Declined MANY times at Draft:Mohit Joshi but new editor just created directly in the mainspace. Will ping AfC reviewers to weigh in as well. CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. CNMall41 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Actually, for sake of not canvassing (although I think pinging would be appropriate), I simply let a note at the draft submission for any watchers. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 28 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!} 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: CEO role could be notable, but this is basically a point form CV description as an article. Could be a LinkedIn post... There is hardly any extensive sourcing in RS we'd use. I would have PROD'ed this had I come across it during NPP. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 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. The consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth Kulkarni

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

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

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

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

Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" ~~award~~ reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Biology, Technology, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wikishovel,

I sent a note on my Talk page but perhaps it's more relevant here. My vote is to keep Kulkarni, and I disagree that he's a non-notable CEO due to the sheer amount of media mentions he has--paywalled and non-paywalled, in affiliation with his tenure at CRISPR. I think he warrants a Wikipedia page alongside other biopharma CEOs of far less newsworthy companies, particularly since he's heading, as you mentioned, a notable company. Would it help if I added/provided different or additional secondary sources? I can have a look around and see what else is available on record. Nathan Evo (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes please: if you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him, rather than about the company, then please do add them. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Enough coverage about the company found, nothing for this person. This is all I can find in a RS [1] that isn't a PR item; he is quoted in a brief paragraph of a few lines in an article about a conference. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to CRISPR Therapeutics. - Altenmann >talk 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no in-depth coverage. failed WP:N. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added two additional sources underscoring his notability, principally as "one of the top 25 biotech CEOs of 2020" and "11 Asian-American Executives Shaping the Future of Biopharma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. [reply]
Keep: He has more coverage than many Wikipedia execs and certainly enough news mentions to belong here, particularly given that he's in the top slot of biotech CEOs. passed WP:N. Georgieam 14:38 31 March 2024 (UTC)— Georgieam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: Enough coverage in media to be notable.--Afus199620 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 5 April 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) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's notable as a biotech leader and has more than enough media coverage.--Homerseditor, 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to the recent posts endorsing the WP:REFBOMBing, here's a source analysis:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Wikishovel
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
CRISPR Therapeutics	Press release or paid placement	Press release	Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom	✘ No
All About Belgaum	Press release or paid placement	News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents"	user-submitted, not journalism	✘ No
Fierce Biotech	Press release or paid placement	Biotech news blog, no byline	Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end	✘ No
CRISPR bio	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
Scientific American	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Time magazine	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Forbes	Well established magazine	Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Fierce Pharma	Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear	Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Healthcare Technology Report	blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	blog, click-bait	One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Timmerman Report	blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability	One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Centessa	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above	✘ No
Black Diamond	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
ReparerX	Board list on company website	Company bios	His name isn't mentioned on the page	✘ No
Marketscreener	Some sort of company listings website, might be independent	no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable	directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company	✘ No
Biotechnology Innovation Organization	membership listing page of an industry association	seems reliable from its "about" page etc	His name isn't mentioned in the list	✘ No
India New England News	clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper	probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement	the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear	✘ No
STAT+	newspaper	has byline, editorial oversight	~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll	~ Partial
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
WSJ	national newspaper	national newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Cura Foundation	independent foundation with notable backers	interview by notable foundation	interview: primary source	✘ No
The Hill Events	The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight	interview during event sponsored by newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Forbes	Forbes is an independent national newspaper...	...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed".	In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source	✘ No
FII Institute	Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
FT	Financial Times is a national newspaper	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	National TV network	news website of the TV network	trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion	✘ 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. WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, routine coverage and interviews are insufficent to write an article from. I don't think the content should be kept in article history either, though I suppose if it is I wouldn't be too broken up about it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 19 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 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajen Kandel

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Can't see that much has changed from the archived version since the last AFD in 2022: he runs a small chain of private vocational colleges (the London one is on the second floor over a shoe shop). Spammy article by SPA suggests undisclosed paid editing, but they've made no response about that yet at their talk page. Couldn't find any SIGCOV on him in reliable secondary sources, just the usual softball interviews and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, Nepal, United Arab Emirates, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nf utvol (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 19:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional autobio or UPE on a non-notable businessman. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:GNG DIV IN E 21:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:13, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimaobi C Mbataku

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

Non-notable businessperson who fails WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Suspected UPE and COI going on here. There's no source that could establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much for Inclusion. Some what of inherent promotional article. Needs much sources to establish a stand alone notability. Simply no clarification of importance. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As the article is a stub and would need much sources to establish a stand-alone notability.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A google search brings up only news source about a company he appears to own, which appears to be mildly promotional in nature. As such, this article likely fails WP:GNG and, alongside the aforementioned promotional nature and possible COI, also fails WP:NOTPROMO. ArkHyena (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few mentions (<10) when doing a search. Doesn't sound notable. Rrjmrrr (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. One good source by definition is not multiple sources for significant coverage. We have long agreed that "executive producer" is so common that it's not indication of independent notability from the film or TV show. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 8 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 no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. This close is with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination should any editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Yıldız

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

Fails WP:GNG, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, Iraq, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 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, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vanderwaalforces, please don't make assumptions about what I might know. [2], [3], [4], [5] are a few examples that go to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971. You should read comments properly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD. Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know." I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources. I'm done with this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold. // Timothy :: talk 23:46, 23 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 23:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J. Bass

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

Thinly veiled wp:spip of a routine lawyer — "500 Most Influential People In L.A." by bizjournals is not notability. Fails wp:sigcov as substantiated on interviews, business/alum pages, trivial mentions. Vanity Fair article is wp:blp1e if that and a cursory News search found his commentary in a Law.com article on "'Generational Changes,' 'Emphasis on Culture' Drive Buchalter, Leader Says". Bleak SunnyLetO (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. SunnyLetO (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially lack of WP:SIGCOV. Appearing on a list of 500 top kinds of people in one metro area is the very definition of common. I add in that he fails my own test for lawyers. Managing a law firm can make you well-off, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Reuters source is a good one, but still cannot pass WP:THREE.Contributor892z (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just an article of a business executive that lacks SIGCOV. Appearing as "500 Most Influential People in L.A." is not a major award for WP:ANYBIO and the listed company is nowhere near WP:NCORP. For now, the sources doesn't meet reserving or telling us what he has done especially the last one talking about "charting" which is not even a majority for WP:ONE EVENT. Delete till it meets WP:GNG! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:35, 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. ✗plicit 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaila Salami Olasunkanmi

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

This simply fails WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Nothing from BEFORE to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His best claim appears to be that he's dean of his college, which per criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC isn't enough.— Moriwen (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With h-index of just 15 on Google Scholar, it wouldn't be considered to meet the criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, weak publication record, no major awards and being a Dean is not notable by itself. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bounds of education but lacking verifiability. Like nom, doesn't meet WP: ACADEMIC or GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 02:24, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Mira

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Promotional article from an editor with possible COI. BEFORE does not help. In short, non-notable journalist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Asia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 27 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!} 05:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hearing professorship with no University. This article without being skeptic doesn't meet GNG, NJOURNALIST and NPROF. No credibility for Wikipedia entry whatsoever. No need of analysing sources (they, if not all appear as vague—i can even see cited Wikipedia). Jam-packed promo! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:PROF. I see no evidence his biography is notable and has been the subject of significant coverage by independent sources. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:15, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Bako Odoh

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

Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE doesn't help either (only this can not establish GNG). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Being a permanent secretary for a President doesn't give you much role except from the internal circle. More or less appeared on media but not SNG. Delete is just the option till then, when it may meet WP:N. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, the article would make you think she is the permanent secretary of Nigeria but she's not. She's just one of the many permanent secretaries to the Head of Office of a Nigerian institution. Secondly, the sources available and its counterparts that could be seen in a WP: BEFORE are press releases of the redeployment and posting these perm secs and not even particularly about her. Hence, there are no in-depth, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability here. Reading Beans 05:48, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partiboi69

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

Very little reliable sources and fails WP:SINGER Nagol0929 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nagol0929 (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources in the article but while searching I have found that he has written some Medium articles,[6] has released alot of songs that are on Genius,[7] and is on BBC Radio 1's residency.[8] But, this does not prove notability.

GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, most of the sources are not independent, would need more independent sources such as mainstream press. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that this page was already contested for speedy deletion from the messages on the talk page. Some of the sources have also been analysed by Jack4576 here — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs)

In my opinion the analysis is incorrect as several of the sites he listed as secondary, reliable, and independent were in fact not secondary, and not independent as they were literally promoting his show or appearance somewhere. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Suonii180 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 18:31, 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 merge‎ to Paranoia (role-playing game). Owen× ☎ 13:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Paranoia (role-playing game): This is the best work he has done per article and in other to help backlog, WP:ATD be applicable and redirecting is the best option. Like the discussion above, I have proposed PRESERVE which can be said as merge "important ones"—probably the sourced parts or one listed above! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place above as comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:17, 4 April 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) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just need consensus to be reached on whether to merge or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems fine to merge the career section with Paranoia (role-playing game), less the last sentence. Checked the ref of last sentence and added it to designers on Marvel_Universe_Roleplaying_Game. Rolmops23 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep The Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. source meets notability per WP:N, being reliable and in period. If it was added to the page, there is grounds to cancel the request for deletion. Merge also OK if consensus prefers. Rolmops23 (talk) 06:33, 20 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. Not enough IRS, notability issues Less Unless (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Khare

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

I have tried to bring the article back to a neutral form according to wikipedia policies. But in a less friendly way, the article is back to a negative form (which is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. According to WP:BLP1E we should avoid keeping the article (because most sources describe the company the same and the topic is notable for an event). A range of sources can be classified under WP:DEPS, And some of the sources don't even mention the information, which raises a lot of questions at WP:NPOV. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delhi, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't delete articles merely because they reflect badly on the subject. We reject them if the bad reflections cannot be justified by sourcing. Looking at the article's history, I see a slow-motion edit-war between Ciudatul and other editors, mostly relating to whether the sources are reliable, (Ciudatul removing references that they consider unreliable, others restoring). Questions of reliability of sourcing should go to WP:RSN. If you feel that the situation is unfair to a living individual, take it to WP:BLPN. AfD is not the correct place to settle this. Incidentally, it's not going to end well for the subject anyway, because even were this article deleted, it would almost certainly become a redirect to Appin where exactly the same dirty laundry will be aired in public view. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with WP:BLP1E. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't honestly see how else we can handle this. The problem is that (1) Appin has been going on for a long time (the bad press started in 2010 and the story continues to this day), while Khare is very closely linked with it; and (2) so far as I can make out, every time legal action succeeds in suppressing one article, it generates five more articles about the legal action and the suppression; this is a Hydra, where the legal action will never cut off all the heads. Point (1) makes it hard to argue for BLP1E, while point (2) ensures there will always be sources taking a negative viewpoint. We're here to reflect sources in an unbiased manner. Neutral doesn't mean "neither positive nor negative", it means representative of the sources, so if he becomes famous for being associated with potential suppression of news organisations, it's going to be hard to have an article that doesn't reflect badly on him. Elemimele (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article deletion is judged on notability, not neutrality, and there are countless WP:RS that attest to the notability of Khare and the Appin saga. You could argue that Khare is primarily notable for Appin, but the company has since rebranded and various parts have been spun off; if anything, I'd argue that Khare himself is more notable than the companies he has founded, so if they're going to the merged it should be the other way around. Jpatokal (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the notability, if you do an analysis then you can see that any priority source mentions company, so he is only notable based on the company that is under WP:BLP1E. Regarding neutrality I just added that there is no neutrality in the article. Which sums up that the article should be deleted or redirected to the company article. As far as I saw, it was you yourself who redirected the article to the company in the past. Ciudatul (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is enough information available in the company article. There is no point in creating a separate article.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jpatokal has adequate coverage from reliable sources meets WP:GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one even questions that some sources come from notable newspapers. The problem is that most sources describe the company, and Rajat is notable only on the basis of the company according to WP:BLP1E. So what you say is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplication, all information can be found in the company article. GalianoP3 (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see much coverage for this person outside of the company, seems to be only notable in that context. I think what we have for the company is sufficient, this is largely pulling minimal facts from those articles to try and build notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather good rundown, but I'm not sure we could build a neutral article about the individual [9], archived here [10]. We'd have to build an article about the hacking/lawsuit, but that's not this... The person here is a part of the story. I doubt they meet criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no standalone notability outside the company which already has its own article. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 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 redirect‎ to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Bean

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

The subject played a very small number of matches for a lower league semi-professional football team. The only sources appear to be databases and club histories. I'm curious to see if others think this person meets the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. JMWt (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly Gillingham is a fully professional club, so your nomination is slightly floored there. I am curious why you didn't post a question to ChrisTheDude who is highly active on wikipedia about your concerns first instead of going straight to AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it should have been discussed with the user who created this page, having a look at the page history, it has been on Wikipedia for a fraction under 15 years. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, it doesn't seem to be a hugely unreasonable AfD. He only played 3 times professionally and the article itself states No further details of his career are known, which is essentially a confession that not much was written about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: - not that it's especially relevant to the AfD given that the whole "has played in a fully pro league" thing died a long time ago, but while the Gills may be fully pro now they (and all Third Division clubs) almost certainly weren't in the early 1950s. Articles reproduced in this book, which I own, makes it clear that many players at that level had jobs outside football at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Yes I know, I know that there were professional footballers in those days, but even know they were on full professional contracts and were paid, they were not paid enough and required second jobs. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is pretty much the definition of semi-professional sports:

Semi-professional sports are sports in which athletes are not participating on a full-time basis, but still receive some payment. Semi-professionals are not amateur because they receive regular payment from their team, but generally at a considerably lower rate than a full-time professional athlete. As a result, semi-professional players frequently have (or seek) full-time employment elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: Actually no, he was a full professional under contract and pay and having to train full time. There is no ifs and buts about it. Having a second job was to make up the money. Football at the time, league football was all fully professional, but the pay was lousy for the lower divisions. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) is a possibility. Geschichte (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances) as valid ATD. Giant Snowman 21:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:GNG generally. The delete vote is to fight against WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS as ATD. Can't see any harm in having a redir as opposed to outright deletion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as R from member. Killarnee (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Idiosincrático (talk) 23:50, 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 no consensus‎. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrul Pitri Jusoh

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

Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is a triple murderer not notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about him and doesn't have GNG sourcing or sourcing to be an article about him. And that is the main criteria for passage of an article on the person under either GNG or nBios. So by that process, and also by the fact that the article is about the event . Hence "Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article not being about him isn't a good reason to delete it. The killings are certainly notable. The article title is a different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination was addressing that.....(un)suitability as a news event article. My last post was instead addressing your post that it was indented under, it was not the rationale for the nomination as was implied in your subsequent post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the person is not notable but the event is, so I am inclining to Delete it and creating a new article on the incident. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:16, 30 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!} 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be better information if there were details of of the murderer's background, as well as his motivation for the crimes. Nevertheless, he is a serial child killer. The article is worthy of keeping. — Maile (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This should be a case of ~~WP:BLP1E~~. Reliably cited with sources supporting WP:THREE, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:CRIMINAL, its still unclear determining having a standalone article. Maybe Rosguill' s making sense where we should have this draftified as the event and maybe applicable as a redirect either way. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states that we shouldn't have an article about people only notable for one event. Did you mean something else? -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asilvering, that should be WP:BIO1E. I'm having much consideration on this article as it's unclear whether to have an entry or not. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This crime, while gruesome and sensational, does not meet WP:CRIME: neither the perpetrator nor the victims were notable prior to the act, and there is not likely to be any historical significance to this act. (I.e. it is unlikely that news coverage will extend past the immediate event.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 11 April 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, Shadow311 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as 2018 triple homicide in Perak or something equivalent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 16 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) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor Larrea

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

Does not appear to be notable. Avishai11 (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough sources to pass WP:GNG; did you perform WP:BEFORE on native Spanish language refs? Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:ARTIST. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:08, 30 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, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Foxx

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

Fails WP:GNG and could not find any additional sources which shows he passes WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Canada. SportingFlyer T·C 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I can find [11]. A brief mention here [12], I don't think we're at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any coverage via a Google search, also seems not notable InDimensional (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements and I also couldn't see evidence of better sources out there. Editing84 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG on the basis of a lot more reliable source coverage about him than the article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 31 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 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima A. Rowshan

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Iran. Ladsgroup^overleg 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies GNG. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any reliable source about him. There is only mention of name in tagesshau Ladsgroup^overleg 17:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the references 7,8 & 16. The Donaueschinger Musiktage is not a Tagesschau. It's recognized as one of the most prestigious contemporary classical music festivals. Sofreakso (talk) 10:13, 7 April 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) 22:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria of GNG is different for contemporary classical composers. The name has been mentioned in academic essays. A commission by Donaueschinger Musiktage also make it meets GNG. There are lots of newspaper coverage regarding "Alamut" and also lots of newspaper coverage in other languages, but the name spelling seems different in some of them. Sofreakso (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fairly strong consensus with respect to WP:NMUSIC. It does not matter what the genre is; in fact, many new genres have been deleted since 2007. In order to argue for exceptions, you have to show examples. I've done thousands of AfDs, including hundreds of musical ones, and I'm unaware of any genre-based exception. If the consensus has changed, then we need dozens of folks to chime in. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 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. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George E. Walker

AfDs for this article:

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

Not independently notable per WP:BIO. Only thing is that he was related to the Bush's which does not qualify. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is some material in the sources (but not used here) which may be of use in a Bush article , but this isn't it. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He appears, by the very few accounts cited in the stub, to have been an ordinary farmer who contributed a tiny fraction of his DNA to two future presidents. That's not sufficient for inclusion. I am for inclusion of notable ancestors, and all parents, of United States Presidents, but this is a different story. I would not oppose a redirect or selective merge to the Bush family. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:BIO. This guy, by himself, is not notable. He is worth a line or two, maybe a paragraph, in the Bush family article, and that's about it. Ted52 (talk) 01:39, 30 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte García

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

WP:1E/WP:NOTMEMORIAL, only known because of her murder. As such, this biographical article should not exist, because she wasn't notable enough as a mayor of a small town. Clear WP:GNG fail with attempt at claiming notability based on post-death sources that are all about her death rather than significant coverage about her as a whole. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ecuador. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against, I sure the youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable, though it would be difficult for me to go through spainish media to retrieve it. Here is at least one article before here death.

There are also articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, so not being super notable alive isn't necessarily a cause for deletion.

https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230215/281801403134246 A reasonable voice (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To make my above opinion absolutely clear, I am against deleting the article not retaining the article. A reasonable voice (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure those articles about murder victims dive into the murder itself, not the person.

Also, those articles are just notable because of the murder and/or a celebrity who got murdered or did the murder. This is neither of those things as the page only exists because she died. Also, the "youngest mayor in Ecuador" part is trivia, and not actually something that means much. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable. There is significant coverage.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68655323

The One Event rule is not applicable, because there are at least two notable events in in her life — election as mayor and death.

Notmemorial is for persons trying to write about their deceased relatives, not about people who are written about in BBC, Spiegel, Sky news, Reuters, Fox News.

We do not require sources to be published before death. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If her election as mayor was notable, then provide some sources for it.

I think you'd have a hard time doing that as she was a mayor of a small town (her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia). 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000. This is part of a wider spread of assassinations that should be covered on Wikipedia.

The assassination wasn't even the most notable part about her. She was the youngest mayor in Ecuador, a country of 9,000,000 people. Lukt64 (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And?

So what if she was the youngest mayor in Ecuador? Are there any reliable sources of her before her death? Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000." - No it's not. The significance and size of towns isn't measured proportional to the size of their parent country, or we'd report every time someone stubbed their toe in the Vatican. I'm definitely ready to be persuaded that Ms Garcia was notable, and I hope to see some sources for that. But the size of her town relative to the country is completely irrelevant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lukt64 and BilboBeggins youngest mayor of Ecuador is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage (worldwide) with “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention” like here and here. Note it’s not only coverage after her death but also from 2023. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure what to do here. We've never held that someone is notable simply because they were a young mayor before - it's nowhere in NPOL and those arguments aren't valid in this discussion. For a small town mayor to be notable, they have to be notable above and beyond just being a mayor. WP:CRIME applies here instead, not WP:NPOL, which I don't usually apply at AfD - that reads The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. I don't think we're quite there yet, but the amount of coverage that was received here means we could get there if this continues to be well-documented. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If she was so notable from that, then there should be good sourcing for that, but nobody voting keep here has actually provided any sources that are significant coverage from prior to her death about this aledged remarkable achievement. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN. As multiple other !voters have commentated on, Garcia was well-known in Ecuador prior to her assassination due to her youth and political agenda. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If she was well known, could you provide significant coverage sources that demonstrate this? WP:NPOLITICIAN is only met if she holds Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I see no sources prior to her death to show that she was a notable politician as claimed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one article I've seen from when she was mayor outside of the WP:NOTNEWS cycle was a local paper's interview with her, which doesn't count. Is there more? SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or move per @LaborHorizontal. ~~No one has yet provided significant coverage of García before her death.~~ Her being the youngest mayor of Ecuador is still purely trivia and should not be treated as an actual encyclopedic fact. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a 2023 Ecuavisa article about García. toweli (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally keep, otherwise move to something like "Assassination of Brigitte García". I understand concerns about most sources being about her assassination rather than other parts of her career. Two things about that: (1) That itself is notable in my opinion, and justifies at least an article about the assassination if not the person herself, and (2) the sources note that she was notable in being the youngest mayor in Ecuador and a leftist challenger. Additional articles about her prior to her assassination:

The Primicias article only has passing mentions of García. Same for the El Diario article (not from Pressreader). The Ecuavisa and El Diario (on Pressreader) articles base her notability solely on the fact that she's the youngest mayor in Ecuador. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if sources note that she was notable for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, that is still trivia. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite clearly passes the WP:GNG threshold and sure could be majorly expanded. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree that Garcia is 1E because her age and assassination would seem to both be of some note, but the former is trivia (do we have an article for the youngest mayor in every country), and the latter could probably use some expansion. Either way, we really could use more information on her actual career. If we agree to keep but expansion does not occur, this article SHOULD be reverted to a draft. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable mayor. I don't see a reason to delete this article, considering that there's an ongoing political crisis. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments do you have to show she is notable and that you "don't see a reason to delete this article"? 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It may not be notable for a mayor that no one knew besides the occupants of her city, but according to most sources linked here, she was notable for being a young 27 year old being a mayor in Ecuador where the politicians are usually born in the 1950's and 60's and in some cases 1940's, it isn't surprising that most news articles focus on her. But her murder definitely gave a lot of spotlight since some people may have liked her and was in shock to hear that she was killed likely to an organization or a lone wolf. 70.167.194.163 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is purely trivia, not actually encyclopedic. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Murder of Brigitte García" I agree with others who have pointed out that she is mostly notable for the manner of her death (murdered mayor). She would never have otherwise had a wikipedia article solely for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador. However, the media coverage of the murder itself is clearly significant in the context of the country's political crisis - enough so to merit an article (for examples of other articles about a notable murder itself and not about the murder victim, see Murder of Travis Alexander or Murder of Anita Cobby). Because the murder is far more notable than the murder victim, the existing content should be moved to an article focused on the killing itself. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is keep, then keep with this move is my strongly preferred option rather than keeping as a biography article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is to keep without moving. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this result. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely an option as well. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this? The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article, only 2 editors seem to oppose this move while another supports a move Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't clear consensus and there's WP:NODEADLINE on Wikipedia, so no need to speedy close this. There's multiple options including moving to "Murder of Brigitte García" on the table, which need to be properly discussed. 3 more days of discussion to achieve a better consensus is sensible right now. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article! the suggestion to move to "Murder of Brigitte Garcia" is also reasonable. This impressive young woman should be remembered. 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66e has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No. See @Joseph2302's response. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ITN nomination that has been closed because of this AfD and won't be re-opened until this AfD is closed. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The nom is already gone. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move, per LaborHorizontal and SportingFlyer. There is clearly significant coverage of her murder, while it's debatable whether she had any such coverage before her death. I see no reason for deletion, but the scope of the article should probably be changed towards covering her death, per other articles about similar killings. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, a young female mayor, that's remarkable on its own. Bdschi (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's purely trivia. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any mayor killed during an internal conflict is notorious. If she had another nationality there would not be so many doubts...Passes WP:GNG. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still WP:1E though. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perhaps the worst nomination I've seen in a long time. Major in-depth international coverage. Can you please remove this User talk:Joseph2302. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, this is a fair AFD as a discussion is needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is most certainly not needed. I'd be less surprised to see her nominated at WP:ITN/C than I would at AFD. It's quite clear that consensus exists here - it's no longer necessary to be campaigning. Also pointing out that a nomination is very poor, is by no definition a personal attack! It's clearly a poor nomination, given the very clear consensus, and high participation.Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing is fine, calling this AFD the worst nomination I've seen in a long time is not civil, and overly aggressive towards me. Given multiple editors have not voted keep, this is not a ridiculous nomination like you claim. Moving to a "Murder of" article is more sensible than a biography article too, and that warrants discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely civil, and not personal - it's encouragement to withdraw the nomination. Moving the article - which isn't something I've suggested - would be at ATD, and then BEFORE comes into question; but is suggesting BEFORE personal - because surely if what I said is personal - so is that. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abcmaxx. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this article should not be deleted at all. 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WizardGamer775 (talk • contribs)

Greatest reasoning to keep: "should not be deleted at all". 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current Tally:

15 Keep

3 Delete

2 Move

I feel this is sufficient to keep the article, a wide majority of editors are in favor of keeping this article Microplastic Consumer (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure consensus doesn't just work by counting up the number of votes, but also by the quality of the arguments (WP:DCON). A large number of Keep voters don't seem to have an actual argument (besides her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, which is trivia) for keeping that challenges the nominator's concerns. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just counting the voters - but over 5:1 without some kind of off-wiki campaign or something, is hard to dispute. But hang on - the primary argument appears to be significant coverage, not youngest mayor - the youngest mayor argument appears secondary in response to the ONEEVENT claims. Nfitz (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E was the original argument.

Also, even if the argument is SIGCOV, then it's SIGCOV before her death, as it's already obvious that there is SIGCOV at her death. But if SIGCOV cannot be found before her death then I support moving this article to Murder of Brigitte García. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening discussion per my talk page discussion as I don't have a mop, yet. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you relist this AfD? 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. An admin will make the closure. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not sure why it was even nominated. there is a significance coverage for reliable and independent sources, and I am talking about English sources without mentioning the plethora of non-English sources. whether you want to discuss a move or not, that should be done separately. But as far as Wikipedia notability, she is notable and deserve to be included. Can someone include her picture in the infobox, as she is dead it can be used under fair use.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments do you have to consider her notable? 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalapeño, you've responded to practically every individual !vote here, some of them several times. This is excessive and approaching WP:BLUDGEON. It's not actually required that sources demonstrating someone's notability be published before their death, or we'd have a great deal of trouble with a lot of historical figures. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Sivaneswaran

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

Fails GNG and NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:27, 25 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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data is correct only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneswarapandian (talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. Poor sources with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly all the reference added. Will add few reference Vigneswarapandian (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but the article is referenced entirely to a mixture of run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of his non-winning campaigns and primary sourcing that does not support notability at all, so nothing else here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides non-winning candidacies at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data is correct and accurate. All information are true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F4:102B:A92B:6591:BAC2:2B96:3244 (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that the article is "correct and accurate" is not sufficient. The article doesn't just have to be accurate, it also has to be (a) supported by WP:GNG-worthy referencing that verifies its accuracy, and (b) meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and above comments.Sk1728 (talk) 11:31, 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 delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ali Busuguma

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

Article about a non-notable politician and lawyer. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO as lawyer. Sources are basically passing mentions of the subject. Per WP:NPOL being a private secretary to a governor does not confer notability. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:36, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Ogbonna

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

Non-notable traditional ruler. FailsWP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, probably WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Just TOOSOON. Optional dratification. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: Maybe WP:TOOSOON but that will also not bring notability later. Subject has appeared in multiple WP:RS like this, this and this talking about their emergence after 24years vacancy on the throne which is significant, this could make them pass WP:Basic. Also, the article is not harmful, hence my lean support. Kaizenify (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it is not harmful but again Too soon. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is trying to build a tree from a leaf - first, Ogugu-Ntegbenese kingdom should be established with reliable sources (Ogugu looks to be a different location), and properly de-orphaned. Then once that's done, the "kings", including a redirected Aloysius Ogbonna and the 24 year vacancy, might be covered there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:35, 31 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!} 23:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TOOSOON. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:22, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Lualua Jr

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

Article about a non-notable filmmaker. Fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. The only reliable source is this, while the rest are blogs and gossip sites. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Africa. Jamiebuba (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. I feel like the author of the article has close connection with the subject anyways → I can't find the image they uploaded anywhere public upon WP:BEFORE 1 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 04:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are mostly unreliable WP:MILL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, article seems to have used every single mention of him online as sources, and I couldn't find anything more in depth than what's there in RS. Wikishovel (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability, nothing good in the refbomb.Tehonk (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc --Devoke water 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is based far too heavily on unreliable sources that are not support for notability, and says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable in the absence of a properly sourced pass of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 31 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, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temisan Emmanuel

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Sources are paid, WP:PROMO and regular Run of the mill. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Literally per nom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial role in Glamour Girls, rest of their work is as an influencer. Typical fluffy language used, sources I find are celebrity gossip [13], [14]. I don't see how this isn't PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nom. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 04:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far way to notability. NACTOR & SIGCOV problem. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see sources but these sources does not satisfy the general notability guidelines. They are majorly interviews and press releases. Probably, too soon for an encyclopaedic entry. Best, Reading Beans 10:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can't find any notability --Devoke water 16:49, 31 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!} 07:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Adegbile

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

Article about a non-notable businessperson. Sources are regular Run-of-the-mill and paid paid sources. This clearly states its sponsored. The rest of the sources are written by contributors and are WP:PROMO who in itself are not independent of the subject. Subjects fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources explicitly state his name, and sources provided are promotional in nature. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 12:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: several articles have detailed info and are from reliable Nigerian publications listed at WP:NGRS, including The Sun, Daily Trust and Nigerian Tribune.Royal88888 (talk) 08:27, 26 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!} 23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see anything in the bio that would make him notable, and the sources are interviews or churnalism. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not convinced coverage describing him as "visionary" can be considered independent or reliable. Not notable — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:37, 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 no consensus‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji

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

BLP does not seem to have held any office position. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. My WP:BEFORE search didn't bring much, which could be because of the language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Belgium. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: joint president of a national party which has elected representatives to parliament. Could be expanded with sources from the nl:Nadia Naji, mostly 2022 sources so not associated with her current candidacy. PamD 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PamD: Would you mind taking a deeper look at the nl:Nadia Naji's sources again? From what I can see via google translate, they only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president. Apart from that, I do not see significant coverage on the other sources! Also, it would be helpful if you could mention the best three sources here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president": well, what's the matter with that? Coverage of her as one of the two leaders of an established political party. De Standaard, which we call a "quality newspaper", has a piece about her marriage, which also suggests a level of notability. PamD 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PamD: Thank you, that makes two sources. If you can share one more, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another source. PamD 11:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, bladi.net has an inbuilt forum, which I'm not sure any news media has. It doesn't look very reliable and the article does not have significant coverage, so I'm not withdrawing. I'll just leave it to the closing admin to make a decision. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 31 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) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's the co-president of a major Belgian political party. The person who put this article up for deletion seems to be completely ignorant on Belgian politics and should refrain from putting up articles for deletion in the future on Belgian topics.

Sources:

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/nadia-naji-covoorzitter-van-groen-het-vlaams-belang-spuwt-op-mensen-zoals-ik-waarom-zou-ik-tom-van-grieken-dan-een-hand-geven~b9d1cf65/

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/covoorzitter-groen-nadia-naji-over-premie-elektrische-wagens-geef-je-dat-geld-aan-heel-select-clubje-vlamingen-om-tesla-mee-te-kopen-of-aan-openbaar-vervoer-voor-iedereen~aab1ef67/

https://www.brusselstimes.com/897661/fight-against-the-far-right-must-be-mission-of-all-democrats-say-belgian-greens

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/11/04/ontbijtgesprek-nadia-naji-groen-michael-van-droogenbroeck/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/nadia-naji-groen-waar-zijn-de-socialisten-in-het-asieldebat/

178.51.7.219 (talk)

Comment: Being the co-president of a major Belgian political party will obviously attract a lot of media attention, but all the sources you have shared are just interviews from routine coverage. Interviews are not independent. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-president of Groen (political party) carries no weight here. If she is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of reliable and published third-party sources available. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 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!} 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even more sources (all major Belgian media, reliable, third party) outside of the five sources I already offered:

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/interview-nadia-naji-30-vlaams-blok-woog-op-mijn-jeugd-ik-kan-vbers-geen-hand-geven-zolang-zij-geen-respect-voor-mij-tonen~af213995/

https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240414_96614061

https://www.brusselstimes.com/221713/flemish-greens-set-to-revive-the-party-with-new-leadership

https://www.dezondag.be/actua/nadia01102023/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/naji-van-den-brandt-en-van-der-straeten-trekken-groene-lijst-in-brussel/

https://bx1.be/categories/news/nadia-naji-groen-sur-les-liens-avec-ecolo-entre-francophones-et-neerlandophones-on-peut-travailler-ensemble/

https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20231202_93310380

178.51.7.219 (talk) 178.51.7.219 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Instead of sharing what you find on Google or in local searches, I would request you to analyze it yourself.

HLN - Interview
standaard.be - Interview
brusselstimes - No in-depth coverage about the subject
dezondag.be - Interview
knack.be - No in-depth coverage
bx1.be - Interview with no in-depth coverage on the text below.
gva.be - Interview

Being a co-president of Groen does not make her notable. Since she hasn't been elected to any office positions yet, NPOL does not apply. The Belgian news media, like any other news media in the world, are supposed to interview her or get a quote each time she makes a public appearance and these fall under routine coverage. The sources you have shared and subject at its current state does not pass the basic criteria. And the article cannot be merged as it does not pass any of the additional criteria as well. It should either be deleted, redirected to Groen or draftified. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the basic criteria:

"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."

She clearly passes this, with your only objection being that a lot of coverage consists of interviews (instead of profile features?), but this is simply how Belgian media often times tends to work with regards to politicians.

Furthermore [WP:BIO] 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."

I'd argue a bit [WP:IAR] applies as well here. Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians.

The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. 178.51.7.219 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP, Jeraxmoira is saying she doesn't pass that, because these are interviews, and interviews are not independent of the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to what asilvering mentioned, multiple independent sources are required to pass WP:BIO, but we only have interviews here. You know she isn't notable when you are relying on WP:IAR as your last resort.

Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians. - Notability is not inherited. You need to get a proposal passed in order to argue for automatic notability here.
The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. - Case of WP:NOTJUSTYET and WP:FUTURE.

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 22 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!} 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Bolbukh

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

Non-notable individual. Nothing online can be found to indicate this person is a notable actresses. Entire articles is largely unsourced and written like a resume and as a magazine article instead of an encyclopedic one. All links in the references section are 99% dead links and IMDB doesn't count as a reliable source. No inline citations are used anywhere to back up anything in the article. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources found, like ZERO in Gnews. Nothing beyond SEO or spam sites in Gsearch results. Even what's used now is database sites, imbd and other non-useful resources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 24 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. There is a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor would like to work on it in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. But it will need to be approved by AFC and not just moved back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwaku Mills

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

Article a non-notable film actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV, he has only played minor roles in movies/series, some of which don't even credit him. The author seems very desperate to get this article up despite being declined in Draftspace and also placed an AFC template showing the article was approved when infact it was never approved. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage of his roles [15], in a list of other actors in the series. Only mentioned here [16] for a stage play and an interview for the play (behind a paywall, it's been archived here) [17]. I also would have done a PROD on this, not notable per our standards and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is clearly a notable cast addition to a notable TV series. I have now added multiple reliable, independent sources that show he is one of the main characters. He appears in 'first look' imagery for the show, and as part of a group of 3 other actors announced as joining the series (who all have wikipedia entires) clearly suggesting his role as significant and noteworthy to the series.

I have added further sources that reference the stage plays mentioned. From a quick online search I can see he has clearly been in further stage productions, there are multiple reviews in reputable papers. I included these in a previous Draftspace article but was told by you that it seemed promotional, so I removed them.

I have removed mentions of his minor roles or any that don't credit him.

I must apologise for placing an AFC template on my previous draftspace article. I am new to all this and obviously still learning. I thought a move to mainspace was an action I was allowed to take. Once informed otherwise I removed it from mainspace.

I decided to delete my previous draft, and be bold and try to publish my first mainspace article. I would ask that you remember Wikipedia's guideline 'not to bite the newcomers'. Your claim that i seem 'very desperate' seems rather personal, and discouraging to a new editor. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:27, 25 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) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don’t think the subject has met the requirements for WP:NACTOR at this time.Contributor892z (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be appropriate to draftify this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search shows only trivia, passing mentions, press releases, etc., than deep coverage from Independent sources. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search clearly shows subject is included in the headline of several articles as a new addition to a notable television series (‘Variety’ article for example - which is clearly a reputable, independent source). Subject’s photograph and shot of him from the series appear in many of the articles. I fail to see why subject would be included with prominence in such articles if not clearly a notable addition to the television series.

A search also shows a wide range of reviews of his stage work at notable theatres, in reputable newspapers and arts blogs. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and not notable.
Bradelykooper (talk) 06:55, 10 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 redirect‎ to Liverpool#Demonyms and identity. There is consensus, except on the part of the creator Liverpolitan1980, that there is no basis for an article about a "Liverpolitan identity". But towards the end of the discussion a WP:ATD has gained acceptance, i.e. a redirect to Liverpool, where the term "Liverpolitan" is discussed among others. Since this outcome is not in conflict with the arguments for deletion made in the first half of the discussion, I am implementing it. I am also moving the redirected article from "Liverpolitan identity" to simply "Liverpolitan", since the redirect pertains to the demonym, not the supposed "identity". Sandstein 19:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpolitan identity

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this per my earlier close. There are a plethora of issues. Its basis is a WP:FRINGE theory with addition WP:original research on top. WP:COMMONNAME does not support it. Previous arguments suggested that it be rewritten into a new article based around the culture and context of Liverpudlian; this page is then in breach of WP:NOARTICLE. Also WP:DICDEF There are insufficient reliable sources presented to support this as being a widespread or common usage. Those available are mostly passing mentions; other sources are from vested interests (e.g. Wetherspoons!) or support the complete opposite of what the article is claiming. Reliably sourced material, such as that from the University of Liverpool Press, actually argues that Scouse is the cultural demonym of Liverpool, compared to how it is being (mis)cited here. Some sources do not even mention the topic; others are merely about people who happen to be from there.

Paging participants at the earlier AfD: @Orange sticker, Phil Bridger, Wcquidditch, Koncorde, Cullen328, Jonathan Deamer, Axad12, Redfiona99, and Liverpolitan1980:. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, Social science, and England. ——Serial Number 54129 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I think there is definitely room for improvement and I would welcome other contributors to input improvements to the page. There are almost definite and clear connotations to the term 'Liverpolitan' and its use throughout history, as opposed to Liverpudlian. This needs to be expanded with help from contributors. It is imperative to a fair representation of Liverpool's history. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not follow MOS:ID as can be seen by comparing the word 'Liverpolitan' to other terms on Google Ngram or Google Trends. Additionally, it does not meet WP:N as many of the references in the article actually contain arguments which clearly state that the term is not generally used, understood or accepted, such as the quote from Steve Rotheram on BBC Radio, thus contradicting the overall basis of this article. Orange sticker (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article makes it absolutely clear from the very outset that Scouse is the dominant demonym. It's in the lede section. It cites how the Scouse identity became popularised in the mid 20th century. It compares the much older Liverpolitan term to this, the etymology and historical context of the word. The article also explains how the term Liverpolitan has been used in a contemporary sense. The sources are news organizations. The article does not attempt to conflate the Victorian context with that of the 21st century. It merely presents the evolution of the term throughout history. Therefore, there is no attempt to present A+B=C. Each individual citation is explained exactly how they were written. There is no clear explanation as to why anyone here could possibly reach that conclusion, no specific examples, no rationale behind it and no clear attempts to improve the article itself etc...Furthermore, any deletion is also hasty and has not allowed the article enough time to develop or be improved by other contributors. For example, I have identified numerous articles within the British Newspaper archive which compare and contrast Liverpolitan to Liverpudlian. There has not been enough time to input these in to the article yet. I am able to do that as early as next week and the guidance under fringe theory advises not to assume that sources are not available simply because some editors have failed to find them. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it must be borne in mind here that above where it says:

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

The system is struggling because there is a possibility the page has been mislabelled. If you change sources to "liverpolitan" you see results. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't have time to argue with every point that Liverpolitan1980 has made at various venues, but my statement in the original discussion still stands (apart from the original point 1 which was about the AfD discussion itself), as there has been no convincing response:
1. Nearly all sources for the word I could find (especially book sources) are passing mentions of the magazine.
2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.
3. "Scouse" is in a different register. The much more commonly (than "Liverpolitan") used word "Liverpudlian" is in a slightly "posher" register as this word is claimed to be. What is the difference? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Re: WP:COMMONNAME, I suggested in the initial AfD that the article breached this policy, but I’ve subsequently realised that I was probably wrong. There are three distinct identities for people from Liverpool: Liverpudlian, Scouse and Liverpolitan – of which Liverpolitan is significantly the least common. As the article is specifically about the third of those identities, it is correctly titled. It is however a clear anomaly that no articles currently exist for the far more common Liverpudlian identity and Scouse identity (an article exists only for the Scouse accent, which is a different thing).

My personal opinion is that the article would be a great deal stronger if its scope was widened to cover all 3 identities for people from Liverpool, e.g. the differences between them, when they emerged, etc. Suggested title ‘Liverpudlian identities’. The section of the present article which concentrates on these sort of issues is significantly the strongest part of the article, which I think demonstrates my point. The real issue surrounding Liverpudlian identities, in my opinion at least, is not around the use of the word Liverpolitan but in the extent to which the term Scouse is embraced or rejected.

However, if the article is to remain solely on the Liverpolitan identity, I have discussed with the author in some detail how I believe he can improve the content to make it read less like a list of occasions on which the term Liverpolitan has been used and instead work better with his material by approaching the topic from different directions (making it about the term, rather than about when the term has been used). I would therefore be inclined to give them the opportunity to make such improvements unless the present article is rejected a priori on scope grounds (in which case I'd suggest that a widening of the scope would be preferable to deletion) . Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will write another longer comment, but I really like Axad's idea. Red Fiona (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a precedent for articles on collective identities at such a localised level (category: collective identity). I would also expect such an article to be very controversial! Orange sticker (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Liverpolitan identity" as a subject of any length is real problem of SYNTH / OR. There's no real discussion of such as thing as a "Liverpolitan identity". You would struggle to find much in the way of articles about "Liverpudlian identity" or "Scouse identity" because it's just not the way anyone would discuss the subject. Instead what we have, at the crux of this debate, is the word "Liverpolitan". Liverpolitan itself is a word of some historicity - but that doesn't mean it's article worthy in its own right, because very little has actually been written about it. Instead the "Liverpolitan identity" article has a bit of a laundry list of times the word Liverpolitan has been used, and in some cases the usage is part of very finite discussions about whether it should be the demonym for people from Liverpool, or more recently a much wider area as a result of the creation of the Liverpool City Region. However that doesn't so much support the idea of a "Liverpool identity" as a subject, but rather demonstrate how limited its usage is and how some people periodically advance it as an alternative and it's generally ignored. This for me falls then firmly within WP:DICDEF territory that can be summarised thusly:

Liverpolitan is a historic demonym for the inhabitants of Liverpool.
The term had some popularity around the turn of the 19th century, but the more popular demonyms Liverpudlian and Scouser have taken precedence. The term has not found widespread popularity or usage.

Echoing Orange Sticker, a lot of the content in "Liverpolitan identity" is generic Liverpool content, the given source often not mentioning the term, or when it does discuss demonyms it rejects the term, or emphasises the other terms, as the popular demonyms without getting into any further discussion of identity or culture. There's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion (though I haven't gone through the sources fully, I doubt is controversial, but may be a little bit of WP:OR to resolve). Some of the content is relevant to the LCR specifically or to a lesser extent Steve Rotherham. Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:, on the other AFD I said that no matter what, better sourcing was needed. Having taken Liverpolitan1980 up on his suggestion to read the sources, here is a very brief summary (I am assuming good faith that the references I couldn't access (or did not read all of) are solid and relevant [refs 5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 21, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 43, 46, 48, 51, 61).

Mention Liverpolitan as a concept: Refs 2, 13, 15 [but says unlikely to ever be in common usage again], 20, 25, 26, 32, 35, 47 (but claims it to be a controversial name), 50, 57 Mention Liverpool but not Liverpolitan: Refs 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 40, 41, 42, 52, 54, 59 Refs all based on the same press release: 27, 29, 30, 53 Refs which discuss other items named Liverpolitan, not in an identity sense: 55, 56, 58 Link to an archive not a specific page so relevance cannot be assessed: Ref 7, 49 Don't mention Liverpool: Ref 9 Not a source for these purposes: ref 1 (dictionary definition) Repeats of previously used refs: Ref 28 (is ref 2 again), 38 (is 16 again), 44 (is 43 again), 45 (is 33 again), 60 (is 20 again).

I would also suggest that if the article is kept, using the structure of ref 26, explaining that it's an old world that people are trying to refresh to give an identity to the LCR, might be the way forward, because that is how most of the references that do mention it describe it.

43/44 could also do with being given its proper reference, not a ResearchGate link.

[Also, conflict of interest statement: I am very much a woolyback so really can't see this taking off.] Red Fiona (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting analysis, which I think supports my suggestion that the scope of the article needs to be widened. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Demonyms for Liverpool could be a possibility (per Demonyms for the United States). However it would need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and to be neutrally written. TSventon (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment I am happy (and have the time) to do one of three things.

1) Move some content in to the parent Liverpool article under the 'Demonym and identity' section. I can certainly take the most notable parts of the article and incorporate them in to the Liverpool article. Taking on board Koncorde above - there's some content that talks about the evolution of the demonym that might be worth merging into the main Liverpool article in some fashion. I can assure him that there is no WP:OR. I have certainly researched the subject though, more than most Wikipedians it seems since the subject is little referenced on the encyclopedia. Anyone would think that Scouser has been the only identity in the history of Liverpool - until I have obviously flagged the subject for further discussion.

2) There are almost certainly articles on the encyclopedia that follow the convention of 'List of demonyms', 'List of adjectivals and demonyms' etc... I am certainly happy for a re-naming of the article to List of adjectivals and demonyms in the Liverpool City Region. I can assure people that there are more than a few. One of the users above uses the word woollyback, one uses Scouser, I use Liverpolitan. The list is not exhaustive. If I do that, I need some assurances that the article would be allowed to develop in that subject without another nomination for deletion.

3) A complete re-write I simply just do not have the time to do by myself. However, I appreciate Axad12's comment above that this is part of a much wider discussion. I agree with her/him. The issue for me is that the topic is little referenced on the encyclopedia as it stands. If people are willing to re-organise and re-name this article along side working with me then I am happy to do that. I am not sure what the title would be, but 'Identities within the Liverpool City Region' could be a start?

It all depends on what way this discussion is going to go. But from where I am coming from there seems little appetite to make constructive changes to the article itself - rather to critique the need for its existence in the first place. I will need some heavy reassurances that there is not going to be a huge amount of controversy or drama with any of these three directions. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that all controversy on the current article relates to the title and the fact that the article relates to a relatively obscure corner of a much larger issue.

I can't speak for others but I'd imagine that any of your 3 suggestions above would remove those problems - as long as the coverage given to Liverpolitan is not WP:UNDUE.

(I don't think the list option works. My understanding is that Wikipedia list articles - e.g. 'List of [x]' - are supposed to list things which (in the main) already have their own articles on Wikipedia. I may be wrong on that, but the list option seems like the worst option of the 3 anyway.) Axad12 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with option 1, however I would urge caution when writing about a collective identity as it is such a loaded topic. Expanding on your list of demonyms to include a bit more about their origins, etymology and usage would be a strong contribution to the either the Liverpool, Scouse or Liverpool City Region page, I think. Orange sticker (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:OR - statements like:

"Over time, the Scouse identity has become entrenched within the local culture and has been intensified by those who identify more with Liverpool's maritime history and connections to overseas than they do to England itself, or the English establishment."

and

"The identity has also been adopted in the surrounding areas of Liverpool, most notably in Sefton and Knowsley, and to a lesser degree on the Wirral and in St Helens"

Are both at a glance at source and sentence explicitly OR. For the first sentence there is no mention in the source of maritime history etc Indeed the final paragraph attributes the Scouse identity proxy of "Scouse, not English" to "civic pride and rebellious spirit", a failure of of the Establishment, and the fact there's a lot of Irish descendants. For the second sentence meanwhile being it claims the identity has been "adopted". This isn't put forwards at all by the source and would be a very odd claim to make versus, say, it simply reflecting that Scousers have (over time) moved to those areas. The actual paper is about the impactfulness of the Scouse identity on voting, rather than any attempt to attribute "Scouse identity" to those areas or people, with the numbers used to attribute a coefficient for his statistical analysis. He is in effect saying "I interviewed some people, some said they were scouse - this is what that means for their voting habits". Using the study for other purposes is OR, and the way it is presented in the paragraph is rather blatant WP:SYNTH as it would be inferred that "Scouse, not English" would also be relevant in those other areas (which, again, isn't supported by the sources). Koncorde (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have made some improvements to the Liverpool article for contributor perusal. I feel that this is a completely fair representation of Liverpool's history. I am happy for this page to be deleted and over time perhaps the Scouse page can be expanded. Also, a simple re-direct from 'Liverpolitan identity' and 'Liverpolitan' to the Liverpool article might do the trick. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does seem largely OR or SYNTH, most uses of the term are a line or two. Could be trimmed back to a DICDEF and incorporated into an article about Liverpool. Seems to be largely an attempt at promoting a point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't reply with a wall of text as above; I'm frankly not interested. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: TO ALL PARTICIPANTS: Please be concise. Do not write walls of text. What AFDs need is a decisive consensus and the probability of that happening is generally increased with more thoughtful participation from a diverse group of editors. When you write looong explanations, it makes it less likely that other editors will want to read all of this and participate in the discussion. Also, the options for closure here are limited: Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge and Draftify (and sometimes Move). Do not propose editorial changes or rewriting of an article unless you are willing to do this yourself. That can be done if there is a Keep decision but are meaningless if the result isn't Keep. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move:

My preference would be to re-name it to 'History of Liverpool identity or similar. There is a lot of potential for it to be expanded but it will need to be collaborative. There is lots to discuss such as history of the term Liverpudlian, the debate between Liverpudlian and Liverpolitan. Any rejection or support for those terms. Rejection of a scouse identity etc...but I couldn't put a lot of time in to something if it is going to be flagged rather than contributed to. That's too difficult an environment. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge:

TSventon raises a good point about Demonyms for Liverpool. If that isn't possible, the article Liverpudlians could contain short sections on the Scouse and Liverpolitans, since I understand "Liverpudlian" to be a hypernym of all groups associated with living in Liverpool. I also support Liverpolitan1980's suggestion to merge it with Liverpool under the 'Demonym and identity' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A history of the identity could be an interesting article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Liverpool: After reviewing this quite a few times, I feel this is a rare case where Wikipedia:Editorial discretion should be invoked. The few sources claiming that Liverpolitan was a notable identify are substantially posterior to the period they comment on ('Liverpool', by G. Chandler published in 1957 is the most contemporaneous to the alleged strong use during the Victorian era, however he uses "Liverpolitan" as an adjective 7 times in 515 pages, including for persons as early as the 16th century). There appear to have periods where it has emerged as a moderate-to-rare-use demonym for Liverpool, but the secondary sources seem to be reaching into Wikipedia:Fringe theories, in particular when they state it was in common use in the Victorian era and represented a notable class identity difference based on social class. Looking at compendiums of primary sources such as Google nGram, Newspaper Archive, British Newspaper Archive, there is almost no usage evident before 1902... Which is a direct contradiction as this is no longer the Victorian era. Futhermore, these primary sources should be reviewed further to support any class identity difference, since the hits include many cases where 'Liverpolitan' is not a demonym, in particular many horse racing almanachs and journals reporting on "Liverpool Plate" (a horse that ran frequently in the 1900s and 1910s, and seems to have been advertised as a breeding horse and included in horse genealogical information for several decades after), and mentions of the periodical 'Liverpolitan' which was published seemingly from the 1930s to the 1940s. As an encyclopedia, we should not be aiming to "correct the record" and the above comments are clearly Wikipedia:Original research which should not be included in any article. However, editorial discretion means we should not give undue weight to this minority viewpoint, while many of the sources in this very article mention that liverpolitan is so rare a demonym it is almost unknown of, and proceed to reference ultimately the same few sources (Tony Crowley and John Belchem in particular). The article should be merged into the Liverpool article's section on demonyms and identitiy - which has already largely been done - while paying attention to not overemphasize this viewpoint versus the significantly better established 'Liverpudlian' and 'Scouse', but this last point is going beyond this AfD. Shazback (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regarding the suggestion to rename the article / redirect to a separate self-standing article such as Demonyms for Liverpool or History of Liverpool identity, I would strongly suggest using the Wikipedia:Writing Wikipedia articles backward approach. Identifying three high-quality sources that can be used as the basis for the article would be highly valuable to avoid cases where passing mentions are relied on too heavily. Although slightly outside the scope of this AfD, sourcing for the article feels a bit like Wikipedia:Citation overkill... Many of the sources are documenting context which is not leveraged strongly by the topic or section it is used in (e.g., the current revision has a section on etymology where none of the six inline citations actually comment on the etymology of liverpolitan, but another source cited in other sections - Tony Crowley's Scouse: A Social and Cultural History has an entire appendix covering the etymology of demonyms for Liverpool), or feel like an indiscriminate list of occasions where a reliable source has used the word. Building a good quality starter article from a limited number of high quality sources would most clearly establish the topic's notability and its relevance for Wikipedia. Shazback (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

My research so far shows that the term Liverpudlian is first used in 1833. There are some suggestions that it was derogatory or humourous. In 1901, I can find an argument in the British Newspaper Archive that the term Liverpolitan should be adopted in its place. The term Scouser as an identifier comes later - during the second world war as a term used in the British armed forces. That research might change but we will not know that without the opportunity to put the subject out there in order for editor discretion to take place naturally.

The historicity of Liverpool demonyms is, therefore, evolving. I think this is a fascinating subject which is worthy of more discussion and expansion. There is also lots to say about the term Woolyback and how Liverpool identity is perceived both inside and outside of the city boundaries. I would suggest there is scope for a separate article with obvious collaboration, peer review and editor discretion. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Liverpool. There doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage to justify a separate article, at least under the current title, and it seems to me to involve too much OR/SYN. See also concerns above about NOTDICT and RGW, and Shazback's comments about the sourcing. There may be scope for an article about the Liverpool cultural identity, but this isn't it (and certainly not under this title). Brunton (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page and re-name to 'Liverpolitan'.

Edits made to page. Suggestion to re-name the article to 'Liverpolitan' and convert to a disambiguation page as per link to Wiktionary. Liverpolitan1980 (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page is not needed as we don't have multiple notable topics that could be titled "Liverpolitan". It's doubtful that we even have one, as is being discussed here. What's left of the article now makes it even clearer that a redirect to Liverpool is appropriate. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 30 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 mayors of Lakeland, Florida. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gow Fields

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Coverage is very much routine and local for a mayor who served for four years. Article created by sockpuppet in violation of block. AusLondonder (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>>List of mayors of Lakeland, Florida
Delete and/or redirect. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant press coverage that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact, but this isn't citing nearly enough sourcing to pass that bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - does not have sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Perhaps there are in some of the newspaper archives given his 21 years on the city commission as well as term as mayor in a city of 115,000. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:26, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Senyonjo

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources are mostly unreliable, BEFORE doesn’t help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep yet but I want to question why this Ugandan singer's article has been nominated for deletion. I looked at the refs and there were two dead links but the others worked and they all backed up the list of three music awards. The nominator said they were unreliable sources. Why are they unreliable? Is it because they were Ugandan magazines, Ugandan Christian music magazines? Please point me to where they are blacklisted as reliable sources. Secondly, I wonder about western editors claiming non-notability for an African musician. Maybe we sometimes just don't have enough knowledge of a country's history or pop culture?LPascal (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you probably didn't check well. I am, as a matter of fact, a Nigerian based in Nigeria, a country in Africa, particularly West Africa.

I did not want to do a source assessment as it'd be a waste of time, I think it is now necessary so that you could grasp how unreliable these sources are, IMO. Find it collapsed below;

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://observer.ug/component/content/article?id=22565:-ssenyonjo-owes-her-success-to-god (Archive)	~ Very interview-ish, suspicious 404	~ This is 404 already which tells the whole story		~ Partial
https://www.newvision.co.ug/articledetails/undefined	404 error	404 error	404 error	✘ No
https://www.musicinafrica.net/directory/jackie-ssenyonjo	"Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes."	"Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes."		✘ No
https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/business/auto/my-wheels-jackie-senyonjo-choir-leader-1535934	Interview piece	Interview piece, I wonder why the prestigious Monitor will publish this		✘ No
https://ugamusic.ug/artists/jackie-senyonjo		Blogs like this are promotional and unreliable	Single line isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.thegmp.biz/jackie-senyonjo	Promotional puff	Site's about says it all "GMP (Gospel Music Promoter) is a Gospel Music promotion platform..."	https://www.thegmp.biz/jackie-senyonjo/biography	✘ No
https://www.howwe.ug/JackieSenyonjo/music	Ditto unreliable blog	Dittor	There's literally nothing of use here	✘ No
https://www.observer.ug/lifestyle/entertainment/21982-gospel-awards-to-fill-pam-awards-void	Another suspicious and alarming 404 error	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://uggospellife.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/hit-awards-2016-the-unexpected-happened-winners-walked-away-with-accolades-full-list/		Free webhost, that is also non-notable award		✘ No
https://www.ugchristiannews.com/full-list-of-the-hit-awards-2016-winners/		No byline		✘ No
https://www.ugandanbuzz.com/kansanga-pastor-weds-another-mans-wife/		Another unreliable blog	~	✘ 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}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on anything else, but offline sources (i.e. dead links/404 errors) are perfectly acceptable if they meet the other criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these ones still obviously do not meet. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as the editor who wrote this article, I can attest that she is notable!.

The Observer, The Daily Monitor and New Vision are notional media publication companies and they are independent and reliable sources! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBAND, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:SIGCOV. Saying over and over again that someone is notable doesn't make it so; in 2006 a new editor could make this argument without evidence, but in 2024, everybody in the whole world knows we are not a free web host or social media website like MySpace for musicians. The forgoing analysis by fellow Africans leads me to believe that there is in fact no significant coverage in reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. This consensus has developed over the past 18 years to limit articles to notable musicians. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical celebrity articles and many religious ones about how God has helped this person or their followers, are what I can find. I tend to agree with the source table, Source 1 is likely the best one, but it's not enough to keep the article.Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Taylor

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC as not having "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Very poorly sourced - citations are Twitter, single sentence name drops, a dead citation to her employer titled "WATCH:Pippa And Toby Took Their Relationship To The Next Level..." and two primary citations to Basingstoke Council regarding her mother's role as a councillor. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor article, padded out with unnecessary detail (an entire paragraph on the subject's mum being a local councillor is particularly filler-like). I'm not sure WP:BEFORE was done on this nom, but I have done a little searching and the subject has a few published books, but nothing "significant" per WP:AUTHOR - just quiz books. News coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of her relationship to Toby Tarrant (who is also questionably notable). There seems to have previously been a presumption that anyone who appears on or works in radio is automatically notable, but this is no longer the case, radio presenters or producers even at a national level need to meet GNG and this individual appears non-notable in the specific context of that Wikipedia guideline, has not made a significant contribution to the field and is just another workaday radio producer. Flip Format (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with most of your comments, but to be clear I did conduct a search prior to nomination. I found tabloid celebrity stories such as this. Her quiz book received virtually no coverage, certainly nothing to even consider per WP:NAUTHOR. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tabloids don't contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 17:35, 30 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 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Peel

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

When this article was created the new page patroller wrote to the creator "Sources cited are not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, and elected officials at local government level are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL." This is my exact concern now. Coverage is very much local, routine and expected for a local government leader. Peel is lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - local councillor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the basis of a hell of a lot more reliable source coverage about their council work than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician who doesn’t meet criteria for an article. Not notable and few RS media coverage. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillor without evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:52, 30 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 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oyebanji Akins

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCREATOR. Sources are paid, promotional and unreliable puff pieces. BEFORE makes no difference. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "Bridging cultural divides" and 10 things I should know about him, the typical flowery language from Nigerian sources. I don't se notability when the fluffy language is removed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Sources are WP:PAID and regular Run of the Mill. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a critic does not inherit notability from reviewing other people's work; they get it for reliable sources about them and their writing. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 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 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 14:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oga Amos

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NCREATOR. Sources, with a partial exception of The Nation, are all paid puff. Sources from BEFORE are also paid puff. See source analysis below;

Currently on the article;

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
https://thenationonlineng.net/comedian-oga-amos-wins-best-skit-maker-in-ghana/	~ Even though the "win award" is true, this is paid promotional puff	~ Ditto	~ Partial
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/02/25/from-content-creation-to-philanthropy-inspiring-journey-of-oga-amos/	paid promotional puff	Ditto	✘ No
https://leadership.ng/oga-amos-from-anambra-roots-to-lagos-stardom/	paid promotional puff ("Oga Amos’s commitment and talent haven’t gone unnoticed, earning him well-deserved awards that acknowledge his substantial contributions to the dynamic world of online entertainment.", really? Only one non-notable award?)	Ditto	✘ No
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2023/01/27/oga-amos-one-of-nigerias-leading-content-creators/	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/11/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives-of-his-fans/	paid promotional puff	WP:NGRS, paid promotional puff	✘ 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}}.

From BEFORE:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://newtelegraphng.com/oga-amos-cheers-content-creators-for-incredible-creativity/	~	~ Even though WP:NGRS, this is still dependent on the subject	This is not about him directly	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives/	paid promotional puff	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/11/05/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives-of-his-fans	Ditto	Ditto and WP:NGRS		✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-fans-lives/	Ditto	Ditto		✘ 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}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the charts show, lots of wording for not much substance for notability. It's all either long fluff pieces or just what reads as SEO spam. I can't find anything that isn't a puff piece either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 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 07:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Yk Mule

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. BEFORE doesn’t help. The Punch piece is a bit misleading in terms of verifying he really won the “Best DJ” award from The Beatz Award. The piece simply does not verify that claim. Even if it does, still non-notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable DJ. Does not meet WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:11, 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. Despite copious amounts of pseudolaw verbiage, the lone Keep view failed to adequately address the absence of independent, significant coverage. Consensus here is clear. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Ozgur

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

Delete: Non-notable. None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject. Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release. Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability. Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Turkey. Scottyoak2 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability. spam. Tehonk (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to objections

Reference your opinion that:

"Delete: Non-notable. None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject. Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release. Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability."

I would like to reply in a step-by-step manner to each of the objection that has been raised.

Objection 1: Non-Notable

Reply to objection 1

1. WP:N says:

"A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG)..."

WP:BASIC 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."

What does WP:GNG says?

1.1. WP:GNG says:

"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."

1.1.1. WP:SIGCOV says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

1.1.2. WP:RS says:

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

1.1.2.1. WP:SOURCEDEF says:

"A source is where the material comes from. For example, a source could be a book or a webpage"

WP:SOURCE says: What counts as a reliable source...
- The publication (for example, the newspaper, journal, magazine: "That source covers the arts.") and publications like them.

However, even if the source is recognized as blog, WP:NEWSBLOG says

"These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals"

1.1.2.2. WP:PUBLISHED says:

"Published means, for Wikipedia's purposes, any source that was made available to the public in some form..."

1.1.3. WP:PSTS says:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources..."

External Reference for what is secondary source

Response: In terms of the above outlined criteria, the article has received WP:SIGCOV significant coverage as after visiting the secondary sources there is no need to carry out any further research. Thus significant coverage warrants that the article be retained as stand-alone article WP:GNG. WP:RS outlines reliability criteria and as per the available public information and assuming optimistically there has been no information of Journalistic misconduct on the part of media entites which have been referenced herein. However, if you have any specific information in this regard, please share.

Thus, having significant coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources the article qualifiesWP: BASIC. Hence, qualifying WP:GNG and WP: BASIC depicts the WP:N of the article and merits a stand-alone article.

Objection 2: None of the cited sources contain significant coverage of the subject.

Reply to objection 2

WP:SIGCOV says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Response: There are multiple sources like for example this webpage that has covered the topic under discussion in detail, and I am sure no more information is required after vsiting this secondary source.

Objection 3: Three of the sources (SonDakika, Cumhuriyet, and Dizidoktoru) are nearly identical reprints of the same press release.

Reply to objection 3

WP:GNG says:

"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected "

WP:NEWSORG says:

"Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy."

In addiiton; WP:RS says:

" Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."

Response: Thus just having three sources( though there are now almost 10 verifiable and reliable secondary sources) isnt a valid reason to declare Non notability. At the same time, it is a worldwide practice that newspapers copy news from reliable source and in this case reporting of similar news by different media sections strengthen this notion that the news being shared is accurate. Furthermore, availability of secondary sources second the WP:RS clause and shall be deemed as passing the test for notability criteria.

Objection 4: Regardless, they are out-of-scope, because they are synopses of the film "Geal" and merely mention Ozgur. WP:BEFORE yields nothing that contributes to notability

Reply to objection 4

WP:SIGCOV says:

"it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. "

WP:GNG says:

"sources vary in quality and depth of coverage... "

Response: As said, the subject doesn't need to be the main topic nor the depth of coverage determines the notability criteria.

Conclusion

I hope I was able to address the questions that have been raised here by the respectable members.

My vote

Keep

Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibtehassanbutt, please keep any future comments brief. You don't need to post long quotes of policy. Just link to the page and editors who are interested can go check it out. Long walls of text like this can discourage other editors from commenting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duly,noted. Thanks for the guidance. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT:@Tehonk Thanks for the input. Per WP:BROCHURE and the examples cited therein, can you quote any line from the article here that fits this description? Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scottyoak2,

Hope you are doing well. The sources you talked about ofcourse they represent the same movie but how are they identical? These are completely different websites. They are not out of scope. They do mention that the film script was written by Baris Ozgur. Askarii27 (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He isn't the primary focus of most of the secondary independent sources. I was not able to find any other source that would make the subject notable. Aintabli (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Thank you for the input. Per WP:SIGCOV, being primary focus/ main topic of the source is not necessary to establish significant coverage. However, as per your argument you are establishing that the subject is focus of most of the secondary independent sources though you don't agree with the primary part, but even as per this notion it qualifies WP:BASIC and establishes notability. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, but that kind of abstracts portions of my comment from the overall point I was making. I actually meant that there isn't any significant coverage within the sources. The sources are not exactly good quality and mostly quite brief. When you combine this with that he is not the primary focus, there isn't significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Please refer to WP:BASIC If in-depth coverage is not present, then multiple sources can be combined to establish notability.

Second, I can't see what the quality of sources refers to. Can you cite any guidelines within WP:GNG that discussed "Quality of the Source?"

Per WP:GNG the aspect of sources has been discussed under WP:RS i.e., reliability, and says sources encompass all sources of media, including published, and WP:PUBLISHED means any publicly available source, including webpages. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from the nominator: I see that a few additional sources have been added to article. Here is a list of the references in the article at this time, and I have included the entire coverage of the article subject from each source.

1. General Directorate of Cinema Government Directory.

"Producer: Barış Özgür Aron Film"

2. haberturk.com a churnalism press release.

"Barış Özgür wrote the script of the film directed by Fikret Sanal."

3. Gonul Interview with an actor.

"It was written by Barış Özgür, inspired by a true story."

4. sadibey.com Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

5. SESAM a membership directory.

"Member #174: ARON FILM, BARIŞ ÖZGÜR"

6. Film Freeway Contains data, but isn't usable to establish notability. It's CV-style WP:UGC, discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard here: Archive_401#FilmFreeway

7. House of Film A listing for a film. (Doesn't mention Baris Ozgur.)

8. SonDakika.com Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

9. Cumhuriyet.tr Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

10. Dizi Doktoru Press release.

"The film, whose script was written by Barış Özgür; It was shot in Göreme, Cappadocia and Salt Lake."

So, five of the sources have churned a single sentence from the press release; two are directory listings; one is a single sentence from an interview; one is user-generated content; and one doesn't mention the subject at all. I don't see any actual independent coverage from any source. My original nomination still stands. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: @Scottyoak2 Thanks for your detailed review. I think the subject under discussion is primarily a writer, producer, and director. These are the characteristics whose coverage makes the subject notable, and these particular aspects of the subject have been covered by sufficient reliable secondary sources. Referring to this

Archive_401#FilmFreeway can't see any consensus about it. However, I am not claiming notability on the basis of this one reference alone. Per WP:ABOUTSELF only primary information is drawn from FilmFreeway reference, and the information, even if presumed self-published, is still admissible as a source as it pertains to the subject himself. Though keeping in view the coverage of the film Cold Blooded Love, I think WP:CREATIVE can be claimed, yet I think when its qualifying WP:BASIC, there is no need to demand WP:N for other additional criteria (s).

P.S.: I have added a few more references in the original article for your kind review, please. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:34, 30 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!} 08:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuma Mmeka

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

There are many sources but all are blogs and self published. No way to notability and SIGCOV. The books were all self pubs and the citations were blogs from unreliable sources. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR and no way to SNG All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More of PROMO! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:37, 22 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!} 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:42, 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 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!} 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ikoku

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

I am doubtful of passing GNG. Per Before gave articles linking only to her campaign like this one although have no results nor passes WP:NPOL. SIGCOV is also a problem and judging from the media aspect, the subject fails ANYBIO. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:08, 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:47, 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!} 06:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer Jørgensen

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

Does not meet WP:GNG criteria. He played only a few matches at the professional level, and the only source used does not confirm his notability. Just WP:NOTJUSTYET, but maybe he deserves an article in a few months or rather years. FromCzech (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – The athlete can become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify There is at least one somewhat substantial source I found—[18]—but this comes across as slightly WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - additional references and resources have been added. Pospeak (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:49, 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 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!} 08:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iyobo

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

Fails GNG and no SIGCOV. Being a head of a church regards a notable one per WP:CLERGY and verifiable by multiple reliable sources. BEFORE found nothing even with different change of related name on google news per WP: BISHOP. It is noteworthy to say: it's neither written as an Encyclopedic material nor a notable reference since it lacks context also to identify WP:N All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also did not pass WP: NAUTHOR and WP: JOURNALIST. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:58, 22 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!} 04:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:50, 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 redirect‎ to M.O.N.T. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bitsaeon

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

I wanted to redirect but decide to AFD so that a consensus will be made. The article was typically based on M.O.N.T including if not all the sources. The article didn't pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I AFD it to he WP:TOOSOON and per WP: MUSICBIO may need to be redirected to the article M.O.N.T. For WP:PRESERVE, Like the singing competition may be fixed variably and optionally, though he may not meet. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i agree with the nomination. Aidillia (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. 98 𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 09:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per 98Tigerius.--Eastern Anatolia (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:09, 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. _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 ([19]), 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 [20], 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[21] 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:

[22]

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 [23][24] 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. 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 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. ✗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 [25] and the second [26] were quite editorial, but a bit flawless since ita all about a non notable camping. The third source here [27] and the fourth source here [28] were just interviews and doesn't credit to WP:N. The fifth source [29] look like a freelance writing and is generally unreliable (unreliable news web). The sixth here [30] 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 [31] and the eight [32] Obviously a blog. I haven't seen how [33] 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 [34] and [35] 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 [36]. Seemingly [37] is from an unreliable source Business Ghana while the delegate as claimed wasn't what I saw in [38] which he was placed under "Youth Intervention." Source [39] was same as [11] still an interview that constitutes nothing but just the subject speaking anything about himself. The sixteenth source [40] 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 [41] 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 [42] 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 [43] is still an interview already repeated in the article and [44] 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, [45] fails while [46] was a well written one seeming sort of paid stuff and the last [47] 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 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 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. [48] [49] 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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

People proposed deletions