Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SpringProof (talk | contribs) at 00:13, 22 January 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Kinström.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
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 merge‎ to Lars Kinström. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Kinström

Christina Kinström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:BIO. signed, SpringProof talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Music, and Sweden. signed, SpringProof talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't access Svenskt Klavikordbygge 1720–1820, but the other two sources in the article just contain trivial mentions (the first source just cites the second and third sources). Can't find anything other than trivial mentions in my search, but historical bios are relatively likely to have hard-to-find sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: She doesn't have an entry on the Swedish Wikipedia, although her husband and brother (both also instrument makers) do. She's briefly mentioned here and here (under her maiden name) in entries on her husband, which just say that she continued operating his workshop after his death. She's also briefly mentioned here in an entry on her brother. Sadly it seems like she's basically been treated as a side note in sources about her male relatives. Hopefully someone else is able to find something more substantial, because from what I could find I'm not sure there's enough in the historical record to warrant an article about her. MCE89 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the obvious thing to do here is to translate the article on her husband Lars Kinström from Swedish wiki: he is certainly notable; and then to merge Christina into that. She may well have done sterling work in her late husband's company, but it seems unlikely that enough has been recorded about her to make a stand-alone article possible. If anyone else feels like doing the translation, that'd be great, otherwise I can do that and then the merge will only take a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Gibson

Marcus Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. There is no secondary source coverage of this individual. Cites his own self published works, sites, social media as a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has almost passed the 7 day threshold without gathering that much discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't require that an author have multiple published works, so I think he could strictly speaking scrape past NAUTHOR on the basis of his book D getting multiple reviews. But the book is only very marginally notable and he really has no notability outside of that. A couple of his short stories got minor awards, but none got any reviews as far as I can tell. So I lean delete as, even though the book was the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, I don't think it really qualifies as a significant or well-known work. MCE89 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not weighing into this discussion on whether the article should be deleted or not, however I've previously seen editors in other discussion make the argument that having multiple reviews of an author's books is an automatic WP:NAUTHOR pass. After recently re-reading the guideline I believe that takes part of a criterion out of context.
    Criterion 3 reads in full: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). TarnishedPathtalk 02:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep apologies if I wasn't clear, that's exactly what I was trying to say. He meets the criteria following "In addition..." based on having multiple reviews of his book, but I don't think his book qualifies as a significant or well-known work. So he meets the more objective supplementary requirement described in the second sentence of WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think he meets the more subjective requirement in the first sentence of having created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. MCE89 (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wolf

Christopher Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable attorney. In my WP:BEFORE, I found mentions like this and this but they are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV requirement. Gheus (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the absence of one's patience or motivation to rewrite a poorly written article about a notable subject is not, in and by itself, a valid deletion criterion, regardless of the popularity of the WP:TNT essay. Cropping a promotionally-written page down to a stub requires very little effort, and no administrative tools. Please focus on the notability of the topic here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against creating an article about the event itself. Ping me if you need a copy of the three sources cited there. Owen× ☎ 01:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Elitzur

Yehoshua Elitzur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E - this person is not notable except for their conviction. WP:CRIMINAL applies. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Killing of Sael Jabara a-Shatiya (he was convicted for manslaughter not murder). There is a lot of coverage of the event, passing WP:NEVENT, but with the way is covered it might make sense to keep it on the perp. It is a poor stub and should not have been made in this state but from a search it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Additionally, the page lacks context, making it unhelpful to users. gidonb (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RUBBISH. Article being poorly written is not an AfD reason. Eelipe (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eelipe, could you point to one specific opinion to which this might be relevant? Both users who consider the article poor want to keep it, while both users advocating for deletion cite entirely different reasons! gidonb (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is about an Israeli settler who killed a Palestinian. It is covered by WP:ARBECR. Eelipe is not extendedconfirmed and therefore cannot participate. I have struck through their comments. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One murder doesn't make someone notable, and for all of the two lines of text, I don't see notability. There is only coverage about the event, nothing about the individual that would show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, in some circumstances one murder can make someone notable. That he was on the run for 15 years is something. And if that's the complaint would it not make sense to rename it? The event itself passes NEVENT (given sustained coverage and depth of coverage + entire film about it). To my understanding that it is a stub is not a deletion reason - what shows notability is sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus seems to be that this is a BLP1E case. Any redirect would need to be from Roger Lynn, without the "Rev.", and that redirect already exists. Sandstein 12:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Roger Lynn

Rev. Roger Lynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only notable for one thing, the marriage of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, to which the article should redirect, per WP:BIO1E. Fram (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salty dog (slang)

Salty dog (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As an alternative to deletion, maybe this could redirect to a Slang section in Salty dog that lists it as a nickname for a sailor or US Marine. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. new reliable sources were added, and the nominator was inclined to withdraw the nomination (non-admin closure) NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Hamilton Brookes

Hugh Hamilton Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 was declined here, but I see no claim of notability. According to this article, he was a vice air-marshal (a high rank, but simply having a high-rank does not make a person notable), and he held some miscellaneous non-notable command positions. The only sources given are Who's Who (which is considered generally unreliable), and a page from The London Gazette that confirms that he retired in 1958, but it tells us nothing further about him. Since this is now an AfD rather than a speedy deletion, I went ahead and carefully looked through the Wikipedia Library (in case he is perhaps notable after all), but I see no results for any British officer by this name. — Anonymous 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Hasan ibn Azimullah

Sayyid Hasan ibn Azimullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to a severe lack of reliable sources that verify its content, and the article contains promotional, irrelevant and genealogical content. The article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. Lastly, this page was nominated for deletion in 2020 [4], and was deleted thereafter. [5] HyperShark244 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William James Carson

William James Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IRA member who was killed in a shocking and sad way in 1979. I can see why someone felt this deserved an article but I'm not seeing many reliable sources. Prezbo (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ as the nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marlowe (Irish republican)

Paul Marlowe (Irish republican) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

IRA member who was killed in 1976 when his bomb exploded prematurely. There is some coverage on Google Books but probably not enough to clear the bar of WP:N. Prezbo (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, article has been expanded with better sources.Prezbo (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to allowing reworking, but this seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT really. Espatie (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated on behalf of 46.132.74.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I contested this editor's WP:PROD nomination, and they then asked on my talk page how, as an unregistered user, they could start an AfD nomination. Their PROD rationale was The article was already deleted once over concerns of notability, and although this version is longer, it is still mostly unsourced and includes nothing that would make the topic obviously notable. I will give my own opinion separately. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gies, Gabi (2009-01-14). "Ein bewegtes Leben". Neue Ruhr Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2025-01-20.
  • "Gräfin Isabelle von Loe - Schloss Wissen". Blattus Martini - Kevelaerer Enzyclopädie. Retrieved 2025-01-20.
The first is a biography in a regional newspaper. The second appears to be a reprint from a biographical dictionary (Kevelaerer Persönlichkeiten by Evers and Willing). This is somewhat suggestive that a more thorough search could locate enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, although I'm not sure it's enough on its own. I mainly contested the PROD because the tag had previously been removed by another user, and because the article had been recreated after a prior PROD deletion. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see why someone might think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, since she lived a pretty impressive life. However, I can't find any sources (aside from a few passing mentions) other than the two Jfire has already identified, and I would say they are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. Tserton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems that this article just needs to be improved by including more sources, she certainly did enough to warrant notability as another user mentioned. I do think that the wording and flow needs to be improved, but that's another topic. Perhaps just add the relevant banners instead of requesting deletion. Just the fact that "she was the longest lived royal European centenarian to have ever lived" makes me think that some more effort should be put in to save it. If there's a source for that, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the relevant standards. Laurelius (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it certainly needs work, but based on what is in there and sourced, and her extremely long life, she's easily notable. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I cut out some fluffy language and added some royal connections like Marie Antoinette, the headless queen who was her distant-great-aunt. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am very uncertain about this one. I think she would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, as she doesn't meet any WP:SNG. So, has there been significant coverage about her in reliable, secondary sources? The first source in this article apparently "describes in passing" some activities the author of that source undertook with her. That doesn't sound like significant coverage. The two sources that Jfire found are as much about her family and the castle as about her, and don't go into detail about her wartime activities, and they are also both very local. In the past, when articles about centenarians were brought to AfD, they were usually deleted unless there was significant, non-local coverage (so not just the local newspaper covering their 90th, 100th and 110th birthdays, for example), or if they met WP:ANYBIO. Examples of AfDs where the result was Keep are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockett. I haven't found much here, although there was a paragraph about her in The Tatler [6] (included in the article Salm-Salm). I have found a source about her donating land to the German War Graves Commission [7], but that isn't significant coverage, it just confirms content in the article. I have tried to search in digitised German newspapers, and found only a notice of her husband's death and some social notes. I tend to think there is not enough to keep this in English Wikipedia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a feeling someone would bring up the Tatler article. To spare people a click, it's a listicle that might well have been sourced from Wikipedia. 46.132.74.112 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as female figure. To the listed pages noting her passing there is also coverage: Für viele war sie eine zweite Mutter (German) in local journal Kevelaerer Blatt. Axisstroke (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but...that article is one of precisely two sources in existence that aren't passing mentions. Tserton (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JeriQ

AfDs for this article:
JeriQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all ramifications of WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICIAN. The nominations are not exclusive and so do not inherently confer both guidelines I just mentioned.

Citation 1 from marginally reliable Vanguard with no substantial coverage.

Citation 2 from the same marginally reliable source is utterly unreliable as it lacks a byline and does not provide any useful information.

Citation 3 lacks a byline and is only 104 words, no substantial coverage.

Citation 4 does not only lack a byline, it is definitely a sponsored piece.

Citations 5, 6, and 14 are the usual nomination lists.

Citations 7 and 8 has nothing to offer to this subject's passing of WP:GNG.

Citations 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide no substantial coverage about this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants of the November 2024 discussion to see if anything has changed... @Versace1608, @Bearian, @Ibjaja055. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did a good job, ResonantDistortion, but sorry, it doesn't add a pinch of salt of WP:GNG for the subject. Firstly, for the charting, NMUSICIAN says that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (emphasis mine). Not only is the Billboard chart entry being not a single, ("Oganigwe" by Zlatan featuring Odumodublvck and Jeriq), Billboard is not Nigerian's national music chart. Plus, if the song charted No. 47 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs, it didn't really chart to confer notability on who was featured, nope, it didn't. This Afrobeats Fresh Picks also has the same issue, provides nothing to establish the mentioned notability on Jeriq.
I also cannot comprehend why you do not find the way this article was created deceptively concerning, This, then how it was moved to the supposedly correct title.
Again, "Nyem Ego" is another feature. Below is my analysis of the sources you added so far. This, coupled with my above analysis makes it evident that Jeriq is not yet a notable musician.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ The ridiculously promotional nature of this piece is a clear sign ~ Ditto No Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject. ✘ No
No Reflecting on the concert’s significance, JeriQ told Saturday Beats,..., clearly not. ~ Ditto No Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject. ✘ No
No An interview... No ...while not entirely prohibited, cannot be the base on a subject's notability. Yes 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) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That it's not a Nigerian chart is not relevant, and neither is the fact it's a collaboration. Jeriq, evidently a major contributor to the piece of music, still has featured in the top 50 of a reliable chart aggregator, contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#2. He has been nominated, as a solo artist, twice for a notable national award which is WP:VERIFIED, and contributes to WP:MUSICBIO#8. At least two collaborative works with different artists have achieved non-trivial critical "best of" selections in independent sources, contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#1. The article in TurnTableCharts magazine (a website listed as a WP-reliable Nigerian source) is not only a curated interview but includes notability-supporting journalistic bylined non-trivial biographical information contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#1 (per WP:INTERVIEW). The nature of the page creation is irrelevant to the notability of the subject; for the record I have updated the article to try and improve it. Overall, the evidence points to the subject meeting the relevant notability guideline, and therefore I maintain my position to keep. ResonantDistortion 16:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The subject's debut album, Billion Dollar Dream, was critically reviewed by Afrocritik and The Native. He has received two nominations at The Headies. As previously pointed out, he charted on a Billboard chart as a guest act. These three reasons should be good enough for a weak keep. When I previously nominated the article, I didn't see reviews of his debut album in reliable sources. I also didn't see his nominations at The Headies. Perhaps I could have done a more in-depth search but preliminary search results didn't show reliable coverage at the time. The article contains a few promotional wording and definitely needs to be cleaned up.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Unis (group). Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gehlee

Gehlee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from Universe Ticket-related reportings (the competition show that determines the lineup for Unis) and in turn Unis-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of Unis's debut-related promotional reportings from WP:BEFORE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ado Muhammad

AfDs for this article:
Mustapha Ado Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely nothing makes this subject pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Great philanthropist, yeah, but no evidence of notability. And something off... first, a cosmetic manufacturing company... and then a lubricant manufacturing company, an oversight, probably, but definitely an expensive oversight for a WP:BLP. Let's delve into the sources in question:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes This is a regular routine news piece. Yes No Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject. ✘ No
No We will soon also commence..., He said..., etc. Clearly a primary source and nothing notable about The Sun Award. ~ Ditto No Ditto ✘ No
No The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AMMASCO International Plc, Alhaji Mustapha Ado Mohammed has disclosed that he is targeting..., and so on. ~ Ditto No Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject. ✘ No
~ This is clearly a guest post. Definitely a PR, piece is super promotional and gives nothing but paid sponsorship... No ...and Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable. Yes Ditto + this is most likely yellow journalism. ✘ No
~ I hope you know what Chairman of LUPAN, Alhaji Mustapha Ado Muhammad, who disclosed this to LEADERSHIP in Abuja... means. Yes No Regular WP:DOGBITESMAN. ✘ No
Yes This is a routine coverage. Yes Ditto No Regular WP:DOGBITESMAN. Also, even the chief executive officer of National Competitiveness Council of Nigeria is not inherently notable and has to pass WP:GNG to be considered for a standalone entry. ✘ No
No Firstly, lacks a proper byline, and In addition to his success in manufacturing, Mustapha has diversified his portfolio through AMMASCO Communication Limited, which was granted a license by the National Broadcasting Commission... wow, that's great, but it isn't Wikipedia's business. ...he has partnered with the Nigerian Automobile Technicians Association (NATA) to donate technical tools to thousands of technicians nationwide great philanthropy there, but again... doesn't add a pinch of salt to WP:GNG. No Ditto + highly promotional. Yes ✘ 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) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pulse Nigeria is a very reliable source in Nigeria and it has this profile of him [20] and others. I think the barrier we have is search engines mixing his name with other northerner’s and the main coverage about him being in Hausa. The references I listed here are not listed in the source material above.
I don’t know why I feel like this nominator does not like this thing specific page. Honours234 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Honours234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Honours234 Welcome old IP editor, you want to declare your affiliations with the subject? There is no way on earth your second-ever edit on your registered account as an old IP editor is to an AfD discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have any affiliation with the subject and even if I did, I dont see how this affects this discussion. I previously used a 97/ IP from CenturyLink tha is unfortunately bkocked as a proxy. I may have knowledge about P & G more than you if that's what you are worried about. Honours234 (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Honours234 You know, you sure do! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, let's give a quick dive into the sources you mentioned specifically, this is utterly unreliable; it is a promotional nonsense and lacks a byline as a piece; this and this lacks a substantial coverage on the subject; this I already analysed above; this (original interview) is clearly an interview we cannot base on for notability; this? is ridiculously promotional Known for his keen business acumen and unwavering commitment to the region’s growth and also ridiculously AI generated.
With your experience as an "old IP editor", you should know better by now what it takes for a subject to pass GNG or for a piece to be considered reliable, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your "oldness" as an IP editor. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first one you highlighted lcks byline. Interviews contribute to substantial coverage, did you watch the interview at all?
The line you highlighted from Pulse Nigeria is ridiculous in what manner please. I dont agree with your submission that the article is promotional because they wrote a 13 word praise. The article seems to be balanced to me. It seems you are cherrypicking words to show that an article is not reliable, since when? Honours234 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if youre trying to have fun by calling me a old editor, that is not so good faith of you. I added the description because of the toxicity you are trying to show. Honours234 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)

AfDs for this article:
Larry Harris (U.S. Marine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG as he lacks SIGCOV. The Silver Star does not meet WP:ANYBIO # 1. Soldier who did his duty, but has no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Feldman

AfDs for this article:
Yossi Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP notability. Subject is a former local congregational rabbi (12 years) with no major organisational titles other than a term as president in a local rabbi group. Per existing sources, subject only appear notable due to his fumbled testimony in a royal Commission, this incident led to his synagogue firing him. (Possibly this is notable due to his lawsuit against media coverage?). Other sources relate to family squabbles or local gossip about donors withdrawing support. Overall, there's not enough here. I also note that a 2007 prod result was to delete the page. דברי.הימים (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the mendy wax case is notable enough to warrant the article. 212.199.168.193 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Simons

Scott Simons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Major example of WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD. This is a WP:ROTM architect, doing his job 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Treacy

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Treacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a long history of COI and UPE editing, most recently even going so far as to produce fake news articles accusing Wikipedians of defamation. Obviously in of itself that's not a justification to delete, but looking at the sources, they are exclusively related to the publication of a book in 2015 in which the subject claims to have treated Michael Jackson. Beyond those already cited I can only find other articles that are clearly promoting other books e.g. [21] "This is an advertorial on behalf of Dr Patrick Treacy." and this article in the Times written in the first person and with "The Needle and the Damage Done is published by Austin Macauley; €30" at the end. I'm unable to find any truly substantial, independent coverage as required to meet WP:BIO. Combined with the COI issues, I believe that deletion is our best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability: Remove Michael Jackson out of this article, and all you have left is a section listing Treacy's two published books. The Michael Jackson mentions are this doctor's own account of what went on with Jackson. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to vote (unless more experienced editors tell me it's ok to do so), because have edited the page.
    Delete: current form non-notable and previous versions largely unverifiable puffery and/or non-notable. Where based on the subject's own words, a clear lack of consistency in accounts given to different sources.
Before adding the notability template, I did explore the possibility of notability for non-Jackson reasons. There are other books, but they seem to have been previously deleted from the page as coming from a known "vanity"-type publisher. Not sure they are notable works in any event: only published references to them are, as noted above, advertorial-type articles. PT's blurb at his publisher's website makes many claims, so I checked some of them out. In short, good luck finding published peer-reviewed evidence of his "studies [note plural] relating to the use of platelet-rich plasma, growth signalling factors and 633nm red light in both facial rejuvenation and hair transplant." Nor does the "Ailesbury Humanitarian Foundation" appear as, for example, a registered charity. None of the awards appear notable. On the other hand he 'is co-author on four academic papers relating to aesthetic or cosmetic medicine (here, here, here and here). One is a recent literature review, not original research; two seem to be inconclusive comparative studies from c. 2005/6 (never cited in one instance, rarely cited in the other); the last is a recent article about patient expectations. None seems notable. Hard to stack up the claims (frequently added to this page by socks/IPs) that there is an academic-type notability. However, perhaps helpful for this discussion to at least consider this additional info. Brammarb (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:
Deb Hutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.
2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.
3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.
4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.
5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.
I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion about the merits of those point
To be clear the criteria for inclusion is not about simply having reliable sources, nor if you know that it is TRUE, but rather if it meets specific criteria for being notable. See the linked policies in response to each of your points:
  1. The two sources are effectively WP:PRIMARY sources as they recount who-said-what. I was unable to find any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage of this "volunteer role" such as the impact, result, or aftermath of her involvement (ie did it accomplish anything of note). Hutton's role isn't even covered in the Greenbelt scandal article.
  2. Both Hudak and Harris are simply passing mentions of being in proximity of notable people and thus it would still fail WP:NINI. The exact timeline isn't relevant.
  3. The reliable sources refer to her as a "longtime strategist"[26] and " one-time chief of staff" (e.g. appointed) [27] which is in the realm of politics does not mean she meets WP:POLITICIAN, and simply having those titles does not itself establish notability.
  4. The other sig-coverage I assume you're referring to is "Tim Hudak’s daughter Miller the light of his life" -- which is an article centered around their daughter, and the only reason this article was covered was given in the title, because it was about the notable, Tim Hudak and the impact on his political aspirations their daughters illness created. WP:NINI
  5. Per reliable sources from the article, her role on the board is a "part-time role." [28]. No indication she had any significant role, in anything having to do with any scandal of Metrolinx, and again, isn't even referenced in that article's page.
  6. With regards to the National Post citation above, I think the title is supporting of a general lack of notability "Ontario Liberals target Conservative leader Hudak's wife over cancelled gas plant" (emphasis added) -- the article has chosen to use "leader's wife" instead of directly referencing Hutton by name in the title.
Based on the above, I suggest nothing has been provided to support WP:PERSON the person [...] should be "worthy of notice" [...], "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". She appears to have worked in the proximity of notable people/events/companies, but does not support that she meets any of the criteria of being independently notable. Also does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. TiggerJay (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. The people who wrote the articles have no first hand knowledge of Deb Hutton's role in the Greenbelt scandal. Secondary sources including quotes from Primary sources, does not make them primary. The content not being the Greenbelt scandal article has no basis on Hutton's notability. It's a good idea for her to be mentioned by that article.
2. Sources make clear her role in appointed positions are significant. In 2003, the the Globe and Mail said that no government decisions were made without her approval: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/here-are-the-backroom-players/article18430066/.
3. There's more to the article than those titles. So this point is irrelevant.
4. The article gives significant coverage to Hutton's actions not just Hudak's.
5. Her not being referenced by the Metrolinx page does not support her not being notable. That article should probably mention her and other board members.
6. Just because the article title chooses to disrespectfully refer to her as Tim Hudak's wife, does not mean the article was not primarily about her.
A coverage gap in other articles does not support a finding of lack of notability. It supports a finding that the articles in question should be updated. Wikipedia is not a place were women's actions should be attributed to men, despite the fact that others may do that. Just because other sources give undue weight to Deb Hutton's relationship with her husband, does not mean we can do the same here, WP:NPOV. The national post article is about Deb Hutton and giving only passing mentions to her husband, not the other way around. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building, which has been been demonstrated time and time again. ANIANI 2BLPNtalktalk 2 As such, I can only see further responding to you here will add heat without light, so I will defer to other editors to discuss the merits of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am working on adding sources to the article, so for now this will be a comment. Thus far the best WP:SIGCOV I have found is a two page article on Hutton from the Toronto Star: [1]

References

  1. ^ Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.
DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great find! Keep looking for SIGCOV, after a half hour I couldn't find anything. But keep looking! TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Courtesy pinging all editors from prior AfD who have been edited in the last 12 months per WP:APPNOTE : @MCB: @Yom: TiggerJay (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hutton's role as a political strategist in Canadian politics has spanned multiple administrations in Ontario. In addition to the source I cited above from the Toronto Star, the other two best sources are here: [29] and [30]. All three of these articles are WP:SIGCOV. In addition she has received additional minor mentions in multiple publications that are reliable and independent, further contributing to WP:BASICDaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit to correct signature - not sure how I added the nowiki brackets) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss added sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the sources listed above and in the article are extensive - just looking at the first thing I google, I don't know why we are here; BEFORE failure. I've never heard of the other Deborah Hutton's - and this well-known Canadian operative has been the subject of much media attention for decades, since she was implicated last century in the Ipperwash Inquiry Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Marano

Tony Marano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable history denier. Few sources on google search, all of them more than 5 years old; this raises the prospect that the subject's notoriety was short-lived and has not endured. YouTube channel has fewer than 20K subscribers; most videos less than 5 years old have fewer than 500 views. There is mention in the Reuters source of one or more videos with over 300,000 views; however, it is not on the YouTube channel, and no other reference to this purported video could be located. Risker (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the YouTube channel has a 16-year-old video, "Westboro Baptist neutralized by the Patriot Guard Riders" that has over 900K views; its SEO tags are "Patriot Guard Riders Westboro Baptist Fred Phelps gay military funeral army navy air force marines coast guard free speech propagandabuster propaganda buster tony WBC", several of which are heavily-searched terms. The article subject is not noted to have anything to do with either Westboro Baptist Church or the Patriot Guard Riders, in the article or in any reliable source that I could locate. That makes a single highly viewed video out of 2.6K videos. Risker (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article because I need time to gather enough information about him. Beside I'm using information from Japan's wikipedia to create it. Besides he's one of the history deniers we need to worry about and avoid for non-Asians Youtubers. Besides, you can help me by translating the source citations from the Japanese wikipedia and get this issue resolved. Koreanidentity10000

Hello, Koreanidentity10000. I see you have been adding information from another project. Please read this information on how to copy information from another Wikimedia project, because you're not correctly attributing that information. Remember to include the reference sources when you are copying over the information. If it isn't referenced in that project, then it should not be coming to English Wikipedia. I will give you time to sort this out, but right now with your changes, it is now a copyright violation with poorly referenced or unreferenced material. Since this is a biography of a living person, this is a fairly big deal. Risker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Koome

Julius Koome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. Minus Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube and Amazon, not seeing any results of coverage. The sources used in the article talk about things that Koome has said and his reports on HIV cases, but are not significant coverage about Koome himself. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet

Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable person who happens to be in Debrett's TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage in reliable secondary sources besides a passing mention in his father's obit. Most of the citations fail verification because they contain zero information about this person. Joe D (t) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: further to your message on my Talk page for which I thank you, I concur that my initial composition was somewhat under par - apologies - and have made some efforts to improving the article accordingly (which I hope you find satisfactory). Whilst more could be said about Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith I trust that these modifications attend to the issues immediately at hand.
Notability is ofc quite subjective, and whilst I would agree that Sir Nic could not be deemed as eminent he is very far from being a nobody. Not only is he a director of a multinational but he is now head of a family with considerable inherited wealth which engages in philanthropic work. Akin to many other British aristocrats Sir Nic is not showy, ie. he doesn't flaunt his wealth preferring to stay out of the public eye.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that I took it upon myself to create this article thinking it would be of help to the Wiki project, not least because Wikipedia's pages contain much good info about British hereditary titles and correspondingly their title holders. So I thought this would in some small way go towards "helping to complete the set".
There is also, I would suggest, something of a policy decision to be made here since many British nobles aren't notable in their own right, but solely by dint of being the title holder: qv. Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans, as well as countless others.
So what should Wiki do going forward; not include them? The same principle applies for European nobility and I for one find it helpful to be able to read on French or Spanish Wiki etc, about the present heads of these dynasties. Not all are necessarily notable or (sometimes) even interesting! but it's better to be able to find out who they are than not, in my view.
I abstain (as quite obviously having set about creating the article in the first place my opinion could be viewed as being a bit biased)...
I hope setting down my thoughts is of some help and look forward to seeing how this pans out - many thanks to all for your contributions. Primm1234 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedia project has its own rules, guidelines and conventions. Let the French and Spanish wikis host unencyclopedic articles, if they want. They're free to do that. Respect differences, and always respect the local project you're on. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: @Primm1234: I just undid your last revision (1270489021) for four reasons:
  1. This is the second time you remove the {{clarify}} tag (Is William part of his name? If so, it should not be a parenthetical element; you should clarify this) without clarifying about the name. Please, stop removing maintenance tags without fixing the issues.
  2. Unless you're mentioning full titles (all prefixes and postfixes), "Sir" should stay outside wikilinks. Example: "Sir William Reardon Smith" instead of "Sir William Reardon Smith" (please, note that "William Reardon Smith, 1st Baronet" without any prefix would be incorrect too, per WP:NCROY).
  3. Please, format references with {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} etc.;
  4. You added an external link to "https://en.damicointernationalshipping.com/" (main page) without any specific page nor quoted text. Why? What value/info does it add to the page?
Clarify. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021: Thank you for your message and queries. Always keen to learn, I am most grateful for helpful guidance.
Also I trust my utmost respect for the Wiki project is abundantly clear and hope you can accept my apologies for any unintended editing errors.
 Comment: let me address, out of courtesy, the points you kindly raise:
  1. I mistakenly removed the {{Clarify}} maintenance tag as I thought I had made the clarification about his name: christened William Nicolas Henry, he is commonly known as Nicolas or familiarly as Nic;
  2. Acknowledged and agree ref. "Sir" staying outside wikilinks;
  3. Noted, but frustratingly whenever I attempt to format references with {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} etc, I get {{Cite error}}. I accept need more practice at citing references correctly thus am much obliged for the chance to learn from a far more expert Wikipedian such as you: for instance, I’ve noticed in other articles references qualified with (subscription required) – is this still acceptable to Wiki? (Whilst https://www.shipwrights.co.uk confirms Sir Nicolas' status as a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, ever since the implementation of GDPR in 2018 its website is accessible only to members, as too is the book-form membership list privately published by the Shipwrights’ Co.) Perhaps more importantly? it would be as well for me to highlight at this juncture that under https://www.borsaitaliana.it/prospetti-informativi/912pros_1_it.pdf p. 133 there is a bio detailing his directorships of the d’Amico Group;
  4. The only reason to include https://en.damicointernationalshipping.com/" as an External link was to provide readers with easy access to extra info, but perhaps this would be more appropriate under Further reading, if at all?
It may be better for me to refrain from editing Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet, any further for the avoidance of any hint of edit conflict - what do you think?
Nonetheless, it would be great if someone else were to feel inclined to help out, in the spirit of Wikipedian collaboration, by restoring any useful additional edits I may be deemed to have made (which atm the article in its reverted state omits): it would also be good to see how such edits should be done for future reference.
On a final note, it is becoming ever more apparent that this article is heading for deletion, seemingly because the focus is centering on Sir Nicolas' lack of notability as a baronet rather than, more pertinently, his notability as a director of a multinational shipping company. While ofc deferring to Wiki consensus, I don’t yet quite understand this rationale (please advise).
I am grateful for what is a most worthwhile and illuminating discussion and look forward to hearing further – many thanks.
Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Reardon Smith baronets per WP:ATD in the absence of better refs to demonstrate his notability in shipping. Ingratis (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) see below. No !vote. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure it's even worth keeping a redirect. There is nothing that links to this article, and there should never be anything that links to it, because the article title is wrong:
    • per WP:NCBRITPEER, "Baronets should, if no disambiguation is required, have their article located at the simple name"
    • per WP:TITLESINTITLES we don't put "Sir" in article names
    • there appears to be only one source that hyphenates "Reardon-Smith", he is "Reardon Smith" on all the companies that he has appointments with and in his father's obit.
    So if this article were being kept, it would be getting moved. Joe D (t) 17:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I'm aware of the conventions you link to, but it's not implausible that someone not aware of them searching for this baronet might start the search term with "Sir", or that they might add a hyphen to the surname. It does seem unlikely however that they'd bother to go on to add "5th baronet", so you're probably right that a redirect from this article title is not worth it. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingratis and Steinsky: Hi guys - at least I can clear up immediately any confusion about the surname. The 1st baronet was Reardon Smith and his elder son the 2nd baronet assumed the additional surname of Reardon by Deed Poll on 20 Dec 1929 their surname becoming hyphenated as Reardon-Smith thereafter.
    I am truly sorry to have caused so much kerfuffle by creating a sub par article in the first place. It was always my intention to swiftly carry on improving it, hopefully with the collaboration of others (but ofc got side-tracked). I was going to have chosen some of the many articles in Lloyd's List & Tradewinds about Nic Reardon-Smith by way of reference and also he appeared before a parliamentary select committee about maritime trade alongside fellow shipbroker Jeffrey Evans, 4th Baron Mountevans, but not sure what to do now. Guess wait & see if the article remains. Anyway hope the surname clarification helps. Best Primm1234 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. isn't there a function to rename the article Nicolas Reardon-Smith, which I agree would be better? Primm1234 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primm1234: - there is, but articles should not be renamed during a deletion discussion. On the question of the surname, the sources available - for example, the Companies House website - use the name without the hyphen, as does the shipping company, and Wikipedia practice is to follow the sources. Ingratis (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingratis: many thanks for your reply message & clarifying renaming to Nicolas Reardon-Smith should not be done during a deletion discussion.
    For further explanation as to how the interchangeability of hyphenated surnames can cause confusion, see Wiki article Double-barrelled name. The sources provided so far, viz. the Official Roll of the Baronetage, which is an official publication as well as Burke’s Peerage & Baronetage, Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage (respected publications albeit accessible only to subscribers) correctly state Reardon-Smith as his surname. Thank you also for undertaking a little extra background research for sources helping verify his notability eg. the Companies House website (altho not yet cited as a source), which confirms his appointment as a director of d’Amico Group of companies as well as his primary residence in Surrey.
    In the absence of collaborative improvements to the article and as the deletion nominator, TheLongTone, invites Wikipedians to continue improving the article, please allow me to do so and hopefully my edits won’t get reverted.
    Thanking you in advance for your continued assistance.
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. some improvements made & welcome your further thoughts/guidance - many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    REARDON-SMITH Sir William Antony, 4th Bt, GCLJ:
    s of Sir William Reardon REARDON-SMITH 3rd Bt 1911-95 and his 1st w Nesta Florence 1910-59 d of Frederick Joseph PHILLIPS 1875-1944 of Barry, Glam. by his 1905 m to Florence Blanche TURNER 1880-1961. He m 1962 Susan Wight b 1941 d of Henry Wight GIBSON 1904-81 of Cardiff, Glam. by his 1938 m to Rita Mary GERMAN 1911-2000, and had 3 sons and 1 dau.
    WILLIAM NICOLAS HENRY REARDON-SMITH, b 10 June 1963 m 2001 Julia Elizabeth McKenzie er d of David Martin SLADE of Tonbridge, Kent.
    BROTHERS LIVING
    GILES ANTHONY JAMES, b 12 Feb 1968 m 1998 Alice Jane d of Charles ROWE of Little Thurlow, Suffolk, and has a son Jack Charles Gibson, b 2001 and a dau Sophie Megan Susan, b 1998.
    Harry Alexander b 1979 m 2009 Elizabeth Jacquetta adopted d of William Murray LUCAS & Rosemary Henrietta Dorothy VILLIERS b 1950 (4xgt gd of 1st Earl of CLARENDON).
    SISTER LIVING
    Henrietta Nesta, b 1965, m 2008 Stephen M. ANDREWS and has a dau.
    [source: Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage (2019)]
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lineage: DANIEL REARDON SMITH; d 1833, leaving issue,
    THOMAS REARDON SMITH, b 1810, m 1832 Elizabeth (d 1906), dau of Capt Philip Green, and was lost at sea Oct 1859 in cmd of the "Hazard"; of whom his 5th s,
    Sir William Reardon Smith, 1st Bt (UK), so cr 1 July 1920, JP, DL Glam., b 7 Aug 1956, Hon Freeman Cardiff 1928 and London 1928, m 16 May 1880 Ellen (d 9 Aug 1939), dau of Thomas Pickard Hamlyn (see HAMLYN-WILLIAMS, Bt), and had issue,
    1a WILLIE (Sir), 2nd Bt
    2a Douglas, of Tŷ Gwyn, Llanishen, Glam, b 10 Apr 1894, m 3 Aug 1916 Gladys May, dau of John Randell, of Cardiff, and d 6 June 1961, leaving issue,
    1b Margaret Hamlyn, b 12 March 1920, m 18 Sept 1945 Denis Maxwell Johnson (d 1967), and has issue,
    1c Stewart Maxwell, b 16 Sept 1949
    2c Graham Hamlyn, b 25 July 1951
    2b Jean Reardon, b 12 May 1922, m 1st 5 Aug 1940 (div 1957) Morton Fergusson Llewellyn, of Tŷ Newydd, Aberdare, Glam (see LLEWELLYN, Bt), and has issue,
    1c David Morton, b 30 April 1942, educ Oundle
    2b (cont.) Mrs Jean Lllewellyn m 2nd 22 April 1958 John Douglas Rae, s of Capt Thomas Rae, of Kirkcudbright
    1a Lillian Nellie, m 16 July 1914 William Gilbert Liley, shipowner (d 17 April 1951)
    2a Gertrude, m 16 Dec 1914 Arthur Joh Popham, shipowner (d 17 Apr 1951)
    3a Elizabeth Hamlyn, m 25 Mar 1922 Douglas Aubrey Low (d 1955), and had issue
    4a Grace Hamlyn
    Sir WILLIAM d 23 Dec 1935; his er s...
    [source: Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (2003)]
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akintunde Babatunde

Akintunde Babatunde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer von Hassel

AfDs for this article:
Kristoffer von Hassel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pretty clear example of WP:BLP1E. The sources all say the same thing with very little variation in the information they provide, and several of them are clearly re-hashed versions of the same report or press release. None of the sources says anything about von Hassel himself, which is very natural as he was 5 years old at the time, but a WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield anything more current, or more in-depth. I thought this might be a good source, since it was published a couple of years later – but it only repeats the same info in new packaging (adding the dubious claim that he "has his own Wikipedia page"). Other than that, there's just the flurry of short press reports from April 2014 to support this entire article. The "world's youngest hacker" claim was clearly unverifiable and pretty weak to begin with, since it redefines what a "hacker" is – so what is the claim to notability here, really? bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Olawuyi

Adedayo Olawuyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources fail Wikipedia notability guidelines and a WP:BEFORE did not show that the subject is notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow consideration of improvements made in the last week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Henderson

Dante Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NRSNVNA. Fails Verifiability and i couldn’t find any coverage of him. Apart from a very old Washington post mentioning him, there is no recent coverage whatsoever. Pizza on Pineapple (Let's eat🍕) 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come close the meeting WP:GNG criteria. Lacks WP:RS citations or other sources to confirm notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seemingly contested on AFD talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juboraj Shamim

Juboraj Shamim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Debut director, all coverage about Adim only. Film might be notable, but the director isn't yet. Not eligible now, but could be in the future with more notable work, awards, or recognition. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Jae

Eli Jae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amzy B

Amzy B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Almost all the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Bubner

Rüdiger Bubner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks any clear indication of WP:V and WP:PROF. Xpander (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks. @Jfire @Spiderone @Xxanthippe @David Eppstein. I remember exactly putting down the reason into WP:TWINKLE's text area (updated hereby), it must have fell through the cracks somehow. That said, I know Bubner to be a well-respected academic, but that doesn't mean the current article is a good article, every single article I have made in this vein, has either been rejected right out of the gate via WP:AfC, or was moved to draftspace. It's simply unfair. Xpander (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination statement is about what is present in the article. Notability is about a different thing: what is available to say and source about the subject of an article, regardless of whether it is already present in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, In this sense is WP:AfD criterion, wholly different from that of WP:AfC? Because that's how AfC is judged, based on what is present in the article, not what it in reality is, in other words I'm pretty sure this article would have been discarded were it presented via AfC. Xpander (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha Thadani

Rasha Thadani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject looks non notable. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON Zuck28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeolu Akinyemi

Adeolu Akinyemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: Author and WP:GNG. The sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV and the awards received are not notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aimsey

Aimsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

only notability is being a part/member of a minecraft server. the only reliable sources that are used are dotesports and ign, and they are mostly mentioned in passing, no in depth coverage. Http iosue (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Ross

Noam Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this article meets WP:GNG. Ross is only mentioned in passing in a small number of secondary sources and none of those secondary sources are explicitly about him. Velayinosu (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While he does have several highly-cited papers, he is not the first or senior author in any of them (the PeerJ one where he is last author explicitly states authorship order was randomized after the first author). An h-index of 15 is far lower than what we would expect for standard of "exceptional professors in the field", so a C1 pass is much too soon for this 2015 grad. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunge Burunje

Bunge Burunje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources could not establish WP:SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 02:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shucayb Dad Mohamed

Shucayb Dad Mohamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. All the sources are unreliable and cannot establish any notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smart

Big Smart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, WP: ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Favi

AfDs for this article:
Favi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. Almost all the sources are either promotional, puff pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note from the previous AfD (about a year and a half ago) that articles on this singer were rejected in the Draft system multiple times, but somebody snuck it into mainspace anyway. This has happened again and little has changed for the singer. Still an up-and-comer with material on the standard self-upload platforms and publicity announcements reprinted by the usual non-critical Nigerian hype publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Is this a HOAX? He had an article in 2008, but only began singing in 2015 and now in 2023? If he's not made any notability in the nearly 20 years since the first AfD, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Releasing music on a streaming platform isn't notable. Source used aren't RS or very marginal. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2008 AfD was for someone else with a similar name, listed at the top of this page due to an apparent glitch. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks for the explanation. I still don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Katrina Leung. Should a disambiguation page be required, this page will likely need to be moved to a title with a disambiguator to keep its history in tact and avoid a hijacking, ✗plicit 11:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Smith

James J. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Not clear that the incident itself has longterm significance.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Katrina Leung, for now. Honestly, we should probably cover them all in one scandal article, but he is notable for being her handler and for the fallout. The event is very notable [43] [44] [45] PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA I think that is a good idea on all points. Just a note, this page will need to be turned into a disambiguation page and not just a redirect because of the Murder of James J. Smith article. We will need to have a page pointing to Katrina Leung and Murder of James J. Smith if we go with this WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Ostrow

Leib Ostrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficient on WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP without citations. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab Satpati

Biplab Satpati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass WP:ACADEMICS. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easher Austin

Easher Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject is not eligible for an entry into Wikipedia as the references in the article are all primary and there is nothing elsewhere that can be added to the article to demonstrate their notability. The creator is the subject of the article himself. This is a significant COI. Centuristic (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not notable. Also, not dispositive of anything, but worth noting that I got a post on my talk page after I'd restored content they'd deleted. They claimed to be the subject of the article and saying that they wanted the page deleted. Plandu (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. Frankly, this is probably WP:A7 territory, but we're here now. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Manga Kenkanryu. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharin Yamano

Sharin Yamano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the pen name of an individual who is known for writing an anti-Korean manga series. While the series is absolutely notable in itself (and its article is quite interesting), that doesn't warrant an extra article about its anonymous author who is only known for creating that specific work. Anonymous 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above seefooddiet (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Fishback

James T. Fishback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. "known for" is being the CIO of a tiny hedge fund, which fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON Reflord (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - See career section. This is a Florida friend of Donald Trump's, who "declared his intention to serve the state of Florida as a Senator after Donald Trump won the 2024 United States presidential election". Otherwise there is not much in this article. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Finance, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is, particularly since there is no mention of any serious consideration by DeSantis of Fishback, the political promo Wikipedia equivalent of Michael Scott shouting bankruptcy.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for declaring themselves as candidates for offices they haven't held — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one — but this article does not demonstrate that he had preexisting notability for any other reason independently of stating his wishes. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when he either wins an election or gets appointed to the Senate as Rubio's successor, since he will obviously then have passed NPOL, but simply stating that he wants to serve is not grounds for an article to already exist now. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Arya

Arun Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self promotional article about a civil servant. I have struggled with trimming the uncited text. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Wunti

Bala Wunti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment "so that you can make comments you can be proud of in say five years time." is generally uncalled for :). I did not vote, rather provided a comment of opinion. Basically uncalled for and talking about familiarizing myself with guidelines? like for real tho? I did not join Wikipedia based on your counsel or to impress you, or yours. I will provide my opinion where necessary and there's nothing you will do about it.Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameremote I did not mean to offend you with that, to be honest, so, pardon me if that is the case here. I was only trying to pass to you that you do not understand what is defined in WP:GNG, that the positions you mentioned are not notable, and that if you familiarise yourself with the relevant content policies and notability guidelines, you will agree with me, and they're meant to be entirely harmless. I hope this helps you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 23:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robin del Castillo

AfDs for this article:
Robin del Castillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SINGER. His supposed international tour has been unsourced for years, and he clearly doesn't pass GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ameen Amshi

Ameen Amshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and most of the sources are either pass mentioned or unreliable sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Praise Akinlami

Praise Akinlami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source attached to the article fails WP:GNG and a cursory search on the internet could not yield anything than social media handles. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Chalava

Moshe Chalava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable rabbi. From my searches only one source (an obscure one) accounts for his existence. On google, searching him up only nets 25 results, with the majority of them copying the en-wp article. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenechukwu Ambrose Nwankwo

Kenechukwu Ambrose Nwankwo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject is not eligible for an article here based on the references supplied. There are no sources elsewhere with which their notability can be demonstrated. And the subject is the creator of this article. There is a significant COI in the article Centuristic (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:AUTO and fails notability. DACartman (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalakanta Nayak

Kamalakanta Nayak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Subject works for Argus News, so the reference article mentioned is not independent of the subject. Online search results show coverage of another person, Kamalakanta, who is a para-athlete. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The detailed source analysis supporting the "delete" majority view has remained unrebutted. Sandstein 08:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Narkar

Uday Narkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. A cursory search doesn't bring up anything useful. Also, peoplesdemocracy.in would be very much unreliable in this context, because it is not independent of the subject and would hardly be unbiased. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will like to draw attention to the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. State chairs in Democratic Party are generally less important than state secretaries/presidents in Indian political party like CPIM which is one of the only six national parties. State presidents/secretaries are highest position in state unit of a party.
Multiple reliable media have covered Uday Narkar. What this article needs is improvement, not deletion. Besides People's Democracy is indeed a reliable sources for this because the citation covers just the event of state conference and election of Uday Narkar as state secretary. Besides he is also the member of Central Committee of CPIM. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently 16 citations are there (many Wikipedia articles only have 1-3 citations). More can be added with the passing of time. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was on the fence about this person, but the new trivia, unreliable sources and unencyclopedic content added by XYZ demonstrates that the topic is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:@Ssilvers Can you suggest some improvements? I think discussions are not for deletion only, improvements of Wikipedia are main motive. Which are the sources you think unreliable? Besides can you please the reason for which you were on the fence first? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest some improvements, which you undid. For example, Wikipedia articles do not include titles like "Dr." in the first sentence of the lead. Later in the article, you can say where the person earned a doctorate, if you have a WP:Reliable Source. Any fact that is not cited to a WP:Reliable source should be removed per WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssilvers Here is one of the citations. (https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-assembly-polls-cpim-12-seats-uday-narkar-interview-9597342/lite/) XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides this article contains many inline citations. Please make your valuable contributions such that this article can stay in Wikipedia. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Now the article is filled with inline citations and passes WP:GNG. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have assessed the sixteen citations. The intention was to demonstrate notability - it demonstrated the reverse.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC) updated 22:15.[reply]
    Comment : The Lokmat Times citation also adds a view of Uday Narkar regarding organising the march. : Keeping in mind the concerns arising out of the high temperatures, the organisers have made suitable arrangements for drinking water, shade, walking only in the morning and evening hours, etc, Narkar said.. Besides the citation on RTI activists adds his views on the matter and also indicates that he is RTI activist. Besides Daylight murder of democracy citation mostly adds his views only unlike the citation just before it where a press statement is released. I think the fact that he is a Central Committee member of CPIM is to be derived from the list of the Central Committee members only because how separate lines/paragraph on each member is possible. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toddy1@Ssilvers The motive of this discussion is improvement of Wikipedia. You all are requested to make your valuable contributions so that this article can pass GNG and stay undeleted. Besides one cannot deny that multiple reliable sources have mentioned and covered Uday Narkar and all the information I have derived is from those source only. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @XYZ 250706 Please, do not remove or edit Toddy1's source assessment. Do your own source assessment without removing or replacing Toddy1's own. I just reverted your edit again as you've done it twice. Also, please read WP:BLUD, the more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanderwaalforces I am not removing anything. I just added my own. Yes at first I misunderstood and thought that I have to edit the table. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage" means that the source tells the reader a lot about Uday Narkar (who is the subject of the Wikipedia article). See WP:SIGCOV.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Any citation covering the subject doesn't necessarily add a biography (detailed information) of the subject. His contribution to or views on the event are enough for significant coverage as "Significant coverage" addresses a topic of the subject directly and in detail, not the whole subject. For significant coverage, the subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this article, sources/citations are added in such way each citation addresses a particular information on this subject directly and in detail. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides no original research is done here. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Toddy1
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ A newspaper interview with the subject Yes ~ Interview about the party, not about the subject ~ Partial
Jadhav, Rohidas (17 June 2019). "SFI State Camp Plans Series of Student Struggles in Maharashtra". Students' Federation of India. The subjects and the teachers in the four-day class were as follows: ... 6. What is Socialism? – AIKS state vice president Dr Uday Narkar
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
No The subject is the author Yes No Passing mentions ✘ No
No His publisher's list of authors Yes ~ Short biography ✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.
 Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No A summary of The Indian Express article of 1 October 2024. Mentions the subject 5 times, but says very little about the subject. ✘ No
Yes Yes No Mentions the subject twice, but says little about him. ✘ No
@cpimspeak (May 11, 2024). "Marathi Editions of Prabir Purkayastha and Justice K Chandru's Books Released by Janshakti Prakashan in Mumbai" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Director of 'Janshakti' and Editor of 'Jeewan Marg', Dr Uday Narkar, introduced the work and the recent titles of the publishing house.
 Twitter - Communist Party of India No 1 mention ✘ 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}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.
 ballotboxindia.com ~ 1 paragraph biography ? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.
 No No No This source is cited to say what Janwadi Lekhak Sangh is. The page does not mention the subject. ✘ No
"Over 50 RTI activists attacked in Maharashtra". Daijiworld Media. 22 February 2015. Activist Uday Narkar said, "Kolhapur has been called the home turf of progressive movements. Comrade Pansare has been insisting that it is no longer so. Over the last few decades the reactionary forces, rabid specifically Hindutva forces have gained grounds in Kolhapur and neighbouring areas."
 Yes Yes No Quotes the subject twice ✘ No
"Release Elgar Parishad political prisoners: CPM". Pune Times Mirror. IANS. 24 December 2022. Archived from the original on 15 January 2025.
 Yes Yes ~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation. ~ Partial
No Each "story" consists of a statement by the subject ~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view ~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited indication of notability of subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.


Comment : Here is the assessment table based on current citations. XYZ 250706 (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:XYZ 250706
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ A newspaper interview with the subject Yes ~ Interview about the party, not about the subject ~ Partial
Jadhav, Rohidas (17 June 2019). "SFI State Camp Plans Series of Student Struggles in Maharashtra". Students' Federation of India. The subjects and the teachers in the four-day class were as follows: ... 6. What is Socialism? – AIKS state vice president Dr Uday Narkar
 Yes Yes ~ Mention of him being AIKS Maharashtra vice-president and giving lecture in SFI seminar ~ Partial
"CPI(M) Maharashtra State Conference Concludes". Communist Party of India (Marxist). 26 March 2022. Retrieved 20 January 2025. The 23rd CPI(M) Maharashtra state conference concluded with Comrade Uday Narkar being elected as State Secretary.
 Yes Yes Yes Coverage on his election to the post of CPM Maharashtra state secretary replacing Narsayya Adam. ✔ Yes
No His publisher's list of authors Yes ~ Short biography ✘ No
"Democratic Centralism: CPI(M) 23rd Congress and Central Committee". Advocatetanmoy Law Library. 24 August 2024.
 Yes Yes ~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee ~ Partial
"Central Committee Elected at the 23rd Congress". Communist Party Of India (Marxist). 2022.
 Yes Yes ~ Mention in the list of the members of Central Committee ~ Partial
Yes Yes Yes His quote on the organisation of the march is given ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ~ Indicates that he took part in MVA seat sharing discussions ~ Partial
Yes Yes Yes Mention about subject's taking part in MVA seat sharing discussions ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
@cpimspeak (May 11, 2024). "Marathi Editions of Prabir Purkayastha and Justice K Chandru's Books Released by Janshakti Prakashan in Mumbai" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Director of 'Janshakti' and Editor of 'Jeewan Marg', Dr Uday Narkar, introduced the work and the recent titles of the publishing house.
 Yes Twitter - Communist Party of India (Marxist) Yes ~ Mention about publishing Jeevan Marg and directing Janshakti ~ Partial
"Dr Uday Narkar". Ballotbox India. 5 October 2023.
 Yes ballotboxindia.com ~ 1 paragraph biography ? Unknown
"About Us". Janwadi Lekhak Sangh.
 No This source is cited to say what Janwadi Lekhak Sangh is. The page does not mention the subject. ✘ No
"Over 50 RTI activists attacked in Maharashtra". Daijiworld Media. 22 February 2015. Activist Uday Narkar said, "Kolhapur has been called the home turf of progressive movements. Comrade Pansare has been insisting that it is no longer so. Over the last few decades the reactionary forces, rabid specifically Hindutva forces have gained grounds in Kolhapur and neighbouring areas."
 Yes Yes Yes Mention of his views on the matter and also indicates him being RTI activist ✔ Yes
"Release Elgar Parishad political prisoners: CPM". Pune Times Mirror. IANS. 24 December 2022. Archived from the original on 15 January 2025.
 Yes Yes ~ Article about CPI(M)'s demands. The subject is their spokesman. Big photo; 1 quotation. ~ Partial
Yes ~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view ~ About CPI(M)'s views; very limited coverage on Subject. ~ Partial
Yes ~ Reliable as a statement of the subject's view Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete: Toddy1's analysis is more or less correct - though I don't believe that the Partial assessments are usable towards judging GNG even on a WP:NPOINTS basis as WP:NOTINHERITED applies (could be used as limited cites if GNG were established, however). WP:PASSING mentions of appointments are clearly not significant coverage of the subject, and nor are statements recorded where the speaker is acting as a representative. Note that even independent recorded opinions of someone are not enough to establish notability at AFD and significant coverage OF the subject is needed. XYZ 250706's analysis is incorrect. A WP:REFBOMB does not notability make, but assessing only their four "Yes" entries shows they fall far short of WP:THREE in demonstrating sigcov. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : We should also think of other alternatives rather than deletion although this article is much more well cited than many articles staying in Wikipedia. I have already mentioned Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring the WP:WHATABOUTX argument here. If other State Chair articles are not well-cited, then nominate them for deletion. That doesn't mean we need to keep this article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if, hypothetically, State Chairs of large parties did have some presumed notability, the CPIM currently holds a total of two seats in the Tamil Nadu assembly. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydronium Hydroxide Yes and two Lok Sabha MPs are from Tamil Nadu also. It is a national party as per election results criteria of ECI. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage of the topic is needed according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia nowhere mentions each citation should have significant coverage on the topic. I think all sources (Wikipedia mentions plural form) should together have significant coverage. So overall significant coverage is enough. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I reviewed the entries in the source assessment table that are listed as counting toward GNG, and they are all utterly trivial - most of them have nothing at all to say about Narkar besides the fact that he was a leader of the CPI (M) in the state. Indeed I'm not seeing anything else biographical that can be sourced from independent reliable sources: as such this is a long way from meeting WP:GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dollya Black

Dollya Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Drag performer fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the subject is not notable, then the page should be redirected to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3, not deleted altogether. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Bachelet

Dylan Bachelet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even appearing in a highly visible television show neither makes this person a high-profile person nor prevents him from being subject to WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. Sure, he became a chef de partie at a Michelin-starred restaurant. Nonetheless, with all achievements he has made so far, I'm doubtful that he would meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC, no matter how many sources have been used to verify info about him. Much of relevant info should be merged into List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Dylan Bachelet. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Loudspeaker (2018 film). Star Mississippi 03:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavya Sha

Kaavya Sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No byline No ~ ✘ No
No Interview ~ Yes ✘ No
No Independent blog ~ ✘ No
No Press release No No ✘ No
~ No Video coverage of her marriage ✘ No
No Press release ~ No ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
~ No Routine coverage ✘ No
~ No Routine coverage ✘ No
No No Passing mention ✘ No
Yes Yes No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
Yes ~ No Passing mention - Review ✘ No
~ Interview ~ Yes ~ Partial
No Interview ~ Yes ✘ No
~ Partial Interview ~ Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Per WP:GNG, even if we consider multiple publications from TOI group as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability, we would still require two more good sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 23:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pleszczynski

Stefan Pleszczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a brief overview of credits no sigcov. Page is also out of date as it describes a 2014 television episode as recent. Fails GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 12 properly WP:GNG-worthy reliable source footnotes in the article now, including the awards (and another two he got early in his career that turned up on Newspapers.com) and sourcing for both of the films RebeccaGreen mentioned above. He's clearly over the bar now. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I clearly need to a deeper look next time Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Rice People#Cast. ✗plicit 00:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mom Soth

Mom Soth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Improperly sourced (by one external link to IMDB) article for non-notable actor. WP:BEFORE does not yield any reliable sources that verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wilson (pastor)

Bill Wilson (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

3/6 sources are his organization. Another is dead link. There is only this [63] and apparently a mention in a book. If it should not be deleted it can probably be merged with Metro World Child. 🄻🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus Talk 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Article appears to be notabile and has reasonable sources. Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makenna Kelly

AfDs for this article:
Makenna Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, almost all the cited sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Has been identified as such since June 2022, without improvement. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Internet, and Colorado. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 2022 AfD discussion was keep, with the condition that the flag on notability was added. I have added some sources, where the best coverage is the 2019 article in the Fort Collins paper (though I note she is from Colorado). She has minor mentions in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post (now in article). I have not replaced all the citations to YouTube, though I agree with the 'unreliable source' flags for them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I now have access to the Wired magazine article, and that is also significant coverage. My inclination would be to delete the other items that are sourced to YouTube or primary sources, but I think they can remain for now in case someone else finds better sourcing. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Gottlieb

Yaron Gottlieb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:N. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly the subject's own works along with an article that quotes the subject a single time. Should be deleted per WP:GNG. --Helleniac (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The "keep" !votes were not grounded in any guideline or policy. ✗plicit 12:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Scott

Paddy Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot see or find anything to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message TheLongTone. My thoughts on notability had been that it adds context to the Willis Resilience Expedition article as well as the family information of Bladen Hawke and Sir Nicholas Scott JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also added the appropriate incoming links so it is no longer an orphan article JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. See Category:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society, while his FRGS status alone does not constitute notability, if a fair amount of well-sourced information can be found, the article should remain. The article has just been created today, see WP:BEFORE C.2 - the article likely requires time to develop. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For work relating to Willis Resilience Expedition, live interviews from the Antarctic Interior are rare, and were even rarer (if not a first) in 2013/24 Mary.Cunliffe66 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel his work raising awareness of cancer in younger men, as well as the added context to the page Sir Nicholas Scott gives a level of notability. I agree that the article will develop further with time. JaneBotha94 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strength of an argument is usually when it's backed by relevant policies and not just mere opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Burke's Peerage
 Yes Yes No ✘ No
Conde Nast Traveller
 No Written by Scott ✘ No
Paddy Scott - Expeditions
 No Scott's personal website ✘ No
"19-year-old explorer leads expedition to South Pole for Willis"
 Yes Yes No Does not mention Scott ✘ No
"Armed Men Confiscate AP Equipment in Crimea"
 Yes Yes No Does not mention Scott ✘ No
"The Unstoppable Force"
 Yes Yes No Short description of a photograph by Scott ✘ No
Humanity's Effect on our Planet's "Permanent" Landscapes
 No Talk by Scott ✘ No
Behind the Lens
 No Talk by Scott ✘ No
(same as #6)
 No ✘ No
"Wildlife Photographer of the Year"
 No Scott's personal website ✘ No
"Wildlife Photographer of the Year" (Press London)
 No Interview Yes No ✘ No
"How This Intrepid adventurer faced his battle with cancer"
 Yes Yes ~ Primarily sourced to interview with Scott ~ Partial
"The Unexpected rise of cancer among Millenials"
 Yes Yes No Scott is not primary subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Delete I can find no coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. A photograph of his was highly commended in a competition - that is not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. As for being a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, their website states: "Application for Fellowship is open to anyone, who can demonstrate: Either a sufficient involvement in geography or allied subject through training, professional work, research, publications or other work of a similar nature, Or five years continuous commitment to the Society as a Member." It costs £139 per year. So that does not meet WP:NACADEMIC C3, which says "The person has been ... a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor." The creator of the article may not be aware of the WP:BASIC criteria for whether someone warrants their own article. See also WP:TOOSOON: "Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article." RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on the source analysis, the subject fails GNG, NARTIST, and BASIC criteria for notability. He sound like an interesting person, tho. Netherzone (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Editors are divided in their assessment of whether NACTOR is met, and as such there is no consensus as to whether this person is notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (actor)

Ali Raza (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification. I do not believe redraftifying would allow this to be accepted because no amount of editing can conjure notability from nowhere. Fails WP:NACTOR. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is 100% about significant coverage. Again, it is under additional criteria (a subsection of WP:BIO which is the actual guideline) and says "may" which is only an indication a person could meet the overall WP:BIO guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. See below and read the guideline. -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is barely mentioned in those two sources. In my opinion, both of these roles do not fulfill the merits of WP:NACTOR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But mentioned, right, with his roles? That are significant (not minor), and in notable productions? Correct? So, well, NACTOR applies.. -Mushy Yank. 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
significant roles in multiple productions, in my opinion, a role is only significant if it is thoroughly discussed in reliable sources. Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant", sure, absolutely, but again, that is not what I said; it depends on what is said about it. Significant roles in the production (lead/main/recurring/etc) make a NACTOR pass; just like a director plays a significant role in the making of a film. A noted part in/of a noted film can be considered notable enough and that is why such guidelines exist. If coverage allows to verify it, it can/may be considered enough. By the same token, it may be considered insufficient and I understand that is your take but that does not change the fact that it's a NACTOR pass. Really no further comment from me here. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 01:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline reads "may be considered notable" (as pointed out in other AfD's), not "is considered notable." The person could have 20 significant roles and not be notable unless there is significant coverage to support. Here, the coverage falls short.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even GNG uses ”may”. WP: NACTOR is a solid reason to keep a page. You can judge it’s not enough if you want but still it’s a perfectly acceptable reason to consider a person notable. This is a NACTOR pass and that is that and that is the applicable guideline. -Mushy Yank. 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is not a pass/fail, it is only an indicator of WP:BASIC which requires significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is simply. not. true. NACTOR is a specific notability guideline for people. You may not like it, you may want to change it or to get rid of it, and you still may !vote to delete or to redirect a page when a subject passes its requirements but it is a notability guideline and the applicable one in the present case. Thank you for your time. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. It is only part of a guideline that says "may" (meaning "could be" or "possibly"). If you look at the entire guideline (not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria"), you will see that a person must still meet WP:BASIC. It is not what I like or don't. It is literally what the guidelines says. I do not see anything that says a person "is" notable if they have had significant roles. If I missed that part, please point it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but again, I am very sorry but what you are saying is not true. Again, even GNG does not say something like "Subjects Meeting GNG "ARE" notable and this cannot be discussed and their notability cannot be challenged".
The page WP:Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...."(=additional criteria [including NACTOR] ). Not "if they meet any of the following standards AND the basic criteria".
Again, one can perfectly judge that a WP:NACTOR pass (or a GNG pass, or a NDIRECTOR pass, or a BASIC pass) is not sufficient but one can also think it's enough; and that is one reason why AfDs exist. I will rephrase: a simple WP:NACTOR pass CAN be (and often is) considered enough for notability (and that is because it is a (specific) notability guideline); it does not guarantee inclusion, that's all.
You may not like it, you may call that specific guideline tiny and want to change it but that is the way it (currently) is. See Cavarrone's comment on the thread you yourself initiated there, please......I really have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy by assertion. I also never called something tiny. Again, please show me where it says someone "IS" notable for having significant roles. I will not hold my breath here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fallacy by assertion?? :D Sure, if you say so. "I also never called something tiny." But of course you did. "(not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria")" No further comment.... -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't twist my words to support your assertion. "Tiny" referred to the size, not the significance. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't twist your words (let alone to support any assertion of mine, mind you). I just quoted one word you wrote. And you denied having used it. That's all. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Final question which still hasn't been answered. Is there anywhere in NACTOR that says an actor "is" notable for having significant roles?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Meeting WP:NACTOR is a valid reason to keep an article, but the discussion so far has focused on GNG and on meta disputes about the wording of NACTOR - evaluating whether this person's roles are sufficient to count toward that guideline is necessary to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article, so long as there is enough reliably-sourced material to write a BLP-compliant article. All of our notability guidelines - including GNG - are written with some degree of qualification, because they are meant to be interpreted with common sense and allowing for exceptions. You need to look at the entire documentation, and the history of applicability, to determine whether a notability guideline is treated independently from GNG or not. NACTOR, alongside NPOL, WP:PROF, NAUTHOR, and a few others, is typically treated as an alternative to GNG. I am explicitly not stating that this individual is notable, only that their roles require evaluation with respect to NACTOR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with that assessment. I believe some arguments in this and other discussions is that NACTOR is in itself enough despite NACTOR saying "may be notable." It is also a subsection of WP:BIO which still requires people to meet WP:BASIC which is where I think there is confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you agree with me, but what you're saying is directly in contradiction to what I said: NACTOR can indeed be enough without GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How so? I referred to WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you expect a reply from me on an obscure page, it would be useful to ping me next time...WP:BASIC does not in any way obviate other criteria. NPOL, NAUTHOR, PROF, NACTOR, and a few other criteria have long been held to be sufficient despite GNG. NSPORTS was too, before the community decided it wasn't. "Presumed notable doesn't mean notable" is not the gotcha that you seem to think it is - it means that common sense needs to be applied in every case, not that that particular criterion can be set aside altogether. The summary at the top of WP:BIO also uses the "presumed" language with respect to what is essentially GNG - yet nobody would argue that GNG was insufficient. Anyhow, this is the last I will say about this, because I don't want or need to persuade you - I am only explaining how a closer will usually weigh arguments. A clear NACTOR pass with sufficient sourcing to write a biography will usually be kept. A clear GNG pass will also usually be kept. A failure of both criteria will usually be deleted. I have no opinions on which case is true here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean for it to be a subject of contention. I was discussing NACTOR versus NBASIC and you were discussing NACTOR versus GNG. NACTOR uses the term "may" which means there may be significant coverage. GNG uses the term "presumed" which means there is likely coverage. Some cite NACTOR as meaning if they have significant roles then the coverage doesn't need to exist. And, I am not saying that off of a guess - it has been the argument for a select few in many deletion discussions, including one that just closed as delete.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumably notable" is not notable. We need significant coverage to support that presumption. Can you provide a list of the sources you feel are significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) We don't need significant coverage for someone to meet WP:NACTOR, we just need evidence that they had significant roles in notable shows. (2) I said the TV series were presumably notable. The series are not being debated here, and do each have two reviews, hence my "presumably". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that wrong. Apologies. As far as "just need[ing] evidence," how are we able to get that evidence with there being significant coverage in reliable sources? Are press releases okay? Primary sources? Honest question. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presumed notability of the TV series does not necessarily indicate that the actor had a significant role. It is entirely possible that their role was minor. On what basis do you consider their roles to be significant, and how do we establish that? Shouldn't we determine this by examining coverage in reliable sources? Do you really think an actor with a significant role would only be casually mentioned in an article about the series spanning ten paragraphs? Wouldn't you expect a bit more detailed coverage for a truly significant role? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are poor and there is not enough significant coverage on the career and reliable sources to verify the roles (if lead or not) played by the actor. I have seen "Noor Jahan" show and the actor didn't have a lead but a supporting role (one of the sons of the lead female character who played title role) in that show and the page wrongly calls it lead role. So without verification and evidence on the roles played and significant coverage, we cannot assume the subject meets WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated the page rapidly again to address raised concerns.-Mushy Yank. 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Iqtidar: The only significant role I can verify as of now is from Iqtidar. In the future, coverage from Tauba, Girhein and Dastak may help establish notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which roles and where is the significant coverage supporting they are significant?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria such as WP:ARCHITECT, WP:ARTIST, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR,WP:JOURNALIST, WP:POET, WP:PRODUCER, WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, WP:ENT, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL. And he subject is notable as per NACTOR. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already discussed in this afd that was just closed for a page you created and in the deletion review discussion for that page which is ongoing. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment of Vanamonde93, RebeccaGreen. Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the sources which show the notability? Saying "per...." is not a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 5. ✗plicit 12:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brunero

AfDs for this article:
Tim Brunero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just a note that Big Brother Australia 2005 is not an appropriate target page as it is a Redirect, not an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak on behalf of LibStar, but I think it was fairly obvious that their intention was a redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 5; I would support such a redirect as well, most of his coverage is related solely to his status as runner up that season (which was almost 20 years ago!). The previous Afd was in 2006, when notability requirements were looser, the aforementioned TV appearance was fresher in the minds, and we didn't really have an assessment of what he would do in the future; but we know now he hasn't really done anything of note since. The odd jobs he's done at local radio and journalism aren't enough here. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:20BC:5415:7424:8B2A (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes I meant Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 5. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Leo

Jacqueline Leo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTPROMO. Article is written like a promotional resume and for that reason alone should be blown up per WP:TNT. The sourcing does not pass WP:GNG. It's possible she might pass WP:NAUTHOR if some book reviews can be located but I wouldn't support keeping this unless it were stubified or rewritten to remove promotional language. 4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Parente

AfDs for this article:
William Parente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. Article is sourced entirely to news sources in April 2009. No evidence of lasting significance in WP:SUSTAINED coverage or WP:DIVERSE sourcing. The last AFD was in 2009. Distance should give us better perspective that the event wasn't significant. 4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is profiled for a large portion of the Prometheus Books book "Killer Dads" by journalist Mary Papenfus, which has a lot of detail and analysis to pass WP:NEVENT and by extension WP:NCRIMINAL. On the strength of that source alone, I would vote keep. I can retitle it and shuffle stuff around to "eventify" it as "Parente family murders" or something, though with familicides we don't always do that because of how they're covered, and also in this one there's the thing about the Ponzi scheme.... There's also later news coverage and commentary due to the bizarre involvement of the Ponzi scheme in this whole affair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete 71.179.6.48 (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demzy BaYe

Demzy BaYe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and all the sources cannot count toward WP: GNG. There are also elements of source farming here, in June 2024, this source was published in up to nine ([69] , [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] different newspapers with different titles but same contents word for word. Probably, the subject's notability is tied to being the originator of Baye Dance step, however, the dance step is also not notable. I would have redirect it to Dance with a Purpose Academy (DWP Academy) but it has no page on Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In accepting the draft of this article, I considered it under WP:NMUSICOTHER, and yes, took the invention of dance steps to be notable, supported by national shows and performances, as documented. I don't think we're seeing source farming - rather, as happens with AP and similar, a base article was probably produced in one source location and circulated (it's not a press release) - the piece was found in respectable sources such as the Accra Times - so the only limitation is that that counts only once. Given performance, choreography, etc., I believe GNG is met, if not by much - I've seen a lot of less-well-attested articles (and yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid, but I weight what there is vs. the source base in Ghana). SeoR (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SeoR Thanks for the explanation but I took my time to go through all the sources and couldn't find GNG sources. The widely circulated source is highly promotional with flowery languages.hijacking the internet...He boasts a remarkable footprint... the multidimensional dance powerhouse whose talent has garnered widespread admiration and inspired an entire generation. .... Other sources are social media gossips like [77] [78] [79] and so on. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back, and I see your point. I do think the over-circulated article could be genuine "entertainment journalism" which often tends to the flowery, but I agree it's not ideal. And the "gossipy" materials are only good for background, not as primary references. I will try to search some of the main Ghana media sites for more. In the end, this was a "Random AfC" and I have no attachment, but I am aware that our coverage of areas such as arts in most non-EU, non-Anglosphere countries could use a boost, so I'd be loathe to lose an article with real potential. SeoR (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's a delete, the sourcing just isn't there... Inventing a dance step seems like a tenuous claim to notability with such poor sourcing. I can't find anything extra we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055Per @WP:GNG, a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Demzy Baye meets this criterion because:
He has been featured in multiple suitable sources, including GhanaWeb, CitiNewsroom, Channel1News, MyJoyOnline, and Pulse Ghana.
These sources provide significant, non-trivial coverage, not just passing mentions.
The sources are independent and reliable, meeting Wikipedia's editorial standards.
His contributions, including originating the Baye Dance Step and influencing DWP Academy, demonstrate lasting impact in the dance industry.
Since Demzy Baye meets @WP:GNG and @WP:NMUSICBIO, deletion is unnecessary. Instead, efforts can be made to improve citations if needed. Kwekujasper (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear, and thanks for the CU assist. I'm not going to SALT this because it's clear it's not working, but if someone else feels it should be, feel free. Star Mississippi 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

AfDs for this article:
Susovan Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry, I do notice that two of the three Keep !votes are from inexperienced editors, including one who created their account while this AfD was going on. More importantly, all three Keeps ignored the source analysis presented here, which was unanimously viewed as not supporting notability by more experienced participants, resulting in a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal

AfDs for this article:
Harsh Beniwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we are again, a year after the fourth deletion discussion was closed as Delete. Speedy was declined so we are here to decide yet once again if this meets notability guidelines. Nothing since the last AfD shows notability. Note that most of the press is from reliable sources, but it is all similar to this which is unreliable churnalism and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The other two were already decided in the four previous AfD's to not be enough. Looking closer, they are churnalism based off the announcement of his roles. What press can you provide since the last AfD that would be considered in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checked WP:NEWSORGINDIA; not a single word is saying News18 is unreliable. So we can say News18 is a reliable source. The other two are not churnalism, as the two articles are written by journalists; the 1st is reported by Archit Mehta on May 7, 2019, and the 2nd one is reported by Sana Farzeen on April 13, 2019. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Just because NEWSORGINDIA doesn't explicitly mention News18 among the examples it gives of media outlets engaging in churnalism, doesn't mean that News18 doesn't do that; a variation on the theme of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In any case, NEWSORGINDIA is making the general point that "even legitimate" outlets commonly do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, respected or legitimate news outlets sometimes engage in churnalism. But does this mean News18 is an unreliable source? If so, then on what basis will you judge that News18 is an unreliable source? Can you point to any policy that backs up the statement that News18 is unreliable? Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that News18 shouldn't likely be used if you have better sources. Churnalism is the issue, not any news source in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of these sources? 1 2 Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one said the publication is not reliable. The source itself is unreliable per NEWSORGINDIA. There is no byline, it is marked as being created by "buzz staff" or "trending desk" which is a clear sign of churnalism. So, it is not that News18 isn't reliable...it is that particular reference in News18 that is unreliable. As far as the two you just posted above, they are not in-depth and the second one (the publication itself) is unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will stick to my vote to keep, as Harsh has more than 16 million subscribers on YouTube (according to WP:NYOUTUBE, Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT). Also, he has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows such as Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica?, and Heartbeats, thus satisfying WP:ENT. Jitujadab90 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is a great guide, but there is no subject-specific criteria for notability on YouTubers. I do respect your contention and the right to vote !Keep however. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is this article (or some version of it) fifth visit to AFD. It would help to get more of a consensus here and if recently identified sources were fairly assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Per request when the discussion was extended, here is an evaluation of the sources just presented by page creator. Note that the last discussion was closed in October 2023 and some of these sources were from before that time. So, they were available to the nominator and four delete votes of that discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Daily Pioneer, from 2020 so not a new source. This is an interview and not independent.
2. The Quint, from 2019 so also not a new source. Blog which has no editorial oversight which by its own account "is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of Blogger/Contributor content."
3. Rediff, from this year (six days prior to page creation). It is a listicle article where he is one of thirteen people listed and dedicates a whopping three sentence to him.
4. The Statesman, also available prior to the last AfD in 2023 and clearly NEWSORGINDIA (no byline promotional article).
5. News 18, also available prior to last AfD and its an interview so not independent.
  • 1. The Daily Pioneer is a well-established newspaper with editorial oversight. Although the article is an interview, it still follows journalistic standards, making it an independent source of information.
    2. The Quint, while it has a disclaimer for user-generated content, has professional journalists and editorial staff who ensure its articles meet journalistic standards. Its news content is independent and reliable. How can you say that The Quint article is a blog when it is clearly written and edited by professional journalists under editorial oversight? Can you tell why you are saying that the journalist is an individual contributor, not a journalist for Quint Media?
    3- News18, a mainstream network, follows editorial oversight for all content, including interviews. Despite focusing on one perspective, interviews are a valid form of independent journalism. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All the interview is about Harsh Beniwal’s experiences and involvement in notable films and TV Series( SOTY 2, Campus Diaries) . It adds details about his career which is fulfilling the requirement of "significant coverage" under the GNG. Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent as it relates to showing notability in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still requires significant coverage to show this as the guideline only says "may" be notable. Can you provide links to that significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Harsh Beniwal fulfills the criteria under WP:ENT and WP:NACTOR. He has significant roles in notable productions, such as Student of the Year 2, Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica? and Heartbeats. His YouTube channel has over 16 million subscribers, which further establishes his public influence and satisfies the criteria mentioned in WP:NYOUTUBE for online entertainers. Reliable sources like News18, The Pioneer, and The Hindu provide significant coverage of his career and achievements. Interviews in reliable publications also add substantial information about his professional journey and accomplishments.--Abhey City (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - Please note the number of votes from new editors. They're quacking imho. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is socking going on. Please do not cast aspersions unless you have evidence of misconduct. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make accusations in jest; and, I did not make a specific accusation against a specific editor regardless. I followed the trail from all of the past creations and the previous deletion discussion and can see similar behaviors. Simply noted it for closer. Nothing more, nothing less. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 09:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abrams (criminal)

Mike Abrams (criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2017. Not clear the subject meet WP:GNG or is compliant with WP:CRIMINAL.4meter4 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. No inline citations whatsoever. Spideog (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • [redacted] Keep The subject does not meet criteria for WP:CRIME. He is not internationally renowned, and there is no separate coverage except for citations in other compendiums (encyclopedias), as detailed in paragraph 3 of notability guideline. Silvymaro (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Silvymaro It is not required that a criminal be "internationally renowned" to have an article, that is for 1 event type crimes as indicated by the guideline saying this applies with those known for a single crime or trial, which he is not. Not so for mobsters or people who are known for serial criminality. Firstly, not all the books that cover him that I linked are encyclopedias, and secondly reliable encyclopedias do count for notability - why wouldn't they? There are many sources not used here but the complaint was sourcing issues, which I addressed. GNG and NBASIC are both passed and he is not a BIO1E. There are dozens of pages in books about him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @PARAKANYAA Okay. I see your point. I am not sure exactly how to interpret Wiki community / notability rules in this specific case, but I will withdraw my vote. Silvymaro (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The majority of editors here are arguing for Deletion and the source assessment shows a lack of reliable coverage providing significant coverage. I don't see a rebuttal to this assessment or editors providing any additional sources that would demonstrate. Again, this is not "required" but providing three solid sources would have strengthened your argument that this subject is notable rather than just claiming the subject is notable without any support. Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOL. Simply being a flag bearer of a political party in an election does not inherently establish notability. I proposed a deletion few days ago, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody I was the one who created the article and I did not remove the tag for deletion. Check your facts right before making an accusation. daSupremo 18:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaSupremo, I'm really sorry about that mix up. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine daSupremo 22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Describing her merely as a "flagbearer" (a vague, unrevealing term) obscures her significance as described in the article. She was the National Chairperson of the Convention People's Party. She won a Presidential Primary. She was also named Female Politician of the Year in Ghana. Her notability appears much clearer than this misleading nomination reveals. Spideog (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Spideog for your input daSupremo 19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Idoghor Melody, I removed the tag because the subject clearly meets notability guidelines, and I second what Spideog has stated in support of keeping this article. Describing the subject merely as a "flagbearer" significantly downplays her notability, as Spideog rightly pointed out.

I find it surprising that the nomination suggests the subject fails WP:NPOL. The guideline clearly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. While it’s true that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", this individual exceeds those basic criteria, given her prominent leadership roles and national recognition, including her election as National Chairperson of a political party and being named Female Politician of the Year.

I would kindly advise the nominator to review the relevant notability guidelines again. This article demonstrably satisfies both the specific (WP:NPOL) and general (WP:GNG) notability standards. Repeated nominations for deletion without fully considering these criteria risk discouraging valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All what I am seeing here is WP:BLP1E. 98 percent of the Sources provided in the article are about her campaign as the flag bearer of a party to participate in an election that she did not win. 99 percent of the sources lack WP:SIGCOV and cannot be used as WP:GNG sources. Only this vaguely discusses other aspects of her life which is also tied to being a flag bearer. Also, if she had won the highest National Award of Ghana, I know this article wouldn't be in AfD. She won a non notable award, given to her by her political party. I tried to check for process of the award and could not find anything on the internet. From the above, it is very clear that this subject fails WP:NPOL and the sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibjaja055
    I’m surprised by how you reviewed this article according to WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. If 98% of the sources truly lack significant coverage, I wonder whether you conducted an independent review beyond the sources already provided in the article to assess the subject’s overall notability.
    Additionally, I find the repeated misinterpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV concerning articles that clearly meet the criteria quite concerning. The subject may not have won an election, but WP:NPOL explicitly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" can be notable. It also clarifies that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", but individuals in such roles can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. This subject, with significant coverage and recognition in Ghana, meets these standards.
    I’m genuinely curious as to how your reviews are being conducted because the criteria seem to be applied inconsistently, leading to confusion and frustration.
    To conclude, I believe the notability criteria in this case have been misinterpreted, and these types of reviews are discouraging and potentially misleading.—- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertjamal12 can you list three references that significantly covered the subject? Almost all her coverage both listed here or online are either about her ambition to become the president or receiving non notable awards. However, I came across a source that would have shown something better though seems like her CV with this statement According to her curriculum vitae... Yet only this cannot convince me to vote a keep. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibjaja055, I’m not trying to convince you, and I won’t attempt to convince you to vote "keep." As I stated earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how your reviews are being conducted. I would kindly advise you, as a reviewer, to carefully revisit the relevant notability guidelines, specifically WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thank you. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 13:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertjamal12 I think you are the one mixing things up here. You don't have to shift the post, provide the three references that meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV if you truly understand the guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibjaja055, I am neither mandated nor obligated to provide the three references you’ve requested to prove my understanding of the guidelines. I’ve already shared my submission and reasoning for why the article should be kept.
    As I mentioned earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how you review articles based on these criteria, and I’ve offered my advice accordingly. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertjamal12, you are not mandated nor obligated to provide the three references that @Ibjaja055 requested, but you can express concerns about their !vote on this discussion. Nice one! Idoghor Melody (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Firstly, it would be very unnecessary to reply to my !vote, especially if you're going to be saying what you already said above. The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Please don't BLUDGEON this process. Discussions are for building consensus, not for confronting everyone who disagrees with you.
NPOL#1 says that only when a politician or judge has been elected to hold an international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office or when the politician is a member of the legislative bodies of these levels, whether they have assumed the office or not, would they be presumed notable. Not when the person was only a candidate of the election, the person has to win the election. This does not include winning a political party's primary elections. Even though leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, they are subject to the same content policies as any other article and this subject fails the general notability guideline (see a detailed source analysis below).
NPOL#2 says that Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage (emphasis mine) can be presumed notable, and that means that the politician must have been written about, in-depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, now, I don't see any of that in the coverages Nana Akosua has received so far, most of these sources are either routine coverages or cookie cutters. Below is a detailed source analysis of why Nana Akosua obviously fails the general notability guideline too.
EDIT: Also, the "Female Politician of the Year" award is a non-notable award.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ This is Ghana's Broadcasting Corporation, a national news corporation. Would it be independent of a presidential election? Of course not. And besides, this piece is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Yes No This is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject. ✘ No
No I will initiate a..., ... she stated, For us in the CPP..., ... she added. It is also evident that this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. No I don't see a reason to think a site that anyone can register on to post news (UGC) is a reliable source of information for English Wikipedia. No Again, this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject. ✘ No
No Speaking with Etsey Atisu on GhanaWeb TV's Election Desk, Nana Akosua, who is also the National Chairperson of the CPP, stressed that... No This piece lacks a byline and that is very unprofessional of a news org. No Another WP:DOGBITESMAN. ✘ No
Unaccessed, this is only a database. No No clear editorial oversight]. No This is only a database. ✘ No
Yes Yes No This is another WP:DOGBITESMAN. ✘ No
No No No clear editorial oversight. No ✘ No
Yes ~ There was no consensus on whether the paper is reliable in itself, the last time it was discussed. And even though there is a Board of Directors of the company that owns this paper, there is not clear editorial oversight of the website itself. No Obviously, not of substantial coverage about the subject here. ✘ No
Yes Another WP:DOGBITESMAN. ~ Ditto No The single-sentence about her is insufficient substantial coverage. ✘ No
No Addressing the media at the party’s headquarters in Accra, the Chairperson of the Party, Nana Akosua Frimpomaa said... This piece is entirely dependent on the subject. Yes But of course, a WP:DOGBITESMAN. No ✘ No
No Ditto No Ditto No Nothing like a substantial coverage on the subject here. ✘ No
Yes Yes No A political party's primary election result, another WP:DOGBITESMAN. ✘ No
Yes Yes No 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) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to respectfully raise a potential concern regarding WP:CANVASS. While appropriate notification aimed at improving participation is encouraged, WP:CANVASS warns against selectively notifying users in a way that might influence the outcome of a discussion. In this case, I’ve noticed that several editors have joined the discussion with similar reasoning and viewpoints in quick succession. This has raised questions in my mind about whether notifications were issued in a manner fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, which requires neutrality and transparency when notifying users. I’m not making an accusation, and I recognize that notifying editors of discussions can be helpful when done correctly. However, to ensure a fair process, I would appreciate it if participants could clarify whether any notifications were issued and, if so, ensure they complied with WP:CANVASS guidelines.

Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George de Meo

George de Meo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep quite a bit of coverage here [85] [86] [87] [88], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of building consensus, I am ok with a redirect to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - Can we reach consensus on redirecting to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 03:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Pichal

Sven Pichal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is convicted of accused of and on trial for (revolting) charges but does not appear to be independently notable (I can't find any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage prior to his arrest) from what he's been charged with. Per WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E, we shouldn't have a biography of this individual, at least not until the trial has concluded with a verdict. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator that he does not pass NCRIMINAL, but looking at the sourcing on the nl.wiki page nl:Sven Pichal, I do think he passes NBASIC as a TV personality, with articles about him in major publications. Haven't searched too much though, but he is not BLP1E. Also, from what I can tell he was convicted in December 2024. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, missed that in the sources. Can you share the coverage you saw that you think clears the WP:SIGCOV bar separate from the crime? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm having to rely on Google translate, but I don't find sources about him as a TV personality prior to being arrested for crimes. And the articles about the crimes do not go into much detail about him. That there is an article in NL wiki is not a reason to have an article in EN wiki - each separate language wiki has its own policies for inclusion, and that is how it should be. Lamona (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find evidence that he was a well-known radio presenter in Belgium: [89]. Oaktree b, he was definitely an on-air personality, and even had a show that carried his name: Pichal has presented numerous radio programmes for VRT over the last 20 years, including (with Annemie Peeters) the popular Radio 1 show 'Peeters & Pichal' from 2007 to 2012. I don't think we can call this an example of a non-notable person who became notable for a crime they committed. He was evidently nationally known. -- asilvering (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    France's Le Monde also calls him "famous": [90]. Admittedly that too is in an article about the crime. -- asilvering (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIMINAL. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Spike Lee. ✗plicit 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (still photographer)

David Lee (still photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Everything is related to his brother Spike Lee in a search. Article is sourced to a self published website. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 That's not a bad idea on a family section in the Spike Lee article. I would support a selective merge to Spike Lee as an WP:ATD if an editor steps forward who wants to take that on.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to merge to make consensus a bit clearer. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz

Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely on primary and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Peters (software engineer)

Tim Peters (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While relatively well known in the Python community I'm not finding general reliable sources to establish notability. NE Ent 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No notability for wikipedia, would be enough for pythonpedia thou. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some coverage here: https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/09/core_python_developer_suspended_coc/ ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The CoC action has also been covered twice in LWN, although you could argue that that's more coverage of the Python community than Peters himself. If consensus is that he doesn't meet GNG, I'd suggest redirect to Timsort. Adam Sampson (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Peters also appears in stories in at least ten issues of Linux Weekly News in the time from 2014 to 2022, before his Code of Conduct misadventure: 2014, 2015, 2017, July 2018,December 2018, February 2019, August 2019, 2020, February 2022, September 2022. After his suspension he also reappears on 9 December 2024, in a normal, technical Python-news story with only tangential links to his suspension. (There may or may not be other stories which my Google search missed: LWN's own search doesn't seem to work.)
    In the old LWN archives reaching up to 23 May 2002 Peters appears five times: 1999, June 2000, August 2000, November 2000, 2001. Around the late '90s and early 2000s, though, LWN mostly leant on the "Dr. Dobb's Python-URL!" email newsletter (Google search inside LWN, partial and partly-broken IA archive), which it would reproduce every week, for its Python coverage so Peters mostly appears there. But one could try to reject the Python-URL as a source as lacking independence, since although it was published by Dr. Dobb's it seems it was (usually?, always?) actually written by a comp.lang.python participant. I wouldn't recommend it in this case though, as it would mean suggesting that maybe Frederik Lundh and others were making up what Tim Peters said.
    (LWN also contains lots of primary material, especially since it regularly reproduces a whole mailing-list email as a webpage and links to that. But none of the pages linked here are like that.) RW Dutton (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While we're looking at Python-related Peters appearances in reliable-source periodicals, here is an appearance in Sys Admin magazine (ISSN 1061-2688), volume 12 issue 12, December 2003, p. 6, in "Python in Systems Administration: Part I — Better Scripting" by Cameron Laird:

    The idea can be a hard pill to swallow at times, because it conflits with the "code re-use" imperative we all learn. Tim Peters is a senior engineer with Zope Corporation whose standing in the Python community is second only to Python's inventor, Guido van Rossum. Peters once made the case in these words: "It's easier to write appropriate code from scratch in Python than to figure out how to use a package profligate enough to contain canned solutions for all common and reasonable use cases."

    Like various mentions of Peters in LWN, this one is not trivial. The author uses Peters' example to explain the main argument of his article, and also appeals to Peters' authority to help justify it. The one catch here is that Laird himself is another Python community activist. But—aside from the fact that Laird did not edit the magazine or approve the article—any complaint about lack of independence is, as with his Python-URL mentions, only relevant here if one wants to argue that maybe the Python community has been involved in a co-ordinated multi-decade campaign to intentionally overstate Peters' importance to the Python community. RW Dutton (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If someone has created two things that are notable (Timsort and Zen of Python) it makes sense that that person has notability. Also, without this article, how would anyone know the creators of those two things is the same person? LarsHolmberg (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peters is probably also mainly responsible for SpamBayes (though Gary Robinson shares significant credit).
(Among Python things, he also created the doctest module, which has its own WP page.) RW Dutton (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. (I confess my interest as the first editor of Tim Peters (software engineer).) I can write more on Peters' notability, but I should respond to others first.
What is meant by "While relatively well known in the Python community I'm not finding general reliable sources to establish notability."? Is the concern that sources like the PSF and the PyPy Team lack independence when it comes to Peters? Or is the suggestion that being one of the most influential Python core developers is not in itself high-impact enough to make one notable? Or that Peters is maybe not really that influential inside Python? In any case, Peters' impact outside of Python is provably high enough to make him notable on its own. RW Dutton (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability in relation to Timsort: some of the evidence for Peters' notability in relation to Timsort. (Apologies to all for the late submission, but this has taken a lot of time.)
  • FOLDOC I'm not sure whether English Wikipedia considers FOLDOC a good source these days, but Peters has an entry there, simply as "[t]he implementer of Timsort".
  • Google V8 team Google's official V8 dev blog on V8's (and so Chrome's) adoption of Timsort also called attention to Peters:

    Timsort, initially developed by Tim Peters for Python in 2002, could best be described as an adaptive stable Mergesort variant. Even though the details are rather complex and are best described by the man himself or the Wikipedia page, the basics are easy to understand.

  • Sebastian Wild and collaborators In 2022 the University of Liverpool put out "Liverpool computer scientists improve Python sorting function" (picked up by IEEE Xplore, summarised with no Peters material by ACM TechNews). This was about work done related to Timsort by Sebastian Wild, a senior lecturer in CS at Liverpool as well as head of the Algorithms Group at the University of Marburg, and others.

    Dr. Wild had been studying TimSort, a custom sorting algorithm invented by Tim Peters, an influential Python developer, and specifically its merge policy, which determines the order in which detected runs are successively "merged" to form longer runs, until eventually the list is fully sorted.

    Dr. Wild said ... "I'm very happy that Tim Peters himself took our idea into the CPython reference implementation. His Timsort implementation is a masterpiece of algorithm engineering, and nobody knows this code like he does."

    Now this was more or less a university press release. So not exactly the most prestigious kind of scientific communication, but we don't need peer-reviewed publications for this purpose. In any case Wild's quoted statement about Peters is a direct statement from a topic expert. Also, to be clear, it's a press release from the University of Liverpool, something which is quite independent of Peters and the Python commmunity. Nor is Wild a Pythonist. On the other hand, Peters had accepted Wild's suggested changes to CPython's Timsort (and maybe might accept future changes?), so arguably that reduces Wild's independence here.
Wild has given further coverage to Peters in other non-peer-reviewed but expert publications. In his Fall 2022 lectures for Liverpool's COMP526 "Efficient Algorithms", specifically in video 3-7 of unit 3:
  • from 3:34, some heartening admiration ;) as well as information about how Peters managed the revision of Python's timsort to Powersort[1]
  • at 5:20 and 6:07 discussion of why and how Peters came up with the merge system for Timsort[2]
Wild also covered this ground in his "Quicksort, Timsort, Powersort - Algorithmic ideas, engineering tricks, and trivia behind CPython’s new sorting algorithm" talk at PyCon US 2023 (Wild's upload of the video):
  • at 11:34, a similar discussion of Peters' original work on the merge system[3]
  • at 5:30, some new information about how Timsort got its name[4]
Wild gave a conference talk with the same name (and presumably much the same material) at Dagstuhl Seminar 23211, "Scalable Data Structures" in 2023, but there seems to be no recording of that (and it would not have been peer-reviewed either anyway).
Wild also coauthored the Gelling, Nebel, Smith and Wild "Multiway Powersort" paper which was accepted for the ALENEX 2023 symposium:

Indeed, the need of a fast and stable general-purpose sorting method for the CPython reference implementation of the Python programming language was the main motivation for Tim Peters to develop a new variant of Mergesort, known as Timsort

  • Other CS research literature: several other research papers also mention Peters in ways beyond simply naming or discussing Timsort or citing Peters' work. Here are a few.
  • Nicolas Auger, Vincent Jugé, Cyril Nicaud and Carine Pivoteau, "On the Worst-Case Complexity of TimSort":

    TimSort is a sorting algorithm designed in 2002 by Tim Peters [ 9], for use in the Python programming language. It was thereafter implemented in other well-known programming languages such as Java

    And, as advocated by de Gouw et al. and Tim Peters himself, we strongly believe that the best solution would be to correct the algorithm as in the current version of Python, in order to keep it clean and simple.

There is also a conference poster for this paper. It mentions Peters twice, including by beginning a graphical TimSort timeline with a small photograph of him and the text "Invented by Tim Peters".
  • CS and practitioner textbooks Professional and college textbooks from major publishers which cover Timsort have also made a point of crediting Peters. This is again a partial list. It omits all Python books, and several others.
  • An undergraduate algorithms textbooks which discusses Timsort in some detail and names Peters as its creator: Data Structures and Algorithms in Java: A Project-Based Approach by Myers, ISBN 9781009260336 , CUP 2025, section 10.4.3 "Merge Sort in Practice: Python’s Timsort", p. 323:

    Timsort, named after its creator, Tim Peters, is the default sorting algorithm in Python ...

  • A short description in another algorithms textbook from Wiley, Data Structures and Algorithms in Java by Goodrich, Tamassia, and Goldwasser, 6th ed., ISBN 9781118808573 , Wiley 2014, ch. 13, p. 562:

    Tim-sort (designed by Tim Peters) is a hybrid approach that is essentially a bottom-up merge sort that takes advantage of initial runs in the data while using insertion-sort to build additional runs. Tim-sort has been the standard sorting algorithm in Python since 2003, and it has become the default algorithm for sorting arrays of object types, as of Java SE 7.

  • A two-page analysis of Timsort in Disk-Based Algorithms for Big Data by Healey, "designed for senior undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professionals" ISBN 9781315302850, CRC Press 2016, Chapter 3.3, "Timsort":

    Timsort was proposed by Tim Peters in 2002. It was initially implemented as a standard sorting method in Python. It is now being offered as a built-in sorting method in environments like Android and Java.

RW Dutton (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage? Some (not all) of these Timsort-related mentions of Peters are fairly brief. Are they enough to be regarded as 'significant coverage'? Here I will point to something which Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Trivial_coverage claims is a (bad) example argument:
While WP:ATA is, it seems, not an English Wikipedia guideline, I think the argument is worth considering here. The "Multiway Powersort" paper credits Timsort (and thus Peters) with bringing strong adaptive sorting performance to widely-used standard libraries for the first time. [5] "Adaptive ShiversSort" even credits it with helping to revive interest in sorting research![6] We're not talking about the Three Blind Mice here. The academics also clearly see the fact that Timsort came from Peters, an industry guy, as an important piece of context. RW Dutton (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability in relation to Timsort (continued):
  • University lectures Peters has been mentioned a number of times in connection with Timsort in undergraduate CS lectures at major universities. Examples include:
RW Dutton (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one's tough but I'm leaning Keep. Peters's suspension from the Python community was covered in LWN (as mentioned above) and in The Register. This meets the coverage requirements for notability. WP: BLP1E doesn't apply here because he is not a low-profile individual, as evidenced by his creation of Timsort and Zen of Python. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "And here's a little comment, um, just from ... well yeah, Tim Peters himself put the code together in the end, and decided after ... He got very interested in playing with this, and experimenting with different options, and at the end, ah, settled for this one." At this point Wild's slides show, in one corner, a picture of an email from Peters announcing his acceptance of the Powersort modificiations
  2. ^ "Now, so far it sounds a little similar to bottom-up Mergesort, but remember in bottom-up Mergesort we use the queue, and we always paired up things as they arrived in the same order, and always pairs all the way back. And this really didn't work so well, which is something that Tim Peters realised, so instead he uses a different way. So he puts the runs on the stack, so the topmost is the most recent that you just discovered. And then there's the set of rules that tells you want to do. And I think these rules are still somewhat magic, that they work, at all. We'll see that they don't always work that great, indeed. But that's something that was just discovered a few years ago. And yeah, in Tim Peters' own words, these rules were the first thing he discovered that didn't obviously suck, so he stuck with them, but they're indeed not the most thoughtful part of Timsort."
  3. ^ "Why exactly these rules? Well! Tim even publicly confessed, so I'm just citing the bugtracker here, that he didn't spend so much time working on, working on those: it was the first thing that kind of worked, and he decided to stick with it, until ... unless there was a good reason not to, and at the time there was no good reason not to. Unfortunately there is a good reason not to."
  4. ^ "Just as an aside, 'Timsort' was—the name started as an inside joke among the core developers, and wasn't really Tim's choice. But yeah, it's got ... it stuck, and once the algorithm was exported to other libraries, it became known by that, so, ah ... be careful with choosing your names. I tried to give a name before I published the algorithm, so that this is off the plate."
  5. ^ "Again, Timsort did pioneering work in bringing such adaptive sorting to most modern standard libraries (including Python, Java, Android runtimes, the V8 Javascript engine, Rust, Swift, Apache Spark, Octave, and the NCBI C++ Toolkit), giving users linear complexity for sufficiently sorted inputs."
  6. ^ "Hence, the prominence of such a custom-made algorithm over previously preferred optimal algorithms contributed to the regain of interest in the study of sorting algorithms"
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 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pustilnik

Michael Pustilnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rodriguez (photographer)

Joseph Rodriguez (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The New York magazine piece is a great feature of his photographs but there isn't much prose about the subject accompanying the photos. The other source is the subject's website. There's not enough indepth coverage here to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Based on the Keep arguments,” although merging was also not a bad option, the consensus for “Keep” is overwhelming in the discussion. (non-admin closure) NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

Edd Gould (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST) 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.
Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.
They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddsworld. Not sure about sourcing individually but I think merging together would be good. Procyon117 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edd's influence on the indie animation community and Internet as a whole is worthy enough to warrant a seperate article Flixxy0 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flixxy0: With your permission, I have bolded your position:[91] Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's yet to be a consensus on whether this is a keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Dimitri

AfDs for this article:
David Dimitri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dubious notablity. The previous Afd claimed "good sources" which were subsequently refbombed to the article. I reviewed them (and some others) and see nothing but short blurbs in run-off-the-mill reviews of some circus performances and no significant coverage of the person in depth. --Altenmann >talk 23:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Full quotes from sources cited, for your convenience
One-Ring Circus That Breathes Fellini

Of varying length, they involve the men and women of Les Colporteurs, notably David Dimitri with some nimble, acrobatic tightrope work, in feats of balance, swinging and twirling on ropes, being manipulated like a marionette, flying on a trapeze, clowning and juggling.

The Two-Ring Circus

During celebratory cocktails, they turned their gaze to the Zurich-based tightrope walker David Dimitri (son of the Swiss national treasure Dimitri the Clown) as he traversed a nearly invisible wire a perilous 20 feet above the backyard pond.

Daffiness and Daring In Every Last Ring

Among the daredevils are David Dimitri, the Big Apple's Juilliard-trained Lord of the Wire, who dances to Celtic strains and skips rope on the high wire;

THE FEEL OF A ONE-RING CIRCUS NYT Nov. 22, 1985

Stylistic sympathy notwithstanding, Dimitri had another reason for performing with the Big Apple this year: his 22-year-old son, David, is a member of the troupe. David Dimitri has been performing with circuses since he was 7 years old, when his partner was a llama. Now in his fourth season with the Big Apple Circus, he is thrilled to be on the same bill with his father - but as a name in his own right. I grew up with this image of my dad being very well known in Europe, David Dimitri says. It makes me very happy to be a known, solo performer here, but in the same show with him. It's my own achievement.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources found by PARAKANYAA show WP:SUSTAINED WP:SIGCOV of him and his performances. I would say he meets WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. He is a performer, so reviews of his performances are what we want. I don't think "the article was not at all improved since its first nomination, hence it exhausted its "presumption of notability" and must go" is a valid deletion argument - as WP:GNG states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." There clearly are sources, it's not that no one has been able to produce any. This is one of many, many WP articles which could be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Villanueva

Sal Villanueva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is only mentioned in passing in the one source. Could find no sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ANYBIO/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Crouch, you want to update now, thank you! (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cumbria

List of people from Cumbria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shaun Cassidy#Personal life. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pennington (model)

AfDs for this article:
Ann Pennington (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaun Cassidy#Personal life perhaps? Procyon117 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 02:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tengku Baharuddin

Tengku Baharuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Husam Zaman

Husam Zaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president! Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can be notable if they pass some other criterion, but it has to be shown that they do. I do not see it here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep It would be better for creator to introduce the subject as the ″university president″, not just an ″academic″. The subject seems to satisfy WP:NPROF#C6 based on serving as a president or chairman of universities. I believe the stated reason for nomination is inaccurate: This person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president!. WP:NPROF#C6 specifically addresses this matter. Additionally, his role as president of a governmental organization (ETEC) in field of education could be considered him as a politician. Also, the article mentions local/national awards received by the subject, and other Arabic sources may be consulted to pass other criterion for notability. Gedaali (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to https://seu.edu.sa/gs/en/admission/, the Saudi Electronic University offers bachelors and masters degrees only, and therefore cannot be construed as satisfying C6 of WP:NPROF. Taif University might qualify at first glance but the cited sources list him as a "Director" and the Wikipedia page says that the highest level official is "President." Being an appointed member of an evaluation board does not connect to any of the WP:NPROF criteria. I cannot tell from the citations for the awards whether they are notable enough for WP:NPROF; if I became convinced of that I could change my recommendation to "Keep" but right now all I see is a page about a career administrator. Qflib (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. SEU is not a major academic institution for the purposes of C6—just 2700 papers total across all time periods and fields indexed by Scopus, and its affiliation with for-profit scam schools in the US like Walden is very suspect—and the awards are nowhere near significant enough for other NPROF criteria. The sources also say his appointment was not "president" but rather "general supervisor" of the SEU branch in Medina, quite a different position. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton)

Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this individual passes WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. No pass on WP:NAUTHOR either; there's a published response to Smith's polemic on Quakerism but nothing else verifiable. (The Bockett letter does not appear to have been published and thus would not count as a review.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 05:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weidner Communications

Weidner Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is confusing. Is it about a marketing company, a machine translation software, or the brothers (who have last names spelled differently)? 🄻🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक: I can't identify a deletion rationale in your nomination statement. Could you please provide one, else this nomination should be closed under WP:CSK#1. This appears to be a reasonably sourced article on a company, the machine translation software it produced, and its founders, which appear to be a reasonable set of topics to cover together. ~ A412 talk! 16:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1 (nom has been editing, but has not provided any deletion rationale). ~ A412 talk! 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to open a discussion on this article because I don't think the company is notable, everything I can find about "Weidner Communications" seems to point back to this article. Note also the varying spelling of Weidner and Wydner.
    In the entire article, this is the portion about the company called "Weidner Communications":
    "During the mid-1980s Weidner Communications, Inc., (WCC), was the largest translation company by sales volume in the United States. (Margaret M. Perscheid, 1985) Later the Japanese sold Wydner's technology to Intergraph Corporation of Alabama who later sold it to Transparent Language, Inc. of New Hampshire. Bruce Wydner, the principal agent for the Inns of the Temple Inc., that retained the research and development rights to the Weidner Multi-lingual Word Processor, separated himself from his brother in early 1979 and no longer supplied any updated software developments. Weidner had offended his brother over a matter of having Eyring Research Institute send their bi-lingual employee to remove Wydners intellectual property from his home, of which Wydner claims was stolen from him."
    Everything else is about the software which mentions "Translation Associates" "Bravis International" "Eyring Research Institute" "Transparent Language, Inc." "Intergraph Corporation of Alabama" as all owning it.
    My rationale is that the article as it is currently written does not seem to be primarily about "Weidner Communications" and Weidner Communications itself seems to be a non-notable company that was one of 6+ to have something to do with the software. 🄻🄰 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply. I think there's a notable topic somewhere in here, although maybe not at the current title. Let me look around for other sources, because I largely can't figure out what the current article is actually citing. ~ A412 talk! 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to weak keep and move to Weidner Multi-Lingual Word Processing System. NY Times, InfoWorld, Inc, small mention in a translation technology encyclopedia, small mention in an excerpt from a language science history text. ~ A412 talk! 20:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the nomination qualified for a speedy keep, lacking valid deletion reason, a subsequent comment by the nom provides the missing rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NCORP. I think the nomination by a relative newcomer here wasn't clearly stated. This is my whispering: It's so confusing a page that it would need to be deleted and started over again from scratch. The subject itself is not clearly notable; much of the content is sourced to (parenthetical primary sources like this). The creator of the page made their last edit almost 7 years ago, and apparently has left, so we can't ask for clarification. Is that correct? Bearian (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is what I meant. If the software is notable a new article would be better than trying to edit this one. 🄻🄰 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still not clear on the arguments for deletion. If the subject fails NCORP, what is the point of starting from scratch? And if it meets NCORP, any editor may blank the current page and start from scratch without the aid of the Delete button, or simply reduce the article to a well-sourced stub. An assessment of the sources presented here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Both articles pass WP:NPROF C6. The school might not be large or an academic powerhouse but it is a regionally accredited state run institution of higher education. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Gilbertson

Eric R. Gilbertson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Jack McBride Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (of ERG article): It seems to me that the central question is whether C6 of WP:NPROF is met by ERG due to their having served as the president of Saginaw Valley State University and of Johnson State College (now part of Vermont State University). Since the former school offers a significant number of master's degrees and three doctorates (DNP; see https://www.svsu.edu/graduateprograms/), it seems to me that that the answer is yes. I qualify this as a weak keep because this is not an R1 university and does not appear to be historically significant. I do agree that WP:GNG is not met, and if the page is to remain it needs significant editing so as to not present as a resume. I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF. The other page (about JMR) should be considered on its own merits; I am unsure whether we are supposed to be discussing both of them here. Qflib (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the 6 criteria of NPROF need to be met in order to establish notability; please read it carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was referring only to C6 of NPROF, so academic citations are immaterial. I also specifically pointed out that "I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF." I stand by my weak keep recommendation; if other senior editors come on here and convince me otherwise, I am open to input. Qflib (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C6 rationale, as president of a mid-sized college/university. I additionally note that I found several local newspaper sources: [104][105][106]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [107][108]. It's weak for a GNG case, but it helps support the NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of both. Even if not technically passing the PROF test, the presidents of medium size state colleges probably will get significant coverage in their state's media. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the repeated use of the word weak, consensus looks like keep but also looks weak so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a !delete for me, not passing PROF, the rest doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brar

Josh Brar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I researched the subject but found little substantial information. While a few unreliable sources surfaced, they are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, the subject clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If anyone would like the article moved to draft to work on, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traveen Mathew

Traveen Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, who fails WP:GNG. Has only played in T10 cricket, not any FC, List A or T20 competition which can often help increase significant coverage. This article was moved to draftspace and then moved back despite minimal insufficient improvements, which is why this AFD is necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is an encyclopedia and not a profile page where anybody can get to feature himself without any major achievements. The subject clearly fails GNG, yet the original editor is still trying to defend. Lookslikely, if you're paid to edit, kindly disclose conflict of interest. To the closing admin, this articles fails all criteria. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cameremote, your comment makes me wonder if you even examined this article. If you looked at the page history, you'd quickly see that that the article creator is Janeesh 22, not Lookslikely. Secondly, do not cast aspersions, like accusing an editor of working for pay while undisclosed, you better have evidence to support those accusations or you could be facing a block yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to above: I am not the original editor of this page. I just saw it on this list, Googled the guy and added some stuff to his page. I am not paid to edit on Wikipedia and couldn't give two hoots if it's deleted or not. Oh and before accusing people of things, at least have the courage to sign your username (Cameremote) chum. Lookslikely (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of boredom, I’m willing to save this page out of boredom if it has enough sources. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will start working on it tomorrow if this is okay with y’all because honestly, it’s getting late lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, clearly fails the notability criteria. And thanks for bringing to my attention the signing issue, I'm using mobile, and I assume it auto signs. Thanks for that. I say again, please disclose COI if you're directly or indirectly associated to the subject, because the way you're defending an article that fails GNG is alarming. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place
As I said, Cameremote, either provide proof of your allegations or stop making them. There is nothing inherently COI about defending an article from being deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to point out to the editor that the way he's defending the article is somehow. He should purely suggest that the article be moved back to draft, for further improvement rather than over-defending an article. Note: I'm not alleging anyone, and if there's any offense taken, my absolute apolgies. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person in the article is clearly notable. Whether it passes WP:GNG or not is not really determinable as there is one source that is independent but I’m unsure if that suffices as it passing GNG. Although, it seems the sources are of Sri Lanka or newspapers mainly focused on cricket, the exception is Daily News.

Furthermore, I think it can he concluded that this crickteer is of presumed notability as he has been documented in multiple sources that range from 4 years ago to the most recent being a month ago.

In conclusion, I could see this article being of notability even if it’s a stub.

If the consensus is overwhelmingly delete, then I’d recommend it go back to the draft so it can be improved rather than delete because the information there is clearly of use and not useless.

Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with draftification if it's that or deletion although I still think there is enough to justify this article remaining as is. Lookslikely (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabish Khan (art critic)

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kioumars Pourhashemi

Kioumars Pourhashemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be that important. All references are in passing or about his death, probably can be mentioned as a section in 2024 Battle of Aleppo Ladsgroupoverleg 17:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I made this article because I believe he was an important figure in a very important event that led to the downfall of Syria. History is important. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(?) Quoting from this page: "Researchers Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss argued that Pourhashemi's death -along with a number of other senior officers- greatly contributed to the collapse of the loyalist defenses of Aleppo." Sounds like a credible claim to lasting significance, though it depends on how much is being carried by the "other senior officers". Koopinator (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Raghuraj Singh Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Krishna Bantawa (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putra Adhiguna Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly Ballroom (band) (3rd nomination)

People proposed deletions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=1270946686"