Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

Sivad Heshimu Johnson

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

Fails WP:Oneevent and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 1 June 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 14:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shapiro (music agent)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. guninvalid (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Daniel Williams has also been nominated for merging. guninvalid (talk) 03:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Alaska, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect at the moment: I think I agree with the OP on this one. I feel as though this one may fall under WP:BIO1E? My reasoning being upon inspecting the references, many cover the 2025 San Diego Cessna Citation II crash in which he was tragically involved (19 of the 22 references). This is only upon initial inspection however and I would be interested to see others' points of view on this. For now I concur with OP and think a redirect with coverage on a relevant page would probably suffice. 11wallisb (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge/redirect to the page of the band Count the Stars would be most appropriate. My reasoning for this rather than the OP's suggestion is that there is no definitive evidence Shapiro had any link to TDWP other than the crash. As Shapiro was a founding member of Count the Stars, this to me makes sense as the most appropriate choice for merge/redirection. 11WB (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any relation between him and the band other than him dying in the same event as Daniel Williams, who was a former member of said band. 2600:1004:B347:4AE1:3C78:5FC1:1294:B927 (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point if correct. A brief scroll of Google seems to back this up. It appears Dave Shapiro was a music agent/executive, but not of TDWP. In my post above for this reason, I only stated to redirect to a relevant page and not specifically to the article for TDWP. This may have been an oversight by the OP, however I think the point to redirect elsewhere stands on its own regardless. 11wallisb (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending this to be a reply to guninvalid’s comment because he said that Dave Shapiro should be merged with T.D.W.P. 2600:1004:B33F:699D:C81D:4C36:8E3F:4FB5 (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, they will be able to see these messages! 11WB (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While we have a rough consensus to Merge/Redirect, we have two different target articles suggested and we have to get that down to ONE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about Shapiro so I am fine with @11wallisb's suggestion of redirecting to Count the Stars. Parts of this bio can be merged into both articles anyway, but since there can only be one redirect, I'm okay with that being Count the Stars. guninvalid (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The only reason my redirect article differed is because Shapiro has no searchable link to TDWP (other than the crash). 11WB (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Detroit Sleeper Cell. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Hmimssa

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

WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NBIO. Not independently notable. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, Morocco, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Detroit Sleeper Cell, where he is mentioned. No comment on notability either way but he is a BLP and almost none of this is salvagable. i'd add the sources not in that article though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Detroit Sleeper Cell as above. Not enough evidence of independent notability in my view. Leonstojka (talk) 03:27, 6 June 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.

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, the event being Buffalo Six. Article subject has no independent notability outside the Buffalo Six case, where all pertinent information can be covered. WP:SIGCOV is only in the context of the Buffalo Six case.

Also nominating the pages of the other Buffalo Six associates for the same reason:

Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, United States of America, and New York. Longhornsg (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect all there (aka add the sources). No comment on thereoeticsl notability but none of these talk about anything else at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and GNG. _Dgw|Talk 01:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well going by BLP1E we would redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more feedback here, especially given that it is a bundled nomination. Merge? Redirect? Or deletion? Or....?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cheever

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a video game designer, and added one reference. This is a passing mention, and I have not been able to find other RS which would demonstrate notability. The existing two references do not mention Cheever. The article has been tagged with notability concerns since 2016. I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No obvious redirect target. Tacyarg (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Computing, and United States of America. Tacyarg (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various passing mentions in Gnews, mostly about the Six Days game, but those aren't about this individual. Sourcing now in the article is about of the same quality. Not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is some coverage about those games, but not this person. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:17, 2 June 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 14:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Kamal Quhafah

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines as outlined in WP:N. The subject is not the focus of any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The few mentions that do exist in Bengali are passing and do not provide the depth of material necessary to support a standalone article. Most of the sources cited are either not about the subject or use it only as a brief example without substantial analysis or dedicated discussion. Given the lack of notability and meaningful coverage, the article does not justify its own space. Retaining it in its current state risks violating Wikipedia’s standards. Jaunpurzada (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 31, Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Bangladesh, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 31 May 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 14:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prenses Banu

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

The subject may still fall short of meeting Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, particularly the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Dance, Film, Popular culture, and Turkey. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 09:03, 31 May 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 14:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

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

A before did not return evidence of notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A "specialist and has advised many organisations in his area of speciality."... So, he does his job? This is not off to a good start. Brief mention here [1], that's about all there is to be found. The one source now in the article is a Youtube video... We have nothing about this person, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 30 May 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.

Andrew Wilson (author, pastor)

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

Non-notable biography with no coverage in independent sources that fails NAUTHOR. Most coverage is primary and awards do not arise to the significance of ANYBIO. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weakly squeaks by on WP:AUTHOR I think. I've added reviews of his books to the article, not all of his books are even listed yet or all of the reviews. Article should probably be moved to "Andrew Wilson (pastor)" rather than using a double disambiguator. Jahaza (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Christianity.com article[2] appears to be an independent source. The site is owned by Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional references addeed to the article including multiple reviews of his works in reliable sources so that WP:NAUTHOR is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree he meets WP:AUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This author meets WP:NAUTHOR. His books reviewed by many reviewers such as John Watkins. CresiaBilli (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article relies so much on unreliable sources and no improvement have been made, I was thinking I could find a source with independent coverage but I couldn’t find, The subject has contributed in many field of entertainment yet fails to have WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:MUSICBIO, fails WP:GNG per no particularly article that speaks about him independently on multiple secondary sources, most of the citations are either usercreated space under a music website where he has listed his musical works. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 12:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Germany, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State funeral of Boris Trajkovski

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

Does not appear to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I think all relevant information is now at the main biographical article. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 30 May 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!} 04:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Knispel

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

There isn't any other significant coverage of this man besides the fabrications told by Kurowski in Panzer Aces. Doesn't meet notability standards for biographies. Cutlass ^Ciera 02:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume you mean notability for a biography, not a BLP. He died 80 years ago. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my error. Cutlass ^Ciera 02:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Czech Republic, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be sufficient coverage for GNG. Checking the Italian Wikipedia (one of about 30 different wikis with an article on him), there's three paragraphs in this book, I found this from Stern, and German Wikipedia includes this decent Welt story, while mainly being cited to Sergeant Kurt Knispel. The Uncomfortable One (translated), a six-page story in the journal Militär & Geschichte. It also cites an Academia.edu paper "Panzerass" Kurt Knispel: Märchen versus Realität ("Tank Ace" Kurt Knispel: Fairy Tales versus Reality). Whether his tank count is true or not, he seems to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just going through assorted AFDs, and this is the second one i've seen today where the article also exists in a slew of other language wikipedias. That's usually a cause to pause before making a nomination. The Germans don't write articles on everything. Fabrications in a life story doesn't mean a subject isn't notable, its often the opposite.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beannie. I don't want to !vote based on "I've heard of this guy", but the controversy around Kurowski's hyping of this guy means he himself is very likely to have SIGCOV from the people who debunked it. For example Roman Toppel has written/talked about him. From at least the Märchen versus Realität source this appears to exist. I think it's easy for people aware of the controversy about Kurowski to be over-zealous in correcting the record, but the best way of doing this is through ordinary editing of the articles affected by Kurowski's work. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For reasons articulated by others. If the record is inflated, he still exists in a book people have read and having something on him is of value (especially for those who may be unaware of the controversy surrounding Kurowski's work). Intothat darkness 14:56, 4 June 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 12:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Gautamananda

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources provided in the article are mainly concerning the coverage which is about Ramakrishna Math. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It clearly fails Wp:GNG and is likely a case of COI and UPE. The sources mentioned are neither significant nor verify or match the information in the article. Zuck28 (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems meets WP:BASIC - secondary sources cited currently do have details e.g. reference #4.Asteramellus (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I tried cleaning up the article by removing promotional non-encyclopedic details. However, more relevant details can be added - but a quick google news search didn't return many secondary sources. But seems as President of Ramakrishna Math and Ramakrishna Mission, seems notable based on the sources - so think this is Keep. Asteramellus (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a news item that happened on the same day as all other sources. That does help the subject in satisfying WP:GNG. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article focuses excessively on routine activities, such as the subject's visits and organizational roles, without demonstrating significant impact or recognition from independent, reliable sources. It includes excessive details about minor events, such as trips to South Africa and Darjeeling, which lack sufficient importance. All in all, the article appears more as a celebratory homage than a dispassionate biography and falls short of demonstrating the subject's notability. Charlie (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Swami Gautamananda fails GNG. The sources mentioned are not significant to pass GNG.Collegeboy12 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 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 Family of Pope Leo XIV. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Agnes Prevost

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

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and all coverage about Mildred is related to the fact that her son is Pope Leo XIV. The Family of Pope Leo XIV article suffices. Only one source is dedicated to talking about her specifically, all others are about Leo's family in general. Even the article that talks about her, does not make any claim that she is notable other than for the fact that she is Leo's mother.

Also notable is that many sections of this article strongly seems to be AI-generated, without disclosure. There may he hallucinations/miscited material as a result: For example, the NYTimes article is cited for The 1950 U.S. Census also notes a foster son, Raymond Fuller, living with them but there is no mention of that in the article. It seems as if this may have actually been in the 1950 census, but it is invalidly cited, drawing into question the integrity of the rest of the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Religion. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While the nominator argues that Mildred Agnes Prevost's notability is solely inherited from her son, Pope Leo XIV, and thus fails WP:NOTINHERITED, I believe the article demonstrates sufficient independent notability under WP:GNG. The nominator acknowledges at least one source dedicated specifically to Mildred, which suggests some level of independent coverage. Additionally, a broader search for sources (e.g., Google News, Google Scholar) may reveal further coverage not yet cited in the article, particularly given her historical significance as the mother of a prominent figure, the first American pope. For comparison, mothers of notable figures, such as Ann Dunham (mother of Barack Obama) and Lillian Gordy Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter), have their own Wikipedia articles, often based on coverage tied to their familial roles but supplemented by independent achievements or public interest (e.g., Ann Dunham’s anthropological work, Lillian Gordy Carter’s philanthropy and public presence). These articles are justified under WP:GNG due to significant, reliable coverage, and a similar standard could apply here if additional sources are found.

Regarding the concerns about AI-generated content and potential hallucinations, these are valid but do not inherently negate notability. The miscitation of the 1950 U.S. Census in the NYTimes article suggests a need for cleanup rather than deletion. The article can be improved by verifying sources, removing any unsourced or dubious claims (e.g., the foster son reference), and ensuring compliance with WP:V and WP:RS. If the article is retained, editors can address these issues through standard editing processes rather than deletion. I propose retaining the article and tagging it for cleanup to address sourcing and AI-related concerns. Hektor (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB: This comment comes back on GPTZero as 100% AI generated; using AI to write discussion comments is a violation of the WP:AITALK guideline. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native English speaker and I asked a translation. Disqualifying the person who arguments against your proposal is a well known debating technique. You would have preferred gibberish ? Hektor (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am stating the Wikipedia guideline on the matter. You have been contributing to English language Wikipedia since 2004. LLMs have only been available in the past few years. I would vastly prefer broken English from a human over a speaking to a machine. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stop here since it is becoming personal attacks. Hektor (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how expressing a preference that I would rather hear from you, as a human being, over from a computer is an attack on anything or anyone but LLMs. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the information in this article in any case conflicts with that in Family_of_Pope_Leo_XIV on date of birth. Much of the current article is also an extremely close paraphrase of the Chicago Tribune article, and should therefore probably be deleted as copyvio. Chicago Tribune: "An enthusiastic performer, a regular in costumed skits and plays at school fund-raisers, and an accomplished singer, Mrs. Prevost once recorded her own rendition of “Ave Maria,” a hymn of considerable difficulty for an amateur." This article: "An enthusiastic performer, Mildred participated in costumed skits and plays at school fundraisers and was an accomplished singer, once recording a rendition of “Ave Maria,” a challenging hymn for an amateur." Elemimele (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another instance of improperly cited/hallucinated material: Baptized on February 4, 1912, at Holy Name Cathedral is not supported by the citation. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Pope Leo XIV due to reliability issues and sufficient coverage in that consolidated article. Jahaza (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable except as part of a family and that family has appropriate coverage already. Rutsq (talk) 18:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really oppose a redirect to the family article? Jahaza (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Pope Leo XIV as a good AtD. The article fails WP:NBIO and strays into BLOWITUP territory with the AI use. Hektor's use of AI in the article and in this discussion may present an issue that extends beyond whether this particular article is retained. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hektor argument Rochambeau1783 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 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, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant J Joshi

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Article relies mostly on primary sources. No significant coverage in independent, reliable media. A few mentions here and there, but nothing in-depth or sustained. Can't see anything that clearly establishes notability. Junbeesh (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Junbeesh (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources I can access do not show significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to being an WP:AUTOBIO (see disclosure), there's no evidence of passing WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Poetry, Advertising, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional piece of article. The subject of this page does not meet notability standards WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is promotional and no reliable and notable news coverage about it.Almandavi (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sign of notability, promotional page, fails WP:SIGCOV TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author of the page has a clear undisclosed WP:COI with the subject (because they're writing about themselves), and have failed to properly disclose their affiliation despite receiving a notice about this matter on their talk page. The article seems promotional, and there doesn't seem to be any coverage that would meet WP:GNG about the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional page. RangersRus (talk) 01:44, 5 June 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 Væb. ✗plicit 14:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hálfdán Helgi Matthíasson

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

Article can be merged with existing Væb page, consisting of the two brothers. Content replicates that of the Eurovision section of the Væb page and article principally mentions Væb and not Hálfdán on its own. Proposing a speedy redirect back to Væb. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, and Iceland. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Væb for now as an Alternative to deletion. I don't think he is well enough established outside of last Eurovision to have his own article just yet. Alvaldi (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Væb per Alvaldi. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Væb: He isn't notable on his own. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:08, 2 June 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 12:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Rahm (research scientist)

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

The subject clearly does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. AndySailz (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Science, United States of America, and Missouri. AndySailz (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have great difficulty in verifying the claims in the page, and also the claims in the articles cited. (The look to me like she wrote everything.) For instance there are claims of multiple PhDs, 200+ papers, starting 300 companies...and more. From what I can see she has an h-factor of perhaps 2, and most of the GScholar sources look very dubious. There is nothing here or that I can find which is true, independent WP:SIGCOV or true peer recognition. This seems to be a promo page of dubious veracity. Ldm1954 (talk)

Delete - at first glance there looks to be a lot of sourcing, but if you set aside the primary / interviews / non-independent, most if not all of the others appear pay-to-play (such as the book review in BookTrib, EIN Presswire releases which were picked up on a a couple news sites). Subject's apparent CV includes disclaimers about the accreditation of the post-graduate schools she attended, which might explain the lack of results in google scholar. Zzz plant (talk) 21:42, 30 May 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 12:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha Amin

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

Recently deleted tagging WP:COI WP:RS & WP:GNG. Delete and Salt. AndySailz (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Women, and Egypt. AndySailz (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this emerging artist does not meet notability criteria for inclusion based on WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There are no notable exhibitions, no works in notable museum or national gallery permanent collections, or the type of art historical or art critical coverage one finds for a notable artist. Perhaps in 5 or so years there will be enough significant, independent coverage in reliable sources to consider for an encyclopedia article. At this time, it's definitely WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 21:13, 29 May 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 12:36, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Kapoor (technologist)

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

Nowhere found any significant coverage to support her notability. Self Published ref. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG, self published source. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Technology, India, and Uttar Pradesh. AndySailz (talk) 11:11, 29 May 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 Kilmacduagh monastery. Noting that this could likely have been performed with a merge discussion or even a bold merge. Also noting that the list, up to the start of Bermingham's term, is verified by the first cited source. Please only merge verifiable content. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 00:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of Kilmacduagh

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

Fails WP:NLIST, topic is not independently notable from the monastery, and any needed information could be merged to the primary Kilmacduagh monastery article. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Christianity, Europe, and Ireland. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. One and done, right? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It should be merged to Kilmacduagh monastery. Fade258 (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kilmacduagh monastery: No reason for this to be a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a section of Kilmacduagh monastery. Or, failing that, simply delete. While I understand the "merge" recommendations, I note that the bulk of this title (effectively a standalone list article) is uncited. And, if that content is merged in its current form, it would be unsupported. If the outcome is merge/redirect, then the merging editor will need to find sources for the merged "list of names" content (coz it's currently uncited). Guliolopez (talk) 13:23, 30 May 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 14:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sekou Ma'at

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

Non-notable social worker. No WP:RSs and would seem none are likely to exist. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a quick Google search yields only five results, only three of which actually mention him. The article itself cites very minimal sources, one of which is a primary source. Is written largely like a resume. Element10101 T ~ C 01:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a run of the mill middle manager of a prison. I've taught criminal justice in New York, and I've never heard of him. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 7 June 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!} 01:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyal S. Sunga

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

I don't know that this person is notable. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 01:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one article is not primary. He also doesn't have too many academic citations in Google Scholar.Goodboyjj (talk) 05:20, 29 May 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 23:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi

AfDs for this article:

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

Thinking this over, I have got myself to agree with the (probable) sock who nominated this article for deletion previously. Many of the sources cited to not mention this person, or mention him only in passing. It is essentially a coatrack about corruption scandals of entities associated with Yakubovskyi.

And then there is this. It was mentioned in the previous AfD that this article is a translation of the Ukrainian version. So better TNT this problematic BLP and avoid another defamation-lawsuit scandal.

--Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a LOT to go through, but the sources I checked generally were only very passing mentions, or mentions of his companies. A lot of trivial coverage does not make up one significant coverage. Agree with the nom on the second point as well. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. When a BLP is mostly scandalous material, it's time for WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 7 June 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 23:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar Mishra

AfDs for this article:

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

This person is not notable enough to have his resume on Wikipedia; none of the sources serve to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and probably eligible for speedy G4 Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I would have speedied this if I had known it was a recreated article.TheLongTone (talk) 12:04, 29 May 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.

Avner Netanyahu

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

There's a lot of coverage of him because he's the son of a public figure. Supporting your relative's political career does not make you a public figure. He's not involved in politics himself or done anything to establish WP:NBIO. WP:INVALIDBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is rather routine, he went to school, military and he got married... Perhaps competing on the TV show would make him notable, but there isn't much coverage about that either. I don't see notability being met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP and WP:NOTINHERITED violations galore. Many more (75%?) lines of text are devoted to his family, fights, arguments, phone hacks, breakups, and security details - than anything he's ever done. Where's the assertion of notability? Also, the photo of him as a kid is problematic. Ping me if you can fix this. I'm a fan of Israel, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner Netanyahu himself requested that the article about him be deleted from the Hebrew Wikipedia on 8 Arpil 2024. The article remained. There were editors who admire Benjamin Netanyahu, who supported the deletion. There was a biased vote. The article was deleted and then restored because it was discovered that there was a problem with the vote with editors who specifically registered to vote. See here. It is strange that even the English Wikipedia wants to delete an article about a person in whom there is a lot of interest. Avner Netanyahu is going to get married on June 16, 2025, in Ronit farm a very expensive place with 2,000 very wealthy guests. This is causing a lot of anger in Israel, and there are going to be many demonstrations near the wedding venue, including blocking the narrow road to the wedding venue. And here they suddenly think it has no encyclopedic importance. See Articles 1. חתונת המ(ח)אה: ההכנות לחתונה של אבנר נתניהו קיבלו תפנית מפתיעה - ואיש לא נשאר אדיש. 2. התכנון למחאה בחתונת בנו של רה"מ - והביקורת בשמאל: "מטומטם וחסר תועלת, כך מתכננים בשמאל "להחריב" את חתונתו של אבנר נתניהו, 3. חתונת בנו של נתניהו בסכנה? אלו הפעולות הצפויות באירוע Hanay (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article about him? Avner Netanyahu is less involved than his brother Yair, but he is definitely involved. He said of his father, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he is a great leader like Winston Churchill. and more. Hanay (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Avner Netanyahu may have been in the background in the past but his upcoming wedding is now of major interest. People will want to know who is Avner Netanyahu. His wedding is a slap in the face to the thousands of hostages, injured, dead, and their families. The lavish and ostentatious event for some 2000 guests is occurring while hostages, soldiers, and Gazans are being killed as a result of the policy of Avner's father, Benjamin Netanyahu. While some claim Avner shouldn't pay the price of his parents' perfidy, one of the leaders of the protests, who worked as security guard for the Netanyahu family so knows them well, appealed to Avner to wed in a modest ceremony. Ami Dror posted this notice: "Avner, Advice from someone who knew you as a cute little boy...Have a modest wedding,...as if the 58 kidnapped people were your brothers, and not as if they were a story that doesn't concern you. Go to the media and talk about it. I promise you we won't come. Stay at Ronit Farm, say there will be 200 guests, a reasonable number. No asado, no caviar, and no champagne waterfalls...Avner, A modest wedding - I promise you won't see us. A Ceausescu-style banquet - we'll do everything we can to have you dance to the Gaza horror film while pictures of the hostages fly above you tied to yellow balloons." Activists are reportedly organizing motorcades to disrupt guest arrivals and plan to distribute copies of the book Mr. Abandonment and magnets bearing images of hostages. “We’re not trying to ruin the wedding,” protest leader Ami Dror told Ynet. “We couldn’t if we wanted to.” He explained that the protest isn’t about the marriage itself, but what the celebration symbolizes—especially after 21 months of war, during which many soldiers have held modest, makeshift weddings in between reserve duties. “It’s about the disconnection and arrogance. While reservists got married on wooden crates, he’s hosting a grand event at the country’s most luxurious venue.” MK Naama Lazimi of the "Democrats" party, headed by Yair Golan: “The problem isn’t the wedding itself,” she added, “but the complete tone-deafness. While the public grieves, struggles, and goes sleepless, the prime minister’s family puts on a lavish spectacle. It’s a show of detachment from the people.” Who is Amit Yardeni? Meet the woman marrying into Israel’s most-watched family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loves coffee (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By having this extravagant wedding while so many people are suffering, Avner has made himself a public figure. Loves coffee (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The singular source provided is about Avner's finance. Still no policy-based argument or evidence for keep. Longhornsg (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Hanay, it is interesting to learn about the subject's deletion request at hewiki, but as I understand it he has made no such request here, so it likely does not impact this discussion. The English Wikipedia has its own standards for notability, which are fairly high. Please do not be surprised that an article kept elsewhere might be deleted here. More importantly, I understand that the discussion at hewiki was troubled, but the way you have worded your comment, it sounds like you are accusing Oaktree b and Bearian, two highly-experienced editors, of being connected to the issues there. This is casting aspersions and not allowed; I encourage you to strike the sentences beginning "It is strange..." and "And here they..." Toadspike [Talk] 23:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Even with the sources from Hanay, it seems the subject would be considered WP:BLP1E at best.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avner receives regular coverage, not all of which dervives from his family name, From the recent wedding saga to the very debate on his article deletion on hewiki (1, 2), to his victory in the bible quiz, enlistment and so on. I haven't looked into it too deeply, but this seens to constitute repeated coverage from noteworthy sources (haaretz, ynet, N12) that centers on Avner himself. Totalstgamer (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:INHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're more experienced with this than me. If that's how the criteria is defined, i guess i'm changing my stance Totalstgamer (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Joseph McGuire

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

None of the listed sources are GNG-level, and I'm unable to find secondary-source coverage of the subject. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Africa, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for a diplomat/foreign service person, many hits on a gang in the UK [3] that wore Beatle wigs to defraud people. I don't see notability for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not seeing enough articles to establish notability.Goodboyjj (talk) 01:31, 29 May 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 23:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jóhann Hinrik Níelsson

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any significant coverage with a Google search in Icelandic media or in the Icelandic newspaper archives (timarit.is). Deaths of notable Icelandic persons does generally get coverage in Morgunblaðið but I didn't find any outside of obituaries from relatives. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Iceland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, as far as I can tell very few sources exist on this topic. Garsh (talk) 13:45, 29 May 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.

Randy Cooper (Model maker)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, beyond listings and credits. Declined 5 times at WP:AFC but moved to mainspace repeatedly by User:Orlando Davis who states “ I don't agree with notability tags. The subject may take it personally. Deletion makes more sense, or leave it alone.” so here we are. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Film, and Visual arts. Theroadislong (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fine-Scale Modeler, The Evening Independent, and Bay News 9 are all highly reliable and independent. The film credits and interview articles should be noted. Significant changes have been made after each time it was turned down. Orlando Davis (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With niche sourcing like Fine-Scale Modeler, one good way to establish it as a RS is to show where the source is seen as a RS by other RS, particularly academic/scholarly sources. Offhand I see it used listed in a further reading section in this CRC Press book and a note in this Taylor & Francis. I wasn't able to find much more. The magazine was owned by Kalmbach Media but was sold to Firecrown Media last year. It looks like this is probably usable, but I'd recommend running it through WP:RS/N to be certain.

As far as interviews go, those are seen as primary sources regardless of where they're posted unless they're written in prose. The standard interview format is pretty much just question and answer, without any sort of accompanying article. As such, they almost always have little to no editorial oversight or fact-checking beyond formatting and spell-check. This is a very widely held stance on Wikipedia and is unlikely to ever change.

Now, when it comes to film credits the issue here is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the person working on a notable production or with notable people. The reason for this is that there can be hundreds to even thousands of people working on a film. According to this, over 3,000 people worked on Iron Man 3, so just working on a notable film isn't enough to establish notability - you need coverage in independent and reliable sources that specific highlight the person in question. So if there was a RS review that stated "Randy Cooper's work on IM2 was fantastic", that would count. However with his work being so specific, it's unlikely that he would be highlighted over say, the person or company who was overall in charge of VFX.

Finally, I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't say that local coverage tends to be kind of seen as routine on Wikipedia as local outlets are more likely to cover a local person. So in this case what you will need to do is help establish how this coverage should be seen as more than just local, routine coverage. Viewership/circulation numbers are a great way of doing this. So for example, a local paper with a fairly low readership would be seen as kind of routine whereas say, an article in a major, well circulated paper would be seen as a much stronger source. Now to be fair, there's nothing official saying that local coverage can't be used, but it is typically seen as a weaker source and shouldn't be doing the heavy lifting in an AfD discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.

Bay News has a very high viewership (1.76 Million), (source 11). Charter Communications

The Evening Independent was a major newspaper in the Tampa Bay area and was merged as the Tampa Bay Times in 1986, which has a circulation of over 100k not including the more widely read digital edition. 1)Times Publishing Company 2) Tampa Bay Times Orlando Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fine Scale Modeler magazine is ok for sourcing, the rest either aren't online, trivial mentions or primary sources. I can't pull anything up. Just not enough sourcing for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have two solid sources so far: Fine Scale Modeler and the Evening Independent. Also, we should be able to use the five interviews due to the Ignore-all-rules rule since it is an article that is obviously notable, and the rules are getting in the way. Interviews by the hobby magazines Sci-Fi-Modeler., Psycho Moya Styrene, the YouTube channels Richard Cleveland (Amazing Plastic), Adam Savage’s Tested (A YouTube channel with almost 7 million subscribers and the public television Bay news, with a viewership of 1.76 million make Randy notable, and the Ignore All Rules rule was put in place for situations like this when the rules get in the way of an obviously notable article. He built many models that were used for major films such as Starship Troopers, Iron Man 2, Stargate, Spider-Man 2, and many others. Just looking at his older models, it's obvious that the style of spaceships he created was used for Starship Troopers, a major movie!

And what's the difference between an interview and an article in this case? For this article, the part that matters for notability is that he is significant enough to be written about and interviewed by various significant sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Orlando Davis and the extent of the sources. Meets GNG and highlights the career of one of the notable science fiction model designers. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mahbub E Khoda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure)‎ Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promotional and written by editors who are close to the subject, the editors' (@Asadpolash and @MahdiRiyad) maximum edits are on this article, and @Asadpolash uploads of several images in Commons for this article definitely have WP:COI and WP:FAN issues here. Also, most sources are unreliable and come from primary sources, so it's hard to verify the information. More reliable sources are needed for verification. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: The person is notable, so it should be kept but needs cleanup. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see that the structure of the article and the sources of information are correct. Therefore, I am in favor of keeping the article. MahdiRiyad (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)~~ (

Blocked sockpuppet of MuhammadRiyad, see investigation)[reply]

Maximum sources comes from unreliable sources and most likely from promotional website. For example these:[4][5][6][7][8] and many more in the article. I also think you are connected with the subject. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 16:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is been modified and guided by other editor which includes the removal of a large portion of words and facts so it doesn't look promotional. We have the track of that editing. That admin was from Australia and we obeyed every single editing provided. Now you're again here creating the mess putting unrelated tags saying the same thing.

Is it that you have personal clash with the subject as you're from the same country? it seems that you're way of processing has a connection of your personal grudges with the subject. Asadpolash (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum sources are unreliable (I already gave the links in an earlier reply), and you are saying personal grudges? How funny! I don't know him much. Your accounts' maximum edits are on this article and Dewanbag Sharif, the same subject, so you should disclose WP:COI. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 18:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and is well-structured according to Wikipedia standards. The subject has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, fulfilling the criteria set by WP:GNG. The references cited are verifiable and come from credible media outlets, supporting the article's factual accuracy and encyclopedic value. I strongly support keeping this page, and any issues should be resolved through constructive editing, not deletion. Hossain Muhammad (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC) ( Confirmed sockpuppeteer, see investigation)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User Hossain Muhammad and user MahdiRiyad are the same user and blocked for sock puppetry.[9] He tried to manipulate this AfD with his sock account. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in terrible shape, probably due to COI, but the subject seems notable. Deletion is not clean up.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Would you please remove the tag added on the beginning for the investigation so this looks okay and we can move forward with the translations.? Asadpolash (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs cleanup, but the subject is notable. Many people in Bangladesh love him blindly, so COI is possible. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 13:47, 5 June 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.

Mark A. Bragg

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

No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources, only from church sources[10]. The only independent sources are about the sad fate of his mother. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Latter Day Saints, and California. Fram (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BISHOPS and WP:CLERGY as a holder of an inherently notable position of religious leadership. Per the EL here, while a regular Mormon bishop is equivalent to a local pastor, a General Authority Seventy, which Mr. Bragg is, is a much senior position, with a scope easily equivalent to a Bishop in the Roman Catholic or Anglican traditions. As such, we know that appropriate coverage exists, whether or not we can find it and/or agree on whether coverage in LDS sources is independent. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example SlTrib from earlier this year notes his position as "president of the faith’s North America West Area" which puts him above a Catholic archbishop in terms of adherents, clergy, area, and institutions overseen. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are essays, not policies or guidelines. And the claim that coverage zxists is rather a weak claim for a US BLP, where coverage is normally easy to find if it exists. Fram (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They accurately reflect consensus. Point being that it's a waste of time for us to go digging through looking for stuff that's going to be there somewhere. There's simply no question that he has a ton of coverage from LDS sources which are some degree or another less than completely independent... but discounting all of that is needlessly Procrustean and anti-LDS. Notability has never been a policy, always a guideline, and sticklers for it in such cases can never really explain to me why an encyclopedia with oodles of pop stars, voice actors, etc. would be improved only by removing the leaders of religious denominations that are covered in the religious (non-independent) press, rather than nominally independent pop-culture sources. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you allow articles where all you have are non-independent sources, then there is no way to keep out all spam, vanity, self-promoting individuals and groups, ... A basic principle of Wikipedia is that we reflect and summarise what other reliable, independent sources have written, to get as close as possible to a neutral point of view and independently verified facts. Fram (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there is. You rely on things like WP:BISHOPS to restrict, for example, bio coverage of major religious figures to the top 1-2% of clergy based on position and importance, rather than title. It's a parallel way to make sure we're not covering every self-promoting, self-declared apostle, but can e.g. cover regionally/nationally important figures. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread my last sentence. Fram (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of the article, I concur with Jclemens that Bragg is inherently notable per WP:CLERGY and WP:BISHOPS, being in a position equivalent to a Bishop in Catholicism or Anglicanism and "[being a] high level religious official with a substantial deal of power and autonomy, and they tend to play a substantial role in their local community, including interactions with public officials, the media, etc." PortlandSaint (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fram makes a very compelling argument that the assumption of independent reliable sources existing is problematic. 206.83.99.60 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis J. Castellino

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

References fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Medicine. UtherSRG (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page clearly is worded almost like a advertisement/promotional page, and Wikipedia is not for that. Deleting until further sources are found might be the best option, and we should tell the page creator(@Stjiafle) to word it from a WP:NPOV and put some more info, like DOB, DOD, images and other things. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:CD97:DAED:E1E6:3705 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NPROF. Scopus h-index of 68 is a pass of WP:NPROF#C1, position as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science is a pass of WP:NPROF#C3, named professorship at Notre Dame is a pass of WP:NPROF#C5, and position as former editor-in-chief of Current Drug Targets is probably a pass of WP:NPROF#C8. MCE89 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Jahaza (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have some sympathy with the nomination, and with the rejection of the submission by another editor in March, but on balance I think this article is acceptable (though capable of improvement). The subject's publication record is respectable. Athel cb (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89. Mccapra (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tidied up the article a bit. Clearly notable under NPROFG as per MCE86; article may need further work.Qflib (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I echo what the KEEP voters above have said. Subject is notable.Goodboyjj (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep joining the chorus, a very clear pass of WP:NPROF#C1. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the users above, clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 1 June 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.

Sky Yang

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

Refs do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression he passed WP:NACTOR, with at least two notable roles (a main role in a miniseries and a lead role in a film + a further upcoming project). However, if I was mistaken, then it's a case of WP:TOSOON and I would support redirecting to Last Days (2025 film) for now. Starklinson (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to clarify, my vote is keep (for passing WP:NACTOR) or if not, redirect (for being WP:TOOSOON). Starklinson (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: Source 8 is a RS, but it's rather thin. Source 12 is also a RS, but isn't just about this individual. Those are all I can find as well... Would likely pass ACTOR, but we need sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

I recently accepted this article via AfC. The subject has significant coverage in reliable sources like The Indian Express, The Print, and Hindustan Times, mainly around his death, but with in-depth info about his life. There's also a 2021 Hindi source with substantial coverage. I believe this meets the GNG, but to ensure consensus, I think an AfD discussion would be helpful so experienced editors can weigh in. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, India, and Rajasthan. Afstromen (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Only obituary articles seen. That is not notable. Dualpendel (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [11], [12]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough references to demonstrate subject's notability. [13] - This is an in-depth coverage by reliable source Mongabay, [14]- An in-depth article by Hindustan Times. AndySailz (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was his death notable? Most people have obituaries. Where is the significant coverage outside of his death? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question please. If a news article about a person's death includes substantial coverage of their early life, career, and accomplishments essentially providing in-depth information directly about the subject, does that count toward meeting the General Notability Guideline (GNG)? Or is such a source discounted just because it's related to their death?Afstromen (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on someone's life is exactly what an obituary does. If they were notable prior to the death, there would be significant coverage about their life during that time. So, unless something about the death is notable, it would not count. Otherwise, we could simply create new pages based on obituary sections of newspapers. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i wasn't aware of this. Outside his death, i found some sources [15], [16], [17].Afstromen (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radheshyam Bishnoi was a celebrity in Indian conservation circles prior to his death with many stories published about his work in Hindi and English. He also won notable awards, so he seems to clear the notability bar. Naturepeople (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable person before his death. He won awards from Rajasthan gov and he was featured in many popular news sites. Jodhpuri (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there coverage in reliable sources of the awards? Please provide links to the coverage in new sites and add to the article if you can. Dualpendel (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject has got substantial coverage in independent media like The Print, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, and other. I think it passes WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Person was not notable before the death. Page is made up of mainly obituaries and reflections on his life. If he was worthy of notice prior to his death, there would be reliable sources covering his life more in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - https://www.hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html this article was published before his death. and many articles was written when he was alive.
Jodhpuri (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link timed out. Can you ensure you supplied the correct URL? Also, is this the only source? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can google Jodhpuri (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/jaisalmer/news/jaisalmer-wildlife-savior-radheshyam-bishnoi-inspiring-story-134644803.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bhaskar.com/local/rajasthan/barmer/jaisalmer/news/radheshyam-vishnoi-was-rewarded-with-young-naturalist-award-2021-129184236.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://hindi.news18.com/news/rajasthan/jaisalmer-meet-radheshyam-vishnoi-nature-lover-goes-for-100-kms-to-save-wildlife-his-spirit-inspires-5946711.html Jodhpuri (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jodhpuri, the photo uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) mentions "Own work." Did you take this photo yourself, or was it sourced from another website? SachinSwami (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jodhpuri:, not my job to present your contention. I conducted a WP:BEFORE and the sources you provided do not change what I found. These are quite good churnalism but nothing reliable.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41,

I’m asking just to improve my understanding, could you please clarify why these sources are considered churnalism? As someone from India, I can confirm that Dainik Bhaskar is one of the top Hindi-language publications in the country and has a strong reputation. News18 is also a well-known media outlet.

Tagging @SachinSwami for his insights as well, as he is familiar with Indian news publications. Afstromen (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, it sounds like you are asking on behalf of Jodhpuri since this is their thread. Did you mean to reply on a different thread? I am a little confused. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you view everything with suspicion? I asked only to improve my understanding, as I clearly mentioned. It's possible I asked in the wrong place. should I have brought this up on your talk page instead?Afstromen (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen:, I asked for clarification so as not to make an unwarranted accusation. Which thread was this intended for so I can address your question?--CNMall41 (talk) 05:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kliff

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was deleted after an AfD discussion in 2021, and recently recreated. I can't see the old version to know if this is a G4 situation, but I do not see any sources beyond those discussed in the 2021 AfD, and do not think much has changed. Bringing back to AfD for clarity. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, and New York. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, just like last time. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment to answer a point the nominator raised: this is substantially different to the 2021 article so should be discussed on its merits. G4 does not apply. Star Mississippi 01:43, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a well-known journalist who has non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. Here are examples, which include an interview on NPR:

Sarah Kliff brings transparency to ER prices, one hospital bill at a time - Columbia Journalism Review

Healthcare policy journalist Sarah Kliff talks Obamacare legacy, coronavirus - The Princetonian

Republicans Want To Get Rid Of Obamacare. But Then What? : NPR

These, plus other sources, suggest that she satisfies WP:GNG. I add that she also frequently appears in the media as an independent expert beyond her reporting role:

Breaking down the House GOP health care bill - CBS News

Obamacare open enrollment set to begin as Trump officials try to upend health care law wikicreativity (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspaper articles and interviews with the biography subject do not build the case for notability. Just like last time around. MrOllie (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I can see why this was an AfD nomination as the article isn't sourced properly, as most sources, while reliable, are primary and not independent secondary ones. And it's really hard to find sources about a subject who is also a prolific writer as one has to weed through and not consider authored articles. Regarding sources mentioned so far, I don't see why the Columbia Journalism Review and The Princetonian articles presented above by the article's author don't count as sources. The first is an interview although has introductory secondary coverage. The second has a lot of quotes which some editors don't like. But I'd count them. Here are some more: This article [18] discusses Kliff's views on the ACA and give some background on her. This has a review [19] of a NYT article she wrote with a colleague. The Nieman Lab published this article [20] about Kliff and a piece she wrote for JAMA. I think in sum these may meet WP:BASIC but only the Columbia Journalism Review source is in the article. I think this article has potential but needs to be Draftified and re-worked to include sources and verify claims. Let's first see if editors think it meets BASIC like I do. Nnev66 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In accordance with WP:JOURNALIST, Kliff "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" in the area of health policy. She is frequently interviewed in the media and especially in audio or video, so I'm not sure how accessible a lot of that media is. Because of her notability and media prominence, she has 128k followers on Twitter. A Reddit "Ask me anything" from 2019 has 19k upvotes and 1.5k comments. ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NJOURNALIST, which simply requires the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers". A whole frickin' episode of Fresh Air devoted to her is clearly shows she is "widely cited by peers". And there is nothing wrong with student newspapers per se. In this case, Columbia Journalism Review isn't even a student paper, while The Daily Princetonian is older and more highly-respected than many non-student papers. Toadspike [Talk] 22:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like emerging consensus is clearly on the keep side. I may have been too hasty in my nomination (I see for example that G4 had already been considered and rejected in the viewable article history), although I also note that the sources considered here are pretty much the same as the ones found lacking in 2021. For myself, I find the framing put forth by Nnev66 and Toadspike reasonably convincing. Remark that many of the sources considered are interviews, but e.g. CJR and Fresh Air are weighty sources that one should take seriously. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah Kliff is a notable American journalist. I found this to demonstrate her notability: [21], [22], [23]. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, those are the first three links posted by Creativitywiki above, not new sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 17:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A detailed review of independent sources would be helpful, remembering that interviews are not independent sources and so do not contribute toward notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for me, the interviews are not convincing to establish GNG, but a case can be made for NJOURNALIST, that she is "widely cited by peers". Neimanlab and this report are clearly sigcov on her reporting. Then, the CJR article and NPR episode are good sources to demonstrate her recognition as an expert in her field. Combined with sources like this article (Wichita Eagle), this response (by a professor, I think), I'd say she easily passes the NJOURNALIST bar. (note that most of these sources were listed by !voters above)
There's other non-independent sources that could be used to flesh out an article, such as a profile by her alma mater, NYT announcement, so I'm not concerned that we cannot have an encyclopedic article here.
As an aside, I really don't think student journalism can count as reliable reporting that would be indicative of notability though, even one like The Daily Princetonian. As an undergrad, I published some things in Ivy League level undergraduate publications that got literally no peer review. And undergrads can't be trusted to reliably review things anyways. But there's enough here beyond that Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are not great, and I'm not even seeing enough to meet WP:BASIC. Most of what is available is WP:PRIMARY or from sources that are not considered reliable. However, the subject meets WP:JOURNALIST, and seems notable in her profession.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Afua

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

Most of the references are not about the subject or provide only passing mentions. Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG Sources include: a full-page article about her on the front page of The Jackson Sun; a full-page article about her on page 2 of the metro section of the New York Daily News; a peer-reviewed book chapter about her work in an academic publications; a master's thesis about her from Georgia State University. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are four RS focussed solely on her, which as far as I can tell passes WP:SIRS twice over. NotBartEhrman (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sources that contain sigcov. Not every source has to be, as long as there are enough that do, which is the case here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of the sources in the article are poorly linked so that might have contributed to the original nomination but a quick WP:BEFORE finds me enough sources to keep. Moritoriko (talk) 11:59, 10 June 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 14:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a tricky one to try and assess. Ultimately I think notability is not there. There is some coverage but is it significant? I think not. Looking at the academic side, I don't think the research and published works are there yet. The awards are non-notable really and as for the references, most are published own works. It almost feels kind of WP:Auto even if it isn't. Coldupnorth (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont think WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR is met here based on the reception of his (academic) writing, I could not find a single review on JSTOR for his book for example. That leaves GNG for notability and based on the analysis by Coldupnorth I agree that the in depth coverage contributes to notability but it doesnt amount to independent in-depth coverage from multiple sources. --hroest 14:31, 6 June 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 13:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Holliman

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

Article should be deleted per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS and no WP:SIGCOV found in national media outlets covering this event. The two main sources in the article covering this are local news outlets. The Becker's Hospital Review article only briefly mentions Mr. Holliman. And a search per WP:BEFORE, shows the American Medical Association briefly mentions Holliman, and covered this event in the context of documents created during a human organ transplant network’s peer-review process must remain privileged. This individual was non-notable before this event, and is more than likely to remain non-notable. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, Connecticut, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two local news articles are all the sourcing Gnews has... As the one paragraph in the article says, it's not received much public attention. Something may come up after the lawsuit, but even that was five years ago, with nothing written about it. I'm inclined to think this isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 27 May 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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is notable and that WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 21:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keily Blair

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

Inherited notability from OnlyFans & Blair's positions at the company. While there are good sources surrounding her hiring as CEO, it speaks to a single event in her life. I don't see how this could be anything other than promotional. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Law. 30Four (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious here, why this one and not Amrapali Gan? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, I've nominated that one as well. 30Four (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:BASIC with multiple sources. Google news search brings up quite a few articles where they are the focus. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may pass WP:BASIC up front for coverage of her becoming the CEO of OnlyFans, but she does not appear to be notable for any other action. Lots of additional press appears to stem from actions of the company as a whole or interviews with her. Could you post the articles you feel best represent her notability, aside from OnlyFans? 30Four (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3 and 4 are ok, 7 is an interview. More than enough coverage for a CEO of one of the largest websites on the planet, notability is shown. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT - Only notability comes as CEO of OnlyFans. Source 3 and 4 only talk about her as CEO and background only because of that. Source 7 is some random awards-giving non-profit.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the article was created by a paid editor user:AG at OnlyFans; so as CEO running the company, she paid one of her employees to create this page for her.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding COI notice to article ApexParagon (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OnlyFans, where she and her role in the company are mentioned. ApexParagon (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see the relevance of WP:ONEEVENT here. Being the CEO of a major company is not an "event". If someone meets WP:GNG because they have attracted coverage for holding a notable position or role, that doesn't affect their notability in the slightest. Most of our article subjects have "inherited" their notability from some kind of position for which they have received coverage (e.g. footballers, politicians, musicians), so I have no clue why a CEO should be treated differently. I agree with Oaktree b that sources 3 and 4 provide significant coverage of Blair herself and are sufficient to meet GNG. There's also this article in the South China Morning Post, which is a bit weirdly written but is still a bylined article in a reliable source, and this in Fortune. I think she easily meets GNG. MCE89 (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:BASIC with significant coverage in independent reliable sources including in The New Statesman [24], Fortune (magazine) [25], Variety (magazine) [26], and this by Reuters in American newspapers [27]/[28] (not yet in article). WP:BIO1E does not apply if coverage is sustained over time, which it is here. Article could use some editing but subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nnev66 (talk) 19:41, 28 May 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.

Damien Costas

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Bibliographies, News media, Music, Business, Management, and Australia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 22:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I am the author of this Wikipedia page. I note @S-Aura that you have nominated this page for deletion. I am curious to know why?

I would say that the article on Damien Costas clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth, not just in passing.

Examples include:

• The Sydney Morning Herald’s detailed report on Costas’s bankruptcy annulment and business dealings (https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/porn-king-says-supporters-prepared-to-forgive-his-millions-in-bad-debt-20210728-p58dmf.html).

• Crikey’s reporting on his editorial transformation of Australian Penthouse (https://www.crikey.com.au/2018/11/07/penthouse-australia-alt-right/).

• The Guardian and ABC News coverage of public events he organized (Milo Yiannopoulos and Nigel Farage tours).

• International Business Times on his media influence (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/damien-costas-reshaping-thought-behind-media-influence-responsibility-moulding-public-opinion-1727160).

These sources span business, politics, and culture — showing that the subject of Damien Costas has been covered across domains over a number of years. I believe that the article is neutrally written and properly cited. I would argue that there is no policy-based reason to delete this page. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey's report mentions Costas once. This is a long way from WP:SIGCOV of him.
The Guardian and ABC reports don't mention him at all.
The International Business Times report is an interview. Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and don't count towards establishing notablity.

TarnishedPath^talk 06:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up. To clarify, with specific reference to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:

Regarding significant coverage and source quality:

The Sydney Morning Herald article ("Debt deal and sex appeal") is an independent, reliable source that provides significant coverage of Costas's business activities and financial history. Per WP:GNG, "significant coverage" means coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article clearly meets the threshold of WP:SIGCOV as it discusses the subject substantively rather than in passing. As established in Wikipedia policy, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" and "does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

Crikey's article mentions Costas several times throughout. Further, it is not used alone to establish notability. It complements other sources that do provide in-depth coverage. Under WP:GNG, multiple sources providing coverage can collectively demonstrate notability, as the guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Regarding supporting sources and their appropriate use:

ABC News and The Guardian are used to verify key aspects of Costas's professional activities — specifically his role in organizing major speaking tours. These are supporting citations, not primary evidence of notability. Per WP:BIO (WP:Notability (people)), biographical articles may include material from multiple reliable sources to establish the full scope of a person's notable activities.

Regarding primary sources and interviews:

Regarding the International Business Times, while interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources, this does not make them unusable. Per WP:NOR, "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care." They can be cited to support attributed statements or commentary about the subject's views — which is precisely how it's used in the article. As stated in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author."

Additional supporting coverage:

Additionally, a recent article in Men's Health Australia (October 2024) offers a profile on Costas's media leadership and innovation strategies, providing another layer of significant coverage from a reputable publication (https://menshealth.com.au/damien-costas-on-fostering-creativity-and-innovation-in-the-media-industry)

Meeting notability requirements:

Taken together — Sydney Morning Herald, Men's Health, SmartCompany, and IBTimes (for attributed quotes) — the subject clearly receives sustained, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, satisfying WP:GNG. The General Notability Guideline requires that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

The coverage spans business, media, and cultural domains over multiple years, demonstrating the sustained attention that indicates lasting notability rather than temporary news coverage. As stated in WP:N, "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability" and "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" - meaning topics are notable when "the outside world has already 'taken notice of it.'"

I'm happy to improve the article if needed, but the topic plainly meets notability standards under both WP:GNG and WP:BIO. CharlotteMilic (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Damien Costas article to include additional citations from independent and credible publications, strengthening its compliance with Wikipedia's sources policy. Below is a list of the new references added to the current version:

• WAtoday: Includes detailed reporting on Costas’s organization of Nigel Farage’s 2022 Australian tour, strengthening notability by documenting his significant role in high-profile political events.

• The Guardian: Covers Costas’s involvement in the emerging market for rightwing speaking tours, with his own insights, bolstering notability through in-depth, independent analysis of his cultural and political impact.

• The Sydney Morning Herald: Provides substantive coverage of Costas’s 2025 book, What Happened to the Lucky Country?, reinforcing notability by highlighting his authorship and influence in cultural commentary.

Australian Financial Review: Details Costas’s bankruptcy and financial history with independent reporting, enhancing notability by offering credible coverage of his business and personal challenges.

• Men’s Health Magazine Australia: Profiles Costas’s innovative media leadership and risk-taking approach, supporting notability with independent recognition of his sustained impact in the media industry.

These additions enhance the article’s alignment with Wikipedia’s policies:

• WP:RS: These publications—WAtoday, The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, and Men’s Health Magazine Australia—are reputable, editorially controlled, and independent of the subject, meeting Wikipedia’s standards for reliable secondary sources.

• WP:GNG: The added sources provide significant, sustained coverage of Damien Costas across business, media, and cultural domains, directly addressing his activities in detail and reinforcing notability through multiple credible, independent outlets.

• Verifiability: These independent publications bolster the article’s verifiability, supporting claims about Costas’s work with high-quality sources, reducing reliance on less robust material. CharlotteMilic (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Men's Health article, at the bottom of the article is written "Switzer Media newsroom and editorial staff were not involved in the creation of this content". This looks like paid advertising.

The test for WP:GNG is significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources which are independent from the subject. The only reference you've provided that contains significant coverage in a reliable secondary sources, which is independent from the subject, is The Sydney Morning Herald. That's not enough. TarnishedPath^talk 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TarnishedPath - I take your point re the Men's Health article, though this could mean the story was sourced from a freelancer etc. But still, it could be paid advertising so I will remove it.

Re other secondary sources, Costas was mentioned several times in the cited articles from the Australian Financial Review, Crikey, ABC News, the Guardian etc. All of these are significant coverage of Costas' activities, and all are independent news sources. CharlotteMilic (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ongoing discussion. I’ve removed the Men’s Health source to avoid doubt.

That aside, coverage in The Sydney Morning Herald, Australian Financial Review, Crikey, WAtoday, and The Guardian all substantively discuss Costas’s professional and cultural activities. Crikey and AFR provide more than trivial mention; The Guardian and WAtoday contextualize his public influence.

Taken together, these meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO — no original research is needed to verify content, and sources are both independent and editorially reliable.

I’m open to further article improvement, but deletion isn’t policy-justified. Recommend Keep. CharlotteMilic (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misunderstanding me. My comments above are not in relation to whether certain references are usable in the article. The question is whether they count towards establishing notability. Only the SMH article goes towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 13:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, refer to WP:IBTIMES for the reliablity of International Business Times. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's been an attempt by the creator of the article to WP:CANVASS other editors here. Refer to Special:Diff/1293200899, Special:Diff/1293200817, Special:Diff/1293200761, Special:Diff/1293200688, Special:Diff/1293200547 and Special:Diff/1293200433. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's the editor of a non-notable journal, a co-founder of a non-notable company, and the author of a non-notable book. What's he supposed to be notable for? Maproom (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not particularly keen to see this article kept either, but there's a fair bit of coverage out there. His bankruptcy and various other legal issues have been covered in The Age, The Australian, The Australian Financial Review [29], Crikey, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times. There's also this 2014 article in The Australian, although it's fairly heavy on quotes. And he was recently covered in the Fairfax papers due to his new book. I think there's probably enough there to satisfy GNG, but the article is a disaster (particularly the section on his bankruptcy) and I'm open to the possibility that WP:TNT is in order. MCE89 (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MCE89 - I'm happy to clean it up where you think it needs improvement. What specifically do you think should be changed in relation to the bankruptcy etc? CharlotteMilic (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before you do that, please reply to the question I asked you, on your talk page, Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. TarnishedPath^talk 13:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia’s WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, the current tone resembles promotional or advertising language, which is contrary to Wikipedia’s WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING policies. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, News media, Business, Companies, Management, and Russia. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 21:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His invention lack independent coverage. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Coverage exists in Russian language. Meets WP:SCHOLAR due to his research and innovations. Kmorsman (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill engineer. WP:NOTFB. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Nuristani

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

Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Bearing in mind his DoB we don't even know if he's still alive, and if he's not we don't have a date of death. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan at the 1956 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD - already cross-reffed to Afghanistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics. Ingratis (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT. I also agree with the WP:BLP issues noted by the nom here. Let'srun (talk) 10:49, 8 June 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 Afghanistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Kadir Nuristani

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

Fails GNG and SIGCOV. Bearing in mind his DoB we don't even know if he's still alive, and if he's not we don't have a date of death. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Afghanistan. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the nom, I couldn't find the needed WP:SIGCOV for the WP:SPORTSCRIT to be met here, either in the article (only databases are currently referenced), corresponding wikis, or elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghanistan at the 1948 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources here to support any sort of notability. Therefore, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You (as also the two Delete supports above the line) have not considered WP:ATD-R - there is a viable redirect target as noted above, and names of Olympic competitors, whether or not notable by the odd current standards of Wikipedia, are plausible search terms. Ingratis (talk) 10:52, 8 June 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. asilvering (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shajra clan

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

Non notable article fail built using unreliable sources of one local website and WP:RAJ. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 2 June 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 22:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angela C. Meyers

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

Possible WP:AUTOBIO of a non notable academic (even counting publications under what seems to be her former name, Angela Cotellessa). The most independent coverage I found was a brief mention in this BBC article. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, United States of America, and California. (t · c) buidhe 15:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and the article also doesn't cite any RS and reads like it was written by a LLM Laura240406 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass WP:PROF and the article is a very obvious ChatGTP job. Leonstojka (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP, no evidence of passing GNG or any other notability criterion. This has already been draftified so re-draftification is not an option. I'm not entirely convinced that this is LLM-written but it doesn't make much difference to my opinion; the reasons for deletion are not about writing style nor hallucinated content. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom & no sign of notability. Jeepday (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Vegantics (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article sounds like a resume, lacks sufficient reliable sources, and does not meet WP:AUTOBIO Pasados (talk) 11:54, 1 June 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, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Sayed

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

This Wp:BLP does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR. It contains only passing mentions and lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the cited sources, only his self-written bio contains significant coverage. The rest are brief mentions in lists. My own searches found only one other source, a Union of Catholic Asian News article that explores his position on transgender people.[30] It's better than the other sources, but isn't enough to establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:35, 28 May 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!} 23:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murtuza Kutianawala

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Only one unreliable source provided. Agent 007 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Maharashtra. Agent 007 (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the actor is not notable per WP's criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Perhaps in several years from now if decent sourcing emerges, but it's clearly WP:TOOSOON at this time. All I could find in an online BEFORE search was social media, and user-submitted content. Netherzone (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to meeting the GNG. A web search didn't find anything better. Toadspike [Talk] 22:28, 1 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Heelaman

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The only independent sources used in the article all fail to mention Arshad Heelaman even once, so do not confer notability. Those that do mention him are all social media sites, so not WP:RS. I have no idea how the article creator has managed to write such a detailed article about this man when searches in English and Pashto (ارشاد هیله من) yield absolutely no independent WP:RS at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have used all sources from his primary Youtube channel, which includes extensive interviews of him talking about his background and the work he has done, those interviews were done one Afghan television and are in the Pashto language. Spyjockstrap (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube interviews have been used as references which include himself speaking on Afghan national television:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT-3fKoPP40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_01eANPIv0&t=14s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgbXymmYY0I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6VSUJ6a_-4&t=1s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5_37_B3hE&t=1s Spyjockstrap (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another interviews of himself on Afghan TV Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWuPx09yMhI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y0xN6BUQRs Spyjockstrap (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is video from previous Afghan national government TV Channel with former president of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXKPi-dLCwY

At (0:29) timestamp Arshad Heelaman can be seen in attendance with other former Afghan government officials. Spyjockstrap (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been involved in the government of Afghanistan in the past which can be seen from his X account posts:

https://x.com/AHeelaman/status/1347954458244894724/photo/1

Issue is he is from a backwards marginalized community (Gujar) in Afghanistan so there will not be much 3rd party information about him online in English or Pashto, but he is a known figure in the Gujjar community for the work he has done for his people. Here is his official Facebook account: https://www.facebook.com/arshadheelaman1 Spyjockstrap (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All social media. If he is indeed notable then there should be some independent news sources that cover him. As things stand, I still support deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this day and age, almost anyone can create a YouTube, X and Facebook account about themselves. It doesn't make him notable having those. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the videos ? Im not sure who would go on Afghan national television and in the Afghan parliament as a minority rights activist, just to get a page on Wikipedia. Please go through the sources thoroughly, I have seen Youtube Videos been used as references as long as they are primary sources of a known figure. Spyjockstrap (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person is genuine and has had to recently flee his homeland Afghanistan because of the recent Taliban take over and his work for womens and minority rights in Afghanistan. Spyjockstrap (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own YouTube channel is not an independent source - see WP:GNG. Have you got any Afghan news sources covering him? What about Pajhwok Afghan News, The Kabul Times Daily or Daily Afghanistan? We can't have an article on someone based only on his own primary sources. I'm not suggesting he isn't 'genuine', in fact, I'm sure he's a great guy. By the way, doing an interview on TV does not make someone automatically notable. If there were to be independent analysis of his TV appearances from a reliable news source then that would be a better argument for notability. There are hundreds of people that get interviewed every year by BBC News or Sky News that wouldn't automatically be notable either so I don't see why it would be a different standard for an Afghan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a related point, I've read WP:OWNWORDS carefully and it does warn against using YouTube videos when there might be a copyright issue. Do we know that Heelaman has permission to use that TV footage from the Afghan station itself? That material doesn't belong to him so he may be in breach of copyright by uploading it into the public domain but I'm not too familiar with Afghan copyright law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copy right check was passed by another user, those videos have been uploaded for a long time. Would be been copyright striked by now Im assuming. Spyjockstrap (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you confirm how Heelaman meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG? BIO is clear when it says Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Therefore, Heelaman uploading his own YouTube videos does not prove notability, as his own YouTube is obviously a primary source. Has he been covered by any major secondary sources such as Pajhwok Afghan News, The Kabul Times Daily or Daily Afghanistan? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point, there should be secondary sources mentioning him and my only argument for that is because he is from a backwards and marginalised group it is not possible to find such info unfortunately. We both agree on this, only thing now is, what is the next step ? Let's get a vote and come to a conclusion because the back and forth is not productive. Spyjockstrap (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero media coverage, Gnews is blank. Gsearch is only social media. Article is sourced only to primary or non-RS sources. There is nothing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The photo is also a likely copyright violation, I've tagged it. that's another red flag that this person isn't notable. We see them in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are just yt as nominator said, and no proper results yielded on Google also. BoomBoxBuddy (talk) 2:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Rhead

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

No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Sources currently used are database and self-published. Best source I found was this, but does not qualify as GNG since not from an independent news source Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't quite have enough media coverage, the best is from Nascar.com [31]. I don't see other media covering this person, so just not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my findings so far is in agreement with the nominator.Lorraine Crane (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's this one as well Finn Shipley (talk) 04:09, 30 May 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.

Khokhar Khanzada

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

There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator's reason. Ixudi (talk) 13:49, 1 June 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 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock; as another editor has concurred with the delete rationale, this may not stop the nomination. I have no opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhatti Khanzada

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

There is no significant coverage in independent sources about the subject. The article relies on a single unreliable source of WP:RAJ. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, Asia, Pakistan, India, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 11:43, 25 May 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 Israel–Sri Lanka relations. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nimal Bandara (diplomat)

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

Ambassadors are not automatically notable, just because of their appointment. Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage not press releases about them presenting their credentials. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bilateral relations, Sri Lanka, and Israel. Dan arndt (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage by secondary sources to justify WP:GNG, mostly passing mention about his post. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks significant coverage by secondary sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been on a year, deleting articles about diplomats, but in this case, there's unique and reliably sourced material about Sri Lankans in Israel, which would be a better place. Can we move this material? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Sri Lanka relations as ATD. Don't see any material worth preserving. Longhornsg (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect to Israel–Sri Lanka relations as ATD. If for anything being an author could have assisted Bandara in passing the GNG, yet do I not see yet that this is actually the case. gidonb (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I believe the article on Nimal Bandara meets Wikipedia's notability requirements under both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. The article has recently been improved and now contains multiple independent, reliable sources with significant coverage of his diplomatic work and authorship.

Author Notability (WP:AUTHOR):
Bandara is a published author of several books across historical and youth genres:
- Mahanuwara Rajyathanthrika Sambandatha (2024), a 494-page academic work on the diplomatic history of the Kingdom of Kandy (1582–1815). Covered in detail by The Island: https://island.lk/ambassador-nimal-bandara-to-launch-book-on-kandys-diplomatic-history
- Other titles include: Rangiri Arana, Galge Kanda, Samuduru Mekala, and Nomakena Afrikanu Mathakayan, published by Sooriya Publishers and featured in eLanka and Sri Lankan literary circles.
This establishes independent coverage and enduring contributions to literature — satisfying WP:AUTHOR.

Diplomatic Notability (WP:GNG / WP:BIO):
Bandara is not merely a routine appointee; he has received sustained, non-trivial media coverage for his crisis leadership and policy engagement as Ambassador to Israel:
- The Jerusalem Post reported on his involvement in organizing labor efforts during the Israel–Gaza conflict: https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-778363
- News 1st and Hiru News covered his safety advisories and evacuation coordination for Sri Lankans amid missile attacks and unrest in Gaza:
  - https://english.newsfirst.lk/2024/04/20/70-sri-lankans-in-israel-working-safely-from-home
  - https://www.newsfirst.lk/2024/08/23/over-11-000-sri-lankans-in-israel-advised-to-stay-safe
  - https://www.hirunews.lk/english/377841
- Daily Mirror reported on domestic political praise for his ambassadorial conduct: https://www.dailymirror.lk/breaking-news/SL-Ambassador-to-Israel-doing-a-good-job-SJB/108-269309
These demonstrate coverage beyond routine diplomatic announcements, highlighting both his public visibility and national impact.

Conclusion:

Between the independent coverage of his authorship and the significant media attention to his actions as ambassador, Nimal Bandara meets Wikipedia’s notability thresholds. This article should be retained and improved, not deleted. 103.48.209.4 (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources added since this article's AfD nomination provide independent, significant coverage of this person. Government sources are not independent, while the news reports are just parroting his safety advice for Sri Lankans in Israel. Of the other three source's you've linked here, two are not sigcov either: [32] is a bunch of quotes from one guy and [33] is just a short event announcement, not an actual book review. The Jerusalem Post article [34] is the only GNG-level source here. Toadspike [Talk] 17:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. I can live with that. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR through Independent Coverage of Both Diplomatic and Literary Contributions

This article on Nimal Bandara should be retained. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria through multiple independent, reliable sources that provide non-trivial, in-depth coverage of both his diplomatic service and authorship.

----

Literary Notability (WP:AUTHOR)

Bandara is the author of Mahanuwara Rajyathanthrika Sambandatha (2024), a 494-page academic work on the diplomatic history of the Kingdom of Kandy (1582–1815). This book launch was covered in detail by The Island, a reputable and independent Sri Lankan newspaper:

🔗 https://island.lk/ambassador-nimal-bandara-to-launch-book-on-kandys-diplomatic-history

He has also written several other books in Sinhala including Rangiri Arana, Galge Kanda, Samuduru Mekala, and Nomakena Afrikanu Mathakayan, published by Sooriya Publishers and featured on platforms like eLanka and Booksy.lk.

🔗 https://www.elanka.com.au/book-launch-by-nimal-bandara

Additionally, Bandara has authored numerous historical and cultural essays in national newspapers, including Daily News and The Sunday Times, confirming sustained and meaningful public engagement.

🔗 Daily News: Literature on astrology

🔗 Sunday Times: Sri Lanka women's contribution to diplomacy

----

Diplomatic Notability (WP:GNG / WP:BIO)
Nimal Bandara has received sustained independent media coverage in his role as Ambassador to Israel, particularly for his crisis response and leadership:
- Jerusalem Post article on his coordination of Sri Lankan laborers during Israel's manpower shortage: 🔗 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-778363
- Hiru News, News First, and Lanka News Web have all independently covered his efforts to safeguard Sri Lankan citizens during periods of rocket attacks and regional tension: 🔗 https://hirunews.lk/english/377841 🔗 https://english.newsfirst.lk/2024/08/23/over-11-000-sri-lankans-in-israel-advised-to-stay-safe 🔗 https://lankanewsweb.net/archives/63251
These are not routine announcements—they reflect significant, policy-level actions and public engagement.

----
Summary:
- The subject satisfies WP:GNG via independent, significant media coverage.
- He meets WP:AUTHOR through a published scholarly monograph and multiple other works, all covered in the media.
- Sources are independent, reliable, and not limited to press releases or routine credentialing announcements.
----

Recommendation: Keep. If needed, the article can be trimmed and refocused, but deletion would discard verifiable, non-trivial coverage of a notable public figure who has contributed meaningfully to both diplomacy and literature. Rivindub (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more GNG level sources to the references. Rivindub (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This includes one post from Washington Post, one from the The Hindu, another one from Jerusalem Post and one from Economy Next. 103.48.209.4 (talk) 06:55, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all that has been provided is a series of mentions in passing not any significant coverage beyond acknowledgement of his position as Ambassador to Isreal or his statements on behalf of the Sri Lankan government. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I missed before that there is an error in the title: the capital D for diplomat. Hence the article should not be redirected and should only be deleted. Creating a correct redirect would not be related to this AfD. gidonb (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dan arndt (talk) 02:37, 9 June 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 14:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve AJ Broad

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

Non-notable biography of a developer. The 'biography' is constructed mostly from stringing together primary sources being the database entries of the developer's games. There isn't as I see it much reliable secondary information or coverage provided on who this developer is, what their background is, and much beyond that their name is attached to these titles. One exception is the mention of a Retro Gamer interview that is WP:OFFLINE. Even if the developer's body of work had significant coverage - which it doesn't - the article unfortunately contradicts the general principle that notability for one topic is not generally inherited from the notability of its subtopics - there's just not enough about Broad himself here to warrant an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a bunch of WP:Original research with Spectrum Computing refs. Delete. IgelRM (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the details that you have noted. So far, I have only been able to provide a string of references to reliable sources to create this page. Obviously, over time, I would be adding more as I find it to cover more information about Broad. So far, I have found 35 reliable references that I have linked. This is more than many pages on Wikipedia, and I believe there is enough information stored at all the sources to warrant a page on Wikipedia. Broad has a long standing in the games writing industry where he has supported the retro gaming community, that has become increasingly popular in recent years. There are not enough pWikiaedia pges referencing the gaming history pioneers. A page of this nature does take time to develop.

Many thanks! Wiper2001 (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, with respect, reliable sources giving rise to notability are generally not primary sources. Other than Retro Gamer, the article's prose is strung together from inferences made about the creator pretty much only from listing all of his games, none of which seem independently notable. There has to be significant coverage from secondary sources to warrant a biographical article about someone. This is just a list of games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is where Wikipedia fails when those sources are not available currently but may be in the future. I am surprised that the urge to simply delete the whole page is the only item on the agenda. No options to move it anywhere have been mentioned. Just simply nominate for deletion because there are not enough secondary sources. The page has only been online for a week and these things usually build up over time. I guess it will be deleted because not enough time is given to develop it. Wiper2001 (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUTURE exists to explain this. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:33, 1 June 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. – robertsky (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Hussain Siddiqui

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

Not a notable orator. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage found other than news of his arrest.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing indicates the article's notability.Almandavi (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic WP: BLP1E situation in India. Person says something that's misinterpreted. Media is whipped up into a frenzy. Authorities are forced to address the situation. Person is found innocent. Rinse and repeat. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aside from the arrests being mainly featured to cite the article, have not found significant coverage for the subject so far.Lorraine Crane (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article only covers his arrest and nothing else. a classic example of a BLP1E.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:17, 29 May 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. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Charles

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

Non-notable individual running for public office. Of the ten sources used. She is mentioned in only one that is not her political campaign website. Article does not meet WP:GNG criteria. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement Sutapurachina (talk) 05:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is verifiably false. At least three of the citations mention her by name. This deletion would not meet the criteria as she is a public figure. Doc0976 (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any independent coverage of her outside of passing references. MrTaxes (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage to have this bio in existance. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while as yet unelected candidates for office get articles only if they can be shown to have already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway. But this stakes her notabiluty entirely on her forthcoming candidacy itself, and shows nothing that would have made her notable enough for an article independently of that. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely irrelevant person and this whole bio is written with such blatant bias with undue weight. Moreover, it heavily relies on primary sources. AsaQuathern (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale of the nominator and others. Fails all the relevant notability bars: WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTNEWS #2 & #3. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment this is a BLP who is currently standing for public office. I have semi'ed this to avoid a further influx of !votes from those unfamiliar with our policies. Star Mississippi 20:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete articles about political candidates who have never held office. This can always be recreated later. Allowing candidates to use us as a free advertising platform places our 501(c)(3) status in jeopardy. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Seungri400 (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. It's incredibly rare for a third-party or independent candidate in a US election to be notable and it requires a large amount of national-level campaign coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails WP:ANYBIO. Other votes cover this more indepth.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:25, 30 May 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.

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

A bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with Tamil references was notable and the LTTE named a sniper unit after him, known as the Mayuran Sniper Unit after his death.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the references are in Tamil, could this article be moved to the Tamil Wikipedia? ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONENG Recommend that sources be in English but as long as non-English sources are reliable and could be verified they are also allowed. -UtoD 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources doesn't seem to meet WP:RS. ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding the sources. I’m currently working on finding additional references in English or from more widely accepted Tamil publications. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the article’s compliance with WP:RS. Thili1977 (talk) 18:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for continuing the discussion. While there are no English-language articles about Captain Mayuran (Saba), this is primarily because he served in a security role within the LTTE, which was not internationally covered in detail. However, his internal importance to the organization was clearly recognized — for example, the LTTE named a sniper unit after him after his death. His legacy is remembered through Tamil-language commemorative publications, obituaries, and community memorials. I understand the need for reliable sourcing and am doing my best to represent the subject neutrally and verifiably, within the limits of what is available. Thili1977 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the suggestion to move this to the Tamil Wikipedia, but I believe this topic has relevance for an English-speaking audience as well — especially in the context of the Sri Lankan civil war and the Tamil diaspora. Many members of the younger diaspora today can no longer read Tamil fluently, or at all. Having this article in English supports broader educational access, cross-cultural understanding, and historical documentation. I hope the article can be retained and improved here rather than removed or relocated. Thili1977 (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original contributor of this article. Captain Mayuran (Saba) was a member of the LTTE during the Sri Lankan civil war and served as a close protection officer for LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran. He participated in several key operations and is remembered within the Tamil community, especially for his role during the Battle of Pooneryn in 1993, where he was killed in action. The article is based on multiple Tamil sources, including contemporary reports and commemorative publications. I have aimed to present the content in a neutral, fact-based manner. I’m open to improvements and willing to add stronger references if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thili1977 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no information or sources stating of this person is either a model or activist. The article does not mention any fashion shows or brands that he participated in, nor does it mention any activism that he has done. He is only notable as a son of a former presidential aide which makes this WP:INVALIDBIO. This person is not notable. Sackkid (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there is some coverage in reliable sources; how significant is debatable. Bearian (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. The coverage that you are referring to all mirror that this is a gay man who happens to be the son of a former presidential aide. But there is no actual notability in that. I would say it would be more appropriate to merge this with Doyin Okupe but it is already there. Sackkid (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited. Shoerack (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nom sock-blocked and no other deletion !votes. No prejudice against a re-nom by an editor in good standing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dungri Bhil

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

Fails GNG, depends on single source, not enough coverage. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ethnic groups. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 2 June 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. Nom sock-blocked and no other deletion !votes. No prejudice against a re-nom by an editor in good standing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dholi Bhil

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

Fails GNG, depends on single source, not enough coverage. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ethnic groups. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been blocked as a sock. No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 2 June 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.

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. A lot of this stuff is trivial. The Time source does not feature him as the topic of discussion, The Pink News source simply mentioned that he was one of the attendees but does not state that he organized the protest, The Bloomberg source does not exist, The Out magazine source was written by them (Blaise); which leads that this article could have been created and edited by Matthew Blaise. "In 2020, they were a winner of The Future Awards Africa "Prize for Leading Conversations" but the source does not mention him winning any award of the sort. Also, the page receives very little traffic. If this person is an actual activist, there should be more focus on what they actually changed in the course of history and human rights. But once you take away the sentences with the meaningless sources, you are left with trivial information about where he is allegedly attending college. Sackkid (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bloomberg source exists and link is still active. There are many articles and publications about them, and their nonprofit is quite active as well. Iseaseeshells (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, none of them say what he has actually done as an "activist", they are simply mirroring each other. I saw several pages that says he founded The Oasis Project but there are no articles that elaborate on it, say who it has helped, or what it has actually done. Many publications do not do their own research to see if the information given to them is credible. They are simply calling it "a Nigeria-based registered non-profit organization" but it is not registered with the Nigerian CAC or Global Giving, so it is not an establishment. So again, these publications are mirroring each other. Example: "I believe the sky is yellow and pink because you told me. You believe the sky is yellow and pink because I told you." Sackkid (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear where you’re coming from, he is active with his nonprofit, Obodo, which is registered with CAC Iseaseeshells (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would still need to be significant coverage from reliable sources in order to support the claim that Matthew Blaise is notable by Wikipedia standards. Also do you know Matthew Blaise personally? Sackkid (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 21:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 12:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 improvement is always welcome, consensus holds that the subject is notable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khairul Basar

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Two previous deletions in English and then deleted in Bengali Wikipedia four days ago. Obvious promotion attempt based on additional sourcing of YouTube, interviews, and promotional churnalism since last AfD. CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor is notable and he has won various awards, including the Meril-Prothom Alo Awards for Best actor, that's enough to keep the article. Aqsis Bey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The non-notable awards, all of which were won prior to the 2nd AfD? Please let me know what has changed since the last AfD with these awards to make the subject notable under WP:NACTOR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are the non-notable award? maybe there was no sources mentioned about the awards in the previous pages! So, due to a vulnerability editor previously created or single editor repeatedly recreating this article, this "probably notable" will never be accepted? check the career section, i tried rewriting to make it neutral. wouldn't he pass WP:NACTOR for his roles in various films, web series, web films, television drama and short films from 2017-2024? Aqsis Bey (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are not based on what is present on a page at the time. It matters what is available in reliable soruces (see WP:BEFORE). So, my question remains...what has changed since the last AfD with these awards to make the subject notable under NACTOR? I am unsure what you mean by vulnerability of an editor or what its relation to notability is so cannot opine on that comment. For NACTOR, having "roles in various films" does not earn someone inherent notability. In fact, it must be lead roles in "notable" films (commonplace in NACTOR deletion discussions - let me know and I can link a few for you). If they did have lead roles, we still need significant coverage (not just verification) that talks about them in those roles. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, why do you say the Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are not notable? From the Wikipedia article, these awards appear notable along with two others awards and Bangladesh is larger than any country in Europe. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was a misstatement as one of the awards is notable. The others are not as we do not list awards without Wikipedia pages in film projects. My point is that nothing notable has happened since the last AfD unless it can be pointed out there has (which I cannot see). Also, I am unsure what country size has to do with notability but if you can clarify maybe I am missing something. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Today, I added WP Biography and assessed as Start-class article. Since I am not familiar with this bio, I am neutral about whether to keep or delete. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO by winning a Meril Prothom Alo Award award and having significant roles in multiple notable TV shows or films (at a minimum, Networker Baire and Kajolrekha). I don't know what sources the previous AfD discussions considered, but he only won the award last Friday, so that's at least one thing that has changed. The focus now should be on reining in promotionalism and tightening up the language. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to unblocked participants in earlier AfD discussions, as concerned editors: (Chronos.Zx—MdsShakil—Mekomo—Mushy Yank—Vinegarymass911—আফতাবুজ্জামান ) --Worldbruce (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can keep per Worldbruce. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 17:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per "X" is an WP:ATA. For the Keep vote of WB and your comment, please note that there is nothing in WP:NACTOR that makes someone inherently notable for winning an award or for having multiple roles in a show. Since it says "may" and not "are" notable, can you point out the sourcing that would make this person notable under WP:ANYBIO?

Criterion #1 under WP:ANYBIO is: "The person has received a well-known and significant award ..., or has been nominated for such an award several times". In my experience an Oscar/BAFTA is usually considered enough to satisfy this, except perhaps for child actors. The Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are a notch down from the Oscars, second in stature to the National Film Awards, equivalent perhaps to a Golden Globe Award (sorry, I'm not that familiar with Western entertainment awards). For 170 million people, the Meril-Prothom Alo Awards are well-known and significant (possibly what A. B. was alluding to above). --Worldbruce (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention. What I am saying is that winning an award does not automatically guarantee notability. Winning an Oscar would be enough, but not because of the win. It would be because the person likely received significant coverage based on that award. ANYBIO states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It would come down to the coverage and on this there is a mention of the person's name in the most recent source added but nothing significant. I am also not in agreement that all of the shows/films the person appeared in are notable (one I did not take to AfD as not to give the appearance of bludgeoning while the AfD is going on). Most are web films which don't always gain a lot sourcing. The film Thikana Bangladesh is mentioned but not released but maybe there will be more press surrounding Basar once it does and it would merit inclusion of a page for them. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. There have been similar cases where I've insisted that someone show me the significant coverage that other factors suggest must exist. To be consistent, I should seek that in the heap of Bengali search results, but I've sunk as much time into this as I can spare right now. If that means this gets deleted again, so be it. I think WP:WHYN is worth bearing in mind. We're trying to avoid something that Wikipedia is not, an article that contains original research, a claim of noteworthiness that is unverifiable, over reliance on primary sources, and an article that presents only the subject's viewpoint. I believe there is now a sufficient number and diversity of sources to, with some editing, meet those goals. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Worldbruce's comments. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent news coverage shows subject has become notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ok - but do we have sources? Any new coverage because of that award he just won, etc?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering:, we do not. I am even willing to do the WP:HEY, but the most recent I can find is from December last year which is not bylined and just him talking about himself. No significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article seems well-sourced, the award appears notable, based on what I read. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 2 June 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. The discussion ran out of steam and started descending into personal attacks, so it's best to close it for now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ghoshe

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources are mentions, unreliable, or otherwise not in-depth about the subject. CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NOTINHERITED. First off, we need an analysis of the reviews, if any, of his books in reliable sources. Next, his tenuous relationship with a famous foundation is not explained. Finally, it's too promotional in tone. Ping me if you can fix this mess of a page. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a long list of references but hardly relevant. He has written books but are they notable, Hard to find news about his books. I even couldn’t find any reliable book reviews to understand more about the subject. Neither there are coverage on subject in independent sources. He clearly fails WP:NAUTHOR. Above all article is promoting the individual by language and contents as well. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article clearly meets both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The article contains citations from:
Times of India – National daily; easily passes “newspaper of record” bar for reliability.^[1]
The Daily Star – Independent, third-party literary criticism → satisfies NAUTHOR #3.^[2]
Indiablooms – National digital news-wire, independent.^[3]
The Telegraph – Independent national daily (mostly popular in West Bengal and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands).^[4]
Trans World Features – in-depth author interview.^[5]

Each of these pieces is non-PR and non-paid. Together they comfortably exceed the two-source threshold of WP:GNG. Publishing credentials:

ISBN citations include works from Rupa Publications – one of India’s oldest mainstream publishers.
N.E. Publishers and Smriti Publishers – both commercial, audited presses (not vanity).

This, plus multiple in-depth reviews (at least on two books), means Victor Ghoshe meets WP:NAUTHOR outright. Additional evidence of lasting impact:

Library holdings: Tomb of God is catalogued in the Kerala State Central Library – the country’s second-oldest public library.^[6]
International distribution: The novel is stocked by Waterstones UK (brick-and-mortar chain).^[7]
Cultural cross-overs: Launches were headlined by National Film-Award legend Soumitra Chatterjee (for Tomb of God) and Sahitya Akademi winner Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay (for Paranormal 2).^[3]

These points strengthen the “enduring, not temporary” aspect of notability per WP:N.

On the Gates Foundation mention: The caption of the image is the only evidence for that collaboration. If this single citation is insufficient, we can remove the claim without affecting notability.

Addressing the objections:

Mentions are not trivial: Coverage comes from mainstream dailies.
No independent book reviews: Daily Star piece is a 1 000-word critique; TOI article devotes its entire feature to dissecting plot and historical backdrop.
Tone is promotional: Agreed. The solution is copy-editing, not deletion.

--ParallelDimension (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ ^a ^b "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
^ "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

Keep per ParallelDimension, passes NAUTHOR.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number of editors who have very few edits but came out of the woodwork for this AfD is astounding. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One is the creator of the article, and the other had a very significant burst of activity on the 29th, editing many AfDs and making a lot of edits to an article. I don't think this one is particularly astounding. -- asilvering (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I was commenting on the whole but did not leave enough context. Sorry if it seemed like I was just throwing darts. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador:, which sourcing exactly?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing you blanket declared insufficient above and didn't bother to examine further. Cortador (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to not be WP:CIVIL and answer a question which shows you obviously did not review the sourcing you somehow deem sufficient. Understood. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did any sources analysis, feel free to point me to it. As per WP:BEFORE, that was your job, not mine. Cortador (talk) 18:51, 2 June 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 05:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NYOUTUBER. No lasting, independent coverage in reliable sources. Purely social media fame WP:NOTPROMO applies. BharatGanguly (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, Entertainment, India, and Delhi. BharatGanguly (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would like to see significant coverage. What we have now are just news items. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Searches turned up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. B-Factor 17:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of wp:SIGCOV and fails Wp:YOUTUBER. Zuck28 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and disagree with B-Factor. If you want to keep this article then show reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable news coverage to satisfy GNG. Primpzetad (talk) 11:02, 2 June 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. Three AFDs over 2 years. Can we go another year + without a 4th AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

His win in a reality show (Bigg Boss OTT 2) and some online controversies have received temporary media attention, but these do not amount to the kind of sustained, independent coverage needed to demonstrate long-term wiki article. The article also leans promotional in tone, with excessive detail on YouTube milestones and trivial career facts, which goes against WP:NOT and WP:BLP. Being internet famous is not inherently equivalent to being notable by Wiki. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Music, India, and Haryana. BharatGanguly (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the nominatior that his career is smaller than the controversy section. And doesn’t pass notability. But the given sources suggest he received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources which compound to Wp:GNG. I believe the sources should be checked carefully and evaluated if they really are reliable sources or just puff pieces and. wp:CHURNALISM and Wp:QUESTIONABLE. Zuck28 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon observing this article, I'm not confident about the article blog-style reporting & entertainment coverage lacking editorial oversight. Well, per WP:NYOUTUBER, mere social media popularity and viral fame is insufficient. Notability come from lasting, third-party recognition in RS which is absent here. This is a clear case of WP:NOTPROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and comment above. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is (unfortunately) a close call because he has received a fair amount of media coverage but for all the wrong reasons. As said by folks above, more significant coverage of his "career" is needed per WP:NYOUTUBER, while the reports he received for various acts of shameless self-promotional desperation are numerous but largely WP:CHURNALISM. Gotta admit that he knows how to get fleeting mentions of his name in the tabloids though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article about his youtube channels and winning an Indian version of Big Brother. Editors probably sympathetic to him have repeatedly tried to remove the controversy section so I suspect the deletion of this article would aid that censorship attempt, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG. The amount of coverage is too huge to justify even the AfD, let alone deleting the article. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Many reliable sources have provided him significant coverage. International sources like The Independent have also covered him.[35] I am totally surprised over this AfD. Agletarang (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised by how much media attention he has received. This goes well beyond a one-event bio. Not a BLP1E, and looks notable to me.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 09:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough sources for notability and these sources are already present on the page. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elvish is the winner of noted noted reality show Big Boss.Collegeboy12 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Several sources exist in independent sources, and >15M subscriber count on YouTube. Article content issues and reasons for popularity nothwithstanding, I believe it clears the criteria of notability. WeWake (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm surprised to see this be nominated for deletion. He is clearly notable, there are many articles about him related to different events. An article being bad is not a reason to delete it. KnowDeath (talk) 22:35, 2 June 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Yan

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:SINGER criteria. I cannot find multiple independent, credible sources on the web. I began trying to remove obviously-bad sources but reverted when I realized I would have stripped the article of basically all citations and I wasn't having luck finding better ones. The sources in the article appear to be promotional articles and almost all of them do not actually match the statements they're supporting:

Article Text	Source
Details about her family and early education remain private, as she prefers to keep her personal life out of the public eye	Blog post which does not match what it's supporting in the article, appears to be AI
Her content often draws inspiration from anime and video games like Genshin Impact, reflecting her personal interests	Blog post which does not match what it's supporting in the article, appears to be AI
"Her Instagram account, also under @shaniayanofc, has over 2 million followers, where she shares selfies and career-related content"	Two sources: beacons.ai marketing platform, and myCast which is user-generated content

I'm unable to find credible, independent sources in my Googling. The only thing that comes close is the paper listed as a source in the article. While articles generated through AI are not (to my knowledge) automatic candidates for AfD, it's still worth mentioning that the article itself appears to be mostly just that, and some of the sources' URLs show very clearly that the editor arrived there by ChatGPT (https://beacons.ai/i/blog/shania-yan-bio?utm_source=chatgpt.com). I don't believe this meets notability per WP:SINGER, and if it does meet notability, I'm not sure how we're going to replace the bad sources if independent, credible ones do not exist. —tony^{st (talk)} 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Indonesia. —tony^{st (talk)} 18:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes I agree that major revisions are needed in this article, but I definitely do think the subject of the article is notable. There is also a peer reviewed article on her song : https://jurnal.masoemuniversity.ac.id/index.php/englishpedagogy/article/view/677 Yes, most of the current content are unsourced because some are from primary sources, but those can be improved. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Earwig results raised some questions about the originality of the lead for me, and due to the only keep vote coming from the author, I'm going to support draftifying this article. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 14:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see a claim to notability in the article and the sources are particularly weak and don't seem to match the claims they are attached to, per nom. In my own searching I found nothing better than anything in the article. Moritoriko (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. AI and copyvio aside, the article is just promotional fluff that doesn't say anything. I haven't seen evidence of notability, either, though my source search/analysis hasn't been very deep. The journal article cited above was published by a not (yet) notable university founded six years ago. The paper reads fairly informally and, according to Google Scholar, has been cited all of one time. Sample quote: "Shania Yan is a YouTuber who creates content based on songs. With a soft and smooth voice, this 20-year-old girl from Surabaya is loved by many people.... Her cover video, which she posted 10 months ago, has received over 35.5 million views and over 572 thousand likes. Its lyrics about love make it a catchy tune that fits any occasion." Not exactly the kind of objective analysis I'd expect from a peer-reviewed journal. Toadspike [Talk] 03:29, 6 June 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.

Umair (music producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Umair meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. His 2024 album Rockstar Without a Guitar peaked at #8 on Spotify Pakistan and was featured in Genius Community’s 25 Best Albums of 2024 (ThePrint). His single “Asli Hai” topped YouTube Pakistan charts (Music Metrics Vault). Covered by reliable sources like Samaa TV, ThePrint, Wordplay Magazine, and Itz Hip Hop. Producer for notable duo Young Stunners. Meets NMUSIC via charting work, media coverage, and national significance.

— Behappyyar (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSICIAN would not be met based on charting. Spotify and YouTube are not acceptable under WP:CHART. Also, being a producer for someone notable does not come with inherent notability. Can you address the non-bylined references? Do you feel these are reliable and if so how? For WP:GNG, you are also cited press releases above which can never be used for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 While it’s true that WP:CHART places limits on YouTube/Spotify data for standalone notability, those indicators support broader cultural relevance under WP:NMUSIC#1 and WP:GNG. Chart placements help demonstrate impact in the absence of traditional charts in South Asia, where mainstream media often lags behind independent or digital-first musicians.

Regarding sources:

Samaa TV and ThePrint are independent, professional outlets with editorial oversight and journalistic standards. These are not self-published or fan-driven and are widely accepted as RS in other music-related AfDs.
The Itz Hip Hop review is bylined and analytical, not promotional; it contains critical assessment of Umair’s production and album structure.
The Wordplay Magazine article, while regional, is independent and contains critical evaluation — see similar RS used in AfDs for artists in UK/India-Pak context.

I accept that the ANI press release cannot count toward WP:GNG, but it was cited for factual support of chart placements, not to satisfy notability directly.

Notability isn’t only about headlining credits. Umair is the primary producer behind Rebirth and Open Letter, two of the most discussed hip-hop albums in Pakistan — both critically reviewed in RS and recognized in independent retrospectives. His influence is creative and structural, meeting WP:NMUSIC#2 (“significant contribution to the work of others that is covered in reliable sources”).

On balance, the article meets WP:GNG through multiple independent sources with critical commentary, and WP:NMUSIC through documented production of notable albums and influence on Pakistan’s hip-hop scene.

— Behappyyar (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing a major role in major works proves notability. Could you give more info on the part he played and on the notability of those albums? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to forget: Talha Anjum's most famous song Kaun Talha? in which he diss an Indian rapper Naezy was produced by Umair. ^[1] Behappyyar (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@(Itzcuauhtli11) He served as the lead producer and co-composer on both Rebirth (2017) and Open Letter (2023), two landmark Urdu hip-hop albums in Pakistan.

On Rebirth, Umair produced all 15 tracks for Young Stunners, a duo considered foundational to Pakistani rap. The album is credited with shaping the Urdu hip-hop scene and received wide media attention from outlets like SAMAA TV.^[2]

For Open Letter, he was again the key producer, collaborating with Talha Anjum and international names such as KRSNA. The album was reviewed independently and discussed critically within South Asian music forums.^[3]^[4]

These albums are not just popular but culturally significant, marking key points in the evolution of Pakistani hip-hop. Umair’s complete production involvement and critical coverage of these albums demonstrate a major creative role in notable works, satisfying WP:NMUSIC#2 and strengthening his case under WP:GNG. ^[5]

References

^ "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
^ "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

There is a huge WP:WALLOFTEXT so I will only be addressing some of the main points. I wouldn't consider Young Stunners even notable despite having a Wikipedia page (that one needs to go to AfD as well). A single collaboration with a rapper is not something that gains inherent notability. Everything else is more of an WP:ILIKEIT argument. As far as the "landmark" albums you speak of, I would guess they would have enough coverage to warrant a Wikipedia page since they are landmark, yet I do not see it. Fact is, the coverage has some mentions, routine announcements, and unreliable sources (even a publication that is reliable like Dawn can have specific articles considered unreliable - see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). The rest of what you cited is not reliable (two blogs and Reddit?). If this artist was truly worthy of notice (a requirement of notability), there would be more than blog posts and promotional churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 This isn’t WP:ILIKEIT—his notability stems from his influence on multiple notable works. While some early coverage may be light or promotional, there is independent, reliable coverage (e.g., SAMAA TV, The Express Tribune, and Dawn articles/interviews) highlighting Umair’s production role. [36]. Behappyyar (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The comment proves what I have been saying. You cite this which is a routine announcement and not-bylined. It is not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. It is the same concept as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Finally, please do not cite interviews anymore. They are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link i have shared Umair slides into Genius Top Albums of the Year is not a routine announcement. It highlights Umair’s recognition by Genius alongside global artists like Beyoncé. This editorial coverage by a reliable source (The Express Tribune) goes beyond routine mentions and supports notability per WP:GNG. Behappyyar (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already stated numerous times. It is NOT BYLINED and falls under similar concerns as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Articles published under "news desk" or "webdesk" have consistently found to be unreliable for notability purposes as they are promotional churnalism, not something in-depth written by a journalist. Please see WP:CIR. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: would benefit from additional input. Contributors are also reminded to please refrain from using LLMs to generate walls of text, as they don't help anyone. Write your own arguments, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I lean to agree with CNMall41; most of the articles with SIGCOV doesn't mention the author of the article, and all of them have promotional undertones. The Rolling Stones review is nice, checks all the boxes for a good sources (except the promotional vibes). If we can find another 2+ sources of the quality of this Rolling Stones article, we can save the article. This source also has a little bit specifically on Umair. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:24, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually thought the Rolling Stone reference was okay, but when I looked closer during a WP:BEFORE, I saw it was Rolling Stone India which is not Rolling Stone and has different (if any) oversight authority. Should be treated similar to Forbes India or Entrepreneur India. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that he meets WP:NSINGER criterion 2, having a single listed on a country's national music chart. 1 190.140.190.217 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source that you pointed out states that "As well as several tracks making Spotify’s viral charts in Pakistan and India". Regional Spotify listings do not count towards WP:CHART. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to modify sources: Having read the above discussions, read the article over and checked the sources, there are a few things that stand out to me. Firstly, the names of some of the article writers, namely refs 2, 5, 10 and 12, appear to not be the name of an actual person (Images Staff and Culture Haze). These sources are likely not bylined, as I believe has been mentioned previously. Secondly, ref 14 is a link to the artist's Spotify. Whilst Spotify isn't listed on WP:RS/PS, I would question whether it counts as a WP:RS. For these reasons, along with the article still potentially being a WP:Stub (it has the notice at the bottom of the article), I think that draftifying the article to take care of these issues would be beneficial in strengthening arguments for keep. 11WB (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb The references contain nonsense parameters because this article is AI generated. Sources 4 and 16 contain utm_source=chatgpt.com in the URLs. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Yes, it appears you are correct for ref 16. That link was attributed by Google Analytics to ChatGPT as a source of traffic. I believe this relates to Wikipedia:AI-generated content - not yet a policy, but important nonetheless. Having seen this and the other things I mentioned previously shifts my opinion from draftify further to deletion pending further insight. 11WB (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my last message, it appears ref 20 also links to Spotify. I've re-read the article, I'm still not confident in my own ability to detect LLM usage or other AI generated content, so I think it best I leave that to be confirmed by more experienced Wikipedians. Regardless of AI, this article definitely has issues that need addressing in its current form. 11WB (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Needs more coverage.

Edard Socceryg (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines regarding WP:NMUSIC. From a glance of the sources in the article, they do not discuss the subject significantly, or are adverts, or are profiles... And I could not find any valid sources on the search engine. I also opposed draftification unless there is a possibility that the subject will be notable in the future. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Ghorbani

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Attempted to draftify but OP recreated it in mainspace. It was noted this was the "english" version so I looked at Wikidata and it appears there is a mass posting campaign across many languages. CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a real person, one of the Iranian music artists and press writers. As you can see, the article has complete sources and is well-known. Given the importance of the topic, there is no reason to delete the article!Thank You! Rahavardeparsì (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This appears to be a case of long-term abuse. See User:Richardsondiva. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link before it was blanked. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:, it in fact is, across multiple Wikipedia projects. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Iran, due to internet filtering and users connecting to VPNs, there are always network interferences and I have no knowledge of the past. As I said, the article has a valid and necessary topic and sources. It is better to discuss whether the article should remain or not. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahavardeparsì. You have "no knowledge of the past" yet you happened to recreate an article of Hamidreza Ghorbani very similar to that created by User:Farbodzade. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am Raha and we share the same internet with Farbodzade. We are trying to create. We are students of Professor Hamidreza Ghorbani. Look at our edits. We do not intend to sabotage the files. We only made edits. Please do not seek adventure and comment on whether the article should remain or not. This is a poll, not an interrogation! Should the article remain or be deleted? Rahavardeparsì (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked, not by me but by another user, to disclose outside connections you have. Up to this point you have been skewing this discussion about long-term abuse. I question your sincerity. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be pessimistic. I am honest with all users. We are the educated class of Iran and we have learned the way of honesty from our professors. If you and other friends believe that our professor's article should remain, please vote positive and save the article. We, the people of Iran, love all the people of the world. Thank you for your attention. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fancy Refrigerator:, it is. The SPI found the connection which is something that should have been disclosed in the beginning by the user (only now they talk about "shared internet" now that they are aware of the SPI). The LTA can be dealt with once the AfD has run its course in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know anything about the Iranian internet. We have connectivity problems and many networks and sites are filtered here. Yes, we have shared internet because Farbodzadeh is my neighbor and we live in a residential apartment. I am not looking for adventure and we respect your decision to stay or delete the article. You are respected. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time to discuss the article not the editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article can remain. Objection to deletion. Reason: Reliable sources and importance of the topic. Rahavardeparsì (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and the history of the page indicates promotional moves. Just because a user page is blanked doesn't erase its history. These shenanigans are why our charitable status is in trouble. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay - The sources are credible in Persian and are well-known. Media coverage in independent and impartial sources indicates the importance of the article's topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahavardeparsì (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have p-blocked Rahavardeparsì from this discussion. They retain access to edit the article. Star Mississippi 23:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

Article has been orphaned for more than a year; the main subject is of the memorial that never happened, not the person himself. Does not meet WP:BIO LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wisconsin. LR.127 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty clear cut application of WP:ONEEVENT here - subject is only notable for a single event that made the news, and all of the coverage of his death focused on that same event. I also don't think the construction of the shrine passes WP:NEVENT, so a page move from Ted Junker to an article about the event is not a viable alternative to deletion. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added some refs. The reason for my "keep" is that I have found accounts of this in a variety of sources, including a newspaper in Iceland (no idea what it says but it's about this). A story went out over Associated Press so it got spread pretty far. I also recognize the WP:ONEEVENT aspect so would not protest if this gets deleted. Lamona (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found my link to the Icelandic news article: Hitlers-stofa hættuleg heilsunni?

Blaðið, Iceland 16 June 2006 Lamona (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person that's been deceased for a decade, possibly wanting to do some controversial things before passing away.... I don't see notability. Barely even BLP1E, not even sure the "event" even happened... From what I see in the article, the monoment was blocked from ever being build, students protested... Then Junker dies and the story ends. More of an interesting/colorful local tidbit at this point than anything notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chee

AfDs for this article:

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

Still fails WP:GNG as refs don't pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Malaysia. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Peter Chee is ranked #2 globally by Global Gurus (2023) and was named to the inaugural Coaches50 list by Thinkers50. Both these platforms are independent, reputable authorities in executive coaching. He has co-authored books with Jack Canfield, Brian Tracy, and Marshall Goldsmith, and is featured in major media including The Star and CNN Philippines. The article cites independent, verifiable sources. It meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be "KEEP". User:CS Aaron 08:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I" and "V" are only two parts. Please read WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Was just at a previous AFD a few days ago so it is ineligible for another Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely looks like a grifter with no meaningful contribution to the coaching profession. All "sources" are PR driven. 178.23.206.26 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. No significant coverage in any reliable sources other than fluffy executive profiles. N3rsti (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article. All sources are clearly verified and credible. His contributions to thought leadership through original coaching models and internationally recognized certifications are substantial and well-documented. Collaborations with top-tier coaches and recognition by global rankings should not be discounted simply because the subject operates outside more traditionally covered geographies. This article clearly meets notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:CORP and should be KEPT. User:CS Aaron (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP What is the fuss? The references are there, the sources are credible, the people who work with him are real; they’re not suing him for using their name, and the work produced in executive coaching is documented and accessible. Good to see Asian contributions in this field. This article should be KEPT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:3800:8FF:B14B:6948:C9D0:AF83:46DB (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this IP is actually CS Aaron. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the person has received media coverage in presumably Asian countries, CNN Vietnam, etc. to meet GNG. --Antônia Tônia (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-published and/or unreliable sources, many are tangent and do not concern with the subject leaving actual number of sources to be too thin, if any, to meet notability. WeWake (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some source analysis, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP.~~ Curious how The Star, Thinkers50, McGraw Hill, and ICF all suddenly became “unreliable” when covering an Asian coach. They’re established, independent sources with global credibility. Dr. Chee has co-authored with Goldsmith, Canfield, and Tracy. He’s been ranked #2 in the world by Global Gurus and listed by Thinkers50. That’s significant, independent recognition. How are those fluff? Notability isn't limited to coverage in U.S. or U.K. media. This meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. ~~KEEP.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS Aaron (talk • contribs) 07:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You previously !voted, CS Aaron. You don't get to !vote multiple times. Please strike your !vote. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Asilvering, attempted this below:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Links to itdworld.com [16, 21,22]	WP:COI.		Primary src.	✘ No
Co-authored by the subject [3,5,12,14,16,23-26]		Primary sources; vanity press, etc		✘ No
[7,10]	Interview/blogs	WP:SPS	About the subject	✘ No
[15]	Written by the subject		Not about the subject.	✘ No
[6]	Likely self-submitted (WP:ABOUTSELF).	Not a reliable, third-party source.		✘ No
[2, 8, 9, 10] Promotional ranking & marketing or services sites	Promotional in nature.			✘ No
[1] and other Thinkers50 lists.		Thinkers50 is a reputable organization.	Just a name on a list	✘ No
[4, 19] (Forbes, PGA articles) etc.	~	Failed WP:V	Not even mentioned / bogus citation	✘ 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}}.

— WeWake (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WeWake's assessment seems accurate; I have checked some of the sources to verify that. I have stuck CS Aaron's second !vote for them, and I suspect the IP that !voted above is also Aaron, so that comment should be discounted. Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

Article appears to be a BLP failing WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage. The sources listed are primary (1-7) or passing (8). A pretty substantial search turned up nothing covering this individual. Garsh (talk) 01:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, Engineering, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources which i provided are this man's own interviews. and its very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem though, interviews are primary sources and do not show notability. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 11:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I do then. This article is very important article with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I quickly found this article in Israel's newspaper of record. It's about Sassoon and about the organization that interviewed him. Haven't made up my mind yet. gidonb (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be more about the organization that interviewed Sassoon and Saddam's regime, not necessarily Sassoon himself. I'm not sure that a two paragraph mention in an article about a related topic counts as significant coverage. Garsh (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a beginning. If others want to continue the search, they can! gidonb (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaoul Sassoon mentioned is Zionist, who is son of Iraq's Grand Rabbi Sassoon Khadouri. not Engineer Shaul Sasoon Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Shaul Sassoon is different from this one on whom the article is about Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked some more and did not find enough for the GNG. The domain is not well-covered, so with regret. gidonb (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are news some sources such as Baghdad Observer and al-Watan.com, these are website sources and remaining are interviews in four parts (four refs can be interview themselves and two parts of interview is mentioned in a website separately Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you want this article to be kept, please indicate Keep in bold font so it doesn't get overlooked. Also a source review would be very helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand. Can you pls explain me what you meant to say Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i believe the article should be kept, even thou its not currently at its best, it is good in expanding on reconigtion of iraqi jews during the 70s-2003, when jews are overshadowed in iraqi history. Local Mandaean (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. Skitash (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's failing WP:GNG and lacking significant coverage. Cinder painter (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is important with regards to History of the Jews in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It gives an important information that just like Christians and Mandaeans, Jews were also a part of Saddam Hussein's government. Unlike the propaganda narrative spread by Israel on anti-Zionist leaders, whom they equate with total antisemitism. Kharbaan Ghaltaan (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Lore Ross

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

Obviously AI generated article not in encyclopedic tone. It reads very promotional and puffery. Subject might be notable, but this is not an acceptable article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main editors contributions, I see several good articles and even a featured article. Yet, this really reads to me like an obvious example of AI generated text which confuses me. I don't want to accuse a productive and experienced editor of using AI, so I really apologize if that's not the case. Sources are pretty poor and some seem entirely unrelated to the text it describes, like the opinion piece from Defector describing him highly negatively used as a reference on the sentence "His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary." RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not even sure how to address this tbh, but no, it is not AI written. I use grammarly often to sort out better sentences structure. In your defence, someone once told that only AI uses the word "delve". Feel free to check the factuality for each sentence using the inline sources, so you can be sure that: The article does not include hallucinated information or fictitious references. As for copyright violation, use Earwig.

Anyway, AfD are normally based on policies, so you need to indicate in your nom the policy that you think this article is violating. Have a read through Wikipedia:Deletion policy and if you change your mind, you can withdraw the nom.

Also please when you tag an article, it is better to add more details in the page talk so editors know what to fix. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the above, and while I will believe you on not writing the entire article with AI, it has the exact same non-encyclopedic tone of AI. If I would ask a LLM to write an article, I would get an indistinguishable result in prose. I do believe the article contains citations that do not match the actual sentences. Another example is the sentence "He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues" is completely unrelated to the two citations, one which seems to just be a page with an embedded video? If he has covered the evolution of hip-hop culture, the source does not explain it.

I did not explicitly link anything but my reason for nomination is WP:ATD-E "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". I am not arguing against the notability about this person, only that the quality of the article is so poor that it's not worth keeping in this state, especially considering it's a biography of a living person. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw when you say “ Another example is the sentence” you know you are talking about the same example?

I replied below to your accusation of fictitious citation. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by, but Grammarly uses AI now so that is likely why it might appear AI-generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources at the end of that sentence says:

“ Up next for TLR ... deep dives into NBA YoungBoy and Quando Rondo. Who knows, there may be one of Boosie too!!!”
“ You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating. “ the article continues to describe what he does

so I am not sure how you are not able to verify the sentence. It doesn’t need to be verbatim or paraphrased from the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up two different sentences that do not have truthful citations. I will go through them in detail, since you seem to be confused.

"He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues."

No source mentions him covering "the evolution of hip-hop culture". It is entirely possible that he has done this, but it's not sourced.

"His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary."

Indeed, the Defector source has the text "You don't need to watch more than a few minutes of any of Trap Lore Ross's work to understand the register at which he's operating.", but it's preceded and followed by a extremely negative opinion on this person. The source argues that people like him are "provocateurs" and their work is a form of cultural "exploitation". The author is basically arguing that he what he does is more akin to "exploitation" than "cultural commentary". RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see GNG, source 2 is a RS, it mentions the person... 5 and 7 are the only other RS, that briefly mention this person, mostly re-quoting TMZ or talking about a documentary this person made. I can't find any sources either, these are all TMZ or other gossip sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you looked to the sources in the article and found one is RS and dismissed TMZ? Why? Looking to WP:PRS, it doesn’t not dismiss TMZ + notability is not decided by the sources in the article as the article was not updated since 2024. If you look now all these are sources about the person:

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TMZ is not a reliable source, low quality at best. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TMZ&redirect=no. I would prefer a better site. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the comments the nominator is not contesting the topic notability but first started by saying the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted. Changing the goal post makes this nom really hard to address but going by typical AfD noms:

notability is met in the article and more sources can be found outside the article
accusations of using AI to write the article is not a cause to delete an article (you can take to me to ANI or the village for discussion), and
the prose is excellent, every line is sourced, grammatically sound and the text can be understood.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"the text is AI like, then moved to saying that the prose quality is so bad that the page need to be deleted"

These mean the same thing. AI-like text is just a specific form of poor prose. I am not moving any goalposts. WP:TNT mentions that articles that could meet notability requirements are routinely deleted for being poor quality such that an entire rewrite from a red link would be preferable to having a blue link.

The prose is not "excellent" (as it reads like AI prose), a text being understandable does not mean that it's encyclopedic in tone. RoseCherry64 (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

which part is not encloypedic, your argument is about style, not susbtance, which not a cause for deletion

Which part of WP:TNT are you alluding to?

To be honest, if you look to the comments no one is paying attention to your nom. Which is good becuase your nom does not have legs. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per lack of reliable sources and what Oaktree b wrote. TMZ is one of those unreliable sources that turn out to be reliable sometimes: it's produced by a guy whose tag line is "I'm a lawyer." AI has its uses. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't see any redeeming qualities about this article. This seems like a glorified fan writeup, and it isn't even written by a human's hands. I concur with the comments by Oaktree. Plasticwonder (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG. The best source here is TMZ, which WP:PRS describes as low-quality. None of the other sources can be used to establish notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like DesiMoore I am not seeing a GNG, the best source is actually the Complex article that Oaktree b called out, if there were 3 of those it would be a keep. I am pretty sure that HNHH is a RS but it barely talks about TLR so it doesn't help. Unfortunately most of the sources here and that I found with Trap Lore Ross are just passing mentions while primarily talking about the contents of the videos. Moritoriko (talk) 11:42, 3 June 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 23:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Üyar

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

Previously deleted and salted at Emir Uyar... still doesn't seem to have significant coverage with most publications writing about his relationship with Adriana Lima. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Turkey. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Obvious blatant circumvention of salt. Aintabli (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support salting this too for obvious reasons. Aintabli (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion and WP:CSD#G4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Per WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:NOTINHERITED, relationships do not confer notability. The source about buying the island is more about his family and his family's company. 3 sources are about his relationship with Adriana Lima. One source is just a photo with caption. One source is a non-reliable bio site. One source is a socialite magazine. No notability outside his company. The article has been deleted 5 times, so salting seems appropiate. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh

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

Most sources are just passing mentions or about retirement or Chief, more in-depth sources needed or nomination will not be withdrawn. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frivolous nomination. Meets WP:NBIO. Multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources exist that contain significant coverage of him, not just passing mentions.[37][38][39] --Worldbruce (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now. User:Vinegarymass911, were you going to cast a "vote"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject has received significant coverage beyond routine due to their role in a transition period in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 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!} 01:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Abul Kashem Mia

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

Passing mentions only, need evidence for WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory also, not every person deserves a article unless their contributions are detailed and in-depth sources, even 1, must be cited, not just name but also birth, birth place, education and position in work/jobs. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We keep university presidents, and vice-chancellor in a country that uses the British system of university administrator titles is equivalent to president. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion 6 of WP:PROF. No Wikipedia policy or guideline requires sources to state a subject's birth date, birth place, education, or position, although in this case [40] and [41] contain significant coverage, including his education and positions. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established by meeting WP:PROF, Criterion #6.Darkm777 (talk) 02:22, 29 May 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 14:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ejaz

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

More reliable sources needed, violates WP:RS unless proven then i will withdraw nomination. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - This can be Keep on the source mentioned.([42]]) Dv24mail (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Please note a potential retaliation issue: after my deletion nomination of Kishore Kantho under WP:NMAG, User:BangladeshiEditorInSylhet promptly nominated three of my articles—Mohammad Ejaz, Md. Matiur Rahman Sheikh, and Md. Abul Kashem Mia—for deletion. Such retalion is generally discouraged and undermines the assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). Deletion proposals must address content, not serve as personal reprisals (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). I urge uninvolved editors to judge each nomination on its own merits and remain alert to any pattern of WP:POINT.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I would like to address that this was not retaliation, if this was, you would have seen much larger amounts of AfDs seen as "escalation" and the AfDs may not even have a clear reason, second: This page is covered by only passing mentions, please add more information and that is what I am asking, I will withdraw my nomination if you give a good reason to keep, plus most sources are about passing mentions anyways, if articles with somewhat in-depth sources are deleted, then articles with just passing mentions will also surely be deleted. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Only the nominator can withdraw an AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received widespread coverage as seen in the sources presented. Nomination is retaliation, something the nominator has done before going by their talk page.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Hoping to have clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 June 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 14:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Awana

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

He doesn’t have significant news sources. His filmography is totally unsourced. Non notable in my point of view, please share your thoughts on this. Afstromen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Asia, and India. Afstromen (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 25 May 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!} 05:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doar family

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

Long-time orphan with severe lack of footnotes and content demonstrating notability. How this had not been AfDed successfully before is beyond me. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Carolina. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found a few sources here and there but not quite WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - and hoping someone picks up the writing on the article. The Doar family appears to have been one of the more successful and prominent families and plantation owners in the American south. If you do a Google search for Doar Plantation, there are a lot of returns on that search. If you can open this: https://schistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Doar-Middleton-Family-papers-1247.0.pdf There apparently are their NRHP properties also in multiple places. :Also see: Stephen D. Doar papers, 1807-1898 The issue is getting someone to write it Wikipedia style. — Maile (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

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

Subject fails NPOL and sources are insufficient to satisfy the requirements for GNG (independent, reliable, and substantial coverage). Some are interviews (not even with the subject), while others are election results from unsuccessful candidacy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the discussion, my argument for keeping the article as is, is as follows:

In the NPOL guidelines under the subheading Politicians and judges, it includes politicians who are quote "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Further in this point's explanatory note (8) it states "...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Slaughter as a local Welsh politician has indeed gained independent news feature stories about him. Here are links to several of them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50368944

https://nation.cymru/news/anthony-slaughter-re-elected-as-leader-of-wales-green-party/

https://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/10945089.penarths-anthony-slaughter-elected-deputy-leader-of-welsh-green-party/

Further here are two articles BBC News articles whereby he is mentioned in passing because he is the leader of the Wales Green Party (non-feature articles):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56644323

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2520dndy6o

Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't much to add except that I agree with @Flarehayr's assessment of the availability of sources on Slaughter. As he is the leader of a sizeable political party in Wales, his position naturally warrants coverage, some of which has been listed out above. I would also argue for keeping the article. Cofion, Fwltur Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comment above, I have only just noticed the request that new comments be added under this notice. Apologies for missing this, it is my first time participating in a AfD discussion. Fwltur Gwydr (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Leader of a significant political party. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, leader of a major political party Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For a leader of a political party to be considered notable they have to pass WP:GNG. The sources mentioned above are WP:ROUTINE and WP:ROTM and source like that cannot be used to substantiate notability. WP:NPOL has already been failed here, and same goes for WP:GNG. Being the leader of a political party does not automatically or inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:POL states that national politicians are "presumed to be notable". This is the same language the GNG uses. It is then contrasted with local politicians who are only notable if they meet the GNG. The implication is that national politicians are notable whether or not they meet the GNG; compare it to WP:SPORTSPERSON just below, which explicitly notes that "meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability". CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced article important for the Senedd election next year. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas El Maliki

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article via WP:AFD in March and nothing has changed since then. The nomination statement in the first AFD and comments therein remain valid. Mekomo (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Crime, Discrimination, Internet, and Morocco. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 and the previous deletion nomination. Also salt to prevent future recreations until he actually becomes notable. λ NegativeMP1 13:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion

This article substantially improves upon the previously deleted version by adding verifiable, independent sources demonstrating Ilyas El Maliki’s notability per WP:GNG:

Global Digital Influence: Ranked by Dexerto as the 12th-largest Kick streamer worldwide and Africa’s #1.
International Sports Role: Official chairman of Morocco’s national team at the Kings World Cup 2024, (Video of the game on Kings League's channel), with repeat invitation for 2025 alongside stars like Lamine Yamal.

Addressing Systemic Bias

While I respect Wikipedia’s deletion processes, I must note the recurring difficulty in establishing notability for clearly significant figures from Morocco and the broader MENA region. Despite providing verifiable, independent sources (including industry rankings and international tournament participation), articles like this face disproportionate scrutiny compared to Western counterparts with similar or lesser achievements.

I urge editors to consider whether this reflects unconscious bias rather than policy compliance. Improve articles, not deleting them, should always be the first option. ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or speedy delete per previous AfD, little change. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Deletion

the original article of the subject got deleted because claimed "No real sign of notability", I list a number of sources proving that the subject is indeed notable:

- International Tournament Participation: Kings League World Cup 2025.

- Top 15 Streamers Worldwide: ranked at 12.

- Massive coverage by Moroccan press both in English (more), and Arabic.

if all these still don't make the subject notable, then sure go ahead and delete. ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

just to add one more thing (a fact and a message):

The first 3 months of 2023, the subject of this article was the most streamed gamer on YouTube, surpassing IShowSpeed, all this achieved through a dialect (Darija) spoken by about 40 million people, not a major language (English spoken by over 2 billion people). But somehow he is not notable!

It's really demotivating to continue contributing to Wikipedia against all these (unconscious) biases. This is not an accusation, it's studied and proved, "Reliability of Wikipedia". We come here with good intention to contribute, but seems like not on English Wikipedia, unfortunately. El Maliki is literally the biggest streamer in all of Africa according to all reliable sources included (like Dexerto).

respectfully, ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (still new here, I just learnt that this is the right term)!

so, since these discussions are NOT VOTES, then it should be that if 1 editor is able to present sufficient RSs on the subject, it won't matter how many spam "speedy delete"

Allow me to list an organized number of RSs testifying to the notability of the subject of this article:

The most watched streaming gamer of the first quarter of 2023 (surpassing IShowSpeed), Dexerto & SVG.
The 6th highest peak viewed stream on Kick's history (Surpassing Adin Ross, he literally had a stream with President Trump while running for office, still got surpassed by a guy speaking a dialect of 40 million people), Dexerto.
12th biggest streamer worldwide, Dexerto.
His Ultra was the first team selected for the 2025 Kings World Cup Club, the official and sole chairman of the Kingdom of Morocco on a world-class international competition, Kings League Pro.
His life largely covered by multiple RS in different languages: UAE's Al Mashhad, Morocco's most popular press outlets and most RSs: MWN, L'Opinion, Hespress, Le360, and much more.

It's not that difficult to look up stuff on Google. Best ~~~~ Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping to have a discussion and evaluation of above sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several of the above sources were highlighted in the previous deletion discussion and practically all of it was deemed not suitable enough to establish notability beyond mere shallow coverage of his criminal record. See WP:SIGCOV. λ NegativeMP1 16:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the previous deletion discussion was disappointing doesn't mean this one has to be too!

Let's discuss the above sources and why they don't establish the subject's notability. (Btw, non of the sources above cover his criminal record but rather his achievements as a streamer and his role as a chairman of Morocco in the Kings World Cup). Rap no Davinci (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, Ideophagous provided a 2023 article from Al-Quds Al-Arabi on a Quran related controversy. But we cannot base an article entirely on controversy. IgelRM (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply there is a reason why we're having a second discussion!

the source from Al-Quds Al-Arabi you mentioned is not listed in the sources above nor it's included in the current article, so it really has nothing to do with our discussion here.

The sources above are L'Opinion, Hespress, Al-Mashhad, Morocco World News, and Kings Leagues official website, all covering his role as a chairman of Morocco + Dexerto writing about his achievements as the biggest streamer in Africa.

All these sources together (plus more) is enough to establish the subject's notability as an online streamer and media personality. Rap no Davinci (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article cites several sources considered reliable in Morocco and the Arab world. Most of them focus on his streaming career rather than past legal issues. WikiEdWoq (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think some source analysis by uninvolved editors could be helpful here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4 and salt. Questionable sigcov and this was settled in favor of delete only to be recreated. Go D. Usopp (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply G4: "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies."

The current page is not substantially identical to the deleted version (as determined by an admin, see reason of his decline of CSD ) and about 50% of the sources listed weren't used/discussed before! Rap no Davinci (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made my case in the last deletion discussion, please read my arguments for keeping the article there.--Ideophagous (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per G4. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 18:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there are 42 refs listed in the article, at least half of them were never used in the previous deletion discussion, yet not one editor bothered to check them out and explain to us here why they don't establish notability of the individual. Writing "speedy delete" is quite pointless considering that it got declined before, and the current article address the reasons for which the previous one got deleted.

Almost all major Moroccan media wrote about him in Arabic, French and English as well as other sources from overseas.

Still hoping to have an actual discussion! Rap no Davinci (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of the subject's significant coverage is questionable at best, especially the websites you listed, regardless of how popular they are in Morocco. In addition, salting the article after speedy deletion is the way to go. Go D. Usopp (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply how is it questionable? the articles are about the subject, not just in passing; they cover different aspects of his life (trials, Kings League, inspiring Hakimi's celebration, and more, ...)

and what does this mean: "especially the websites you listed, regardless of how popular they are in Morocco"??? are you saying a whole nation's media is unreliable? because these are the biggest online media outlets of the country. was there a consensus, and how would that even make sense? did you provide evidence questioning their editorial integrity?

Help us understand how Hespress, Telquel, Morocco World News, and L'Opinion are unreliable? (these sources combined make up over 50% of the refs listed in the article). Rap no Davinci (talk) 14:47, 7 June 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) 01:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Gannet

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sources lack independent depth, and the article reads like WP:PROMO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See this deletion log also. & the provided sources [ SonicScoop, SongChecks, Mixonline] are primarily interviews/industry publications that not provide independent coverage per WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SonicScoop and MixOnline are fully independent publications. Would alternate or additional sources help correct the issue? The article is not intended as promo and appears to read similarly to other Wikipedia pages regarding other notable recording/mixing engineers. 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed what I am guessing may have been the offending sections. Please advise if any additional changes are necessary 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional sources included and tonal revisions made 148.74.79.119 (talk) 07:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost certainly some WP:COI editing going on with @Konakaimusic and 148.74.79.119. The Music Connection and Songchecks sources don't name any authors, and do little more than reprint his press releases. I don't see any actual in-depth journalism there. Rift (talk) 21:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
148.74.79.119 and Konakaimusic are both me… edits were made from 2 different devices and one wasn’t signed in to Wikipedia. Is that not permitted? Additionally, subject is interviewed about his work in several podcasts, however they are predominantly audio/video. Are those site-able references? Konakaimusic (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:LOUTSOCK, WP:DBLOCK. If you are disrupting Wikipedia, adding support to your arguments by using multiple accounts/IPs in any discussion and not being open about it, it is not allowed per above and others.

It is an advice to avoid using IP when you have an ID. IPs are also tracked/trackable but your ID grants you certain rights and covers for that. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. This was in no way done with any disruptive, devious or malicious intent, just a function of working on multiple devices and being a novice on wikipedia. I appreciate the information and will not make that mistake in the future. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked that on the page itself. You have cleared the doubts and told about two - IP and ID. Furthermore, avoid using them both again in any discussion, it will look like asserting your opinion by two spaces and may or may not give wrong idea to others. Just as a precautionary measure, don't use IP here. < s> you can use these to strike out IP comments without any space after < or /. </ s > I gave spaces just to show it to you. It will look like this ~~AtrofeliciousGrazzostauras~~.

I am assuming good faith, I believe you. Also, WP:TEAHOUSE is the way to go for when you have a question or doubts! Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding more in depth journalistic resources, are podcasts/tv shows/music videos citable sources? The subject has been interviewed on several podcasts, appeared in many music videos with notable artists and has been referenced/appeared on multiple television programs relative to his career and artists he has worked with. I'd like to add additional resources but would like to avoid making any additional mistakes or adding any unacceptable citations. Konakaimusic (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Share sources here. Other editors will evaluate them. Just go through WP:NMUSICIAN and read the points there to understand the best about sources needed.

Official verified YouTube channels of known RS news magazines or papers or media houses will also work to verify some particular statements and facts for example, their personal life or career or views. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Copy that. Thank you for your help. Will add references here for review. Konakaimusic (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some additional potential categorized references. I am still looking online to find additional interviews that I've come across or heard on the radio in the past, but this is what I've found so far. I will add more here if I find them. Please advise if any of these are acceptable citable sources.

These are some podcasts/interviews I've found featuring Josh Gannet:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wu-tang-the-saga-continues-feat-josh-gannet/id1137475083?i=1000395162185

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/josh-gannet-wu-tang-clan-redman-slash-and-more/id1469540234?i=1000568278893

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=JoYjCKACCRBO88rL&v=YRLxb87jpRU&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c917cArYc-E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59FmVN1DYLg

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

Notable music videos in which Josh Gannet makes appearances:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_D-RVFLxdA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK5Nq1UtsyI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv648QiNA_M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=encnQZ66X5I

Interviews/TV spots with Redman which reference or have cameos from Josh Gannet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nyobyZ6gdE 15:40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-h9fWMbDcQ 7:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bqg_iRYnqk 45:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92FNYLiSzFo 1:40:59

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHUctcR5VtA 58:57

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Aovsl1TP8 12:07

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Fa881KsZX/?mibextid=wwXIfr 2:44 (This was from an episode of MTV Cribs which I see articles on, but this is the only active video of it I see online) Konakaimusic (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources in the article are the in-depth coverage in independent reliable and verifiable sources that would establish notability, nor would anything I've seen in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a featured performing artist in addition to being a participant on multiple billboard and iTunes top 10 albums (with Wikipedia pages) which I believe is cited and a matter of record. Is the lack of notability your referencing specific to available sources or that the subjects participation in these projects doesn’t warrant the standards of a Wikipedia entry? I’m trying to better understand because it appears to read similarly to several other Wikipedia pages of similar people in the music industry. Konakaimusic (talk) 22:44, 30 May 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 12:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jude Tanner

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Indication of importance is described as winning a Tony award, among others. This person did not win a Tony award -- their company was one of about 50 companies listed as having a co-producer credit for a production which won a Tony award. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To start the discussion, needs participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the below has been pulled over from User talk:Brian.wells7176. Please note that this appears to be AI generated: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating the discussion.

In response to the nomination, I would like to highlight verifiable, high-quality sources that establish Ryan Jude Tanner's notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines, particularly WP:BIO and WP:ENT.

The Internet Broadway Database (IBDB) confirms that Tanner is a Tony Award-winning producer – a significant national-level recognition in the theatrical industry: https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/ryan-jude-tanner-494553#Awards This award is covered by major publications and is generally accepted as a strong indicator of notability under WP:CREATIVE.
Multiple independent and reliable sources such as KHQA and The Quincy Herald-Whig have published articles on Tanner’s work and public contributions, showing continued coverage in independent media (see references in the article). These sources are not self-published and meet WP:RS criteria.
Tanner’s roles as co-founder and CEO of Tanninger Companies, and producer at Tanninger Entertainment, are documented in public and professional records, and he has been involved in prominent Broadway productions.

Improvements are underway to further strengthen citations, remove any promotional tone, and ensure the article fully complies with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:GNG. Contributions are welcome from editors willing to collaborate in improving the article, rather than deleting it prematurely.

Respectfully, Brian.wells7176 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His company invests in plays and musicals. To give an idea, here is the list of producers for one of those - there are at least 2 dozen. A news article claims that he "won" in 2013 and 2019, but I checked those and neither he nor his company is mentioned. On his company's site there are long lists of "wins" that are probably shows he invested in, but they are not his "wins." The only independent sources that do include his name are all local to Tulsa and are quite promotional: "local boy makes good" although "good" cannot be verified. Lamona (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is not enough Sigcov of Tanner himself to establish GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:13, 5 June 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 Green Anarchist. Actually, consensus is probably more to merge, but substantial content has already been merged, and more can be merged from the history if need be. Sandstein 20:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hunt (editor)

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

This article has existed in a pretty dire state since its creation in 2006. Over the past two decades, a dearth of significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources has been noted. It seems that the subject's alleged notability was inherited from their affiliation with the Green Anarchist publication and their later affiliation with Troy Southgate's national-anarchism.

None of the sources currently cited in this article give the subject substantial coverage independent of these two areas. There appears to be no information that could construct anything resembling a biography about this person. As this article appears to fall short of our notability guidelines on people, I'm recommending this article for deletion; a possible alternative to deletion could be redirecting to the Green Anarchist article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Politics, Environment, and United Kingdom. Grnrchst (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Green Anarchism~~ Green Anarchist as a suitable alternative to deletion, since he's affiliated with the topic. He is just as affiliated with Alternative Green, but since we have no article on that, I think the former is a better target than some broader article on national anarchism or the political right in the UK. I didn't see enough in a source search that we could use to substantiate a standalone article. czar 13:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal would be a redirect to Green Alternative so I wonder if we should create a stub for that? Otherwise redirect to Green Anarchist would be fine. However, Green Anarchism (which goes to Green anarchism) is far too general and would be a bad move. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley: Was Green Alternative even notable enough for an article? If there's no significant coverage of it, like there isn't of its founder, then I think it could easily be covered by a few sentences in the Green Anarchist article. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you’re right. I’ve got a bunch of tabs open so will look. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see there is currently a Green Alternative page which is a disamb page that doesn’t include Hunt’s group. I’ll add it there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Anarchism is not a viable target because "Richard Hunt" is not mentioned there. These are the sort of confusing redirects that get created at AfD, linger a few months, and then have to get deleted at RfD. Let's avoid creating them in the first place. Cremastra (u — c) 23:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: The redirect was originally proposed for Green Anarchist, I think Czar made a typo when linking to green anarchism. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. Typo corrected. czar 09:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I took on de-stubifying this article at Project Anarchism, I had lots of tabs open. I've now gone through these and added as much material to the page as I can find. Some of it is from solid reliable sources; some (including more biographical material) is from weaker primary sources. My feeling now is there is enough here to keep the article. However, an alternative that I would also support would be to Rename as Green Alternative (magazine) or Green Alternative (UK) and rewrite it so the focus is on the publication/group not the individual. I would also be happy to merge the content into the (currently badly sourced) Green Anarchist article (but that might give Hunt too much space there). I still have a bunch of tabs open with the aim of improving that article. Pinging previous contributors Grnrchst and Czar in case my edits change their mind, and also John Eden who has done the most solid editing on the GA article and Jdcooper who I believe created this stub. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the expansion! There are a few different threads here but my thoughts are: (1) The Hunt article still is too dependent on primary sources for basic details—i.e., there isn't enough coverage of Hunt himself in reliable, secondary sources to avoid having to revert to reliable sources—so I think the best bet is to redirect (but to where?) (2) Is there enough content on Alternative Green for a dedicated article? In the linked sources that I've read, AG is just part of the Southgate story and the actual scope of those articles is Southgate's movement in the UK which, in lieu of a separate article, is essentially the scope of National-anarchism. Would it suffice to cover GA in its own article (as it is) and AG in the National-anarchism article, where Hunt is already mentioned? (3) As for where to redirect Hunt, I'd sooner redirect to GA because I read the sources as associating him better with that then AG but if he is equally associated with both, we might want to delete the Hunt link as having no clear redirect target. I think that is a better outcome than redirecting to National-anarchism, where Hunt is mentioned but is not clearly affiliated. czar 01:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still recommend redirecting to GA at this point but courtesy ping @Bobfrombrockley @Grnrchst czar 12:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keeping this article isn't a hill I'd die on. Unless someone publishes some new research, it's unlikely to get stronger than it is. I personally think there's enough in it now to just keep it as it is, but if other editors don't then fair enough. (2) If we do delete it, I think there is some case for creating an article for AG, because it existed for about a decade and gave rise to significant controversy within the anarchist scene. But it won't be substantially stronger than this article, just avoid some of the BLP related concerns. If not, I don't think national anarchism is a good redirect point. Hunt is mentioned only briefly in the national anarchism article, and currently AG isn't mentioned at all. We could expand that, but it would remain marginal to the story, so that would not be a good place to redirect AG. (Hunt and AG should be expanded in Southgate's article too. If we delete this article, should make sure to copy relevant text to those articles first.) If the consensus is for deleting this article and not creating an AG article, then my strong view is that both Hunt and AG should redirect to the GA article and we work on making that robust. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Bob's work on this, but I think this should be merged into the Green Anarchist article. Covering Hunt's shift towards the far-right succinctly in a section of the Green Anarchist article would, I think, be a better usage of this information. Macklin's work should also be summarised rather than quoted at-length. --Grnrchst (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In advance of the deletion, which seems like the emerging consensus, I have copied the relevant parts to the Southgate and Green Anarchist articles, with the only material lost the basically biographical stuff (which is mostly poorly sourced). So, happy for the page to be deleted now. The two articles I've just expanded now will need to be condensed again, though, in particular summarising the long Macklin quotes, as Grnrchst notes, which I'll do when I have time if nobody else does. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 2 June 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) 08:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County John Doe (1994)

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This possible murder victim was finally identified 30 years after his body was found, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, crime does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't yet looked for sourcing on this individual, but would like to suggest that merging to Othram#Unidentified remains cases might be a possibility. This case is not yet included in that article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see why this one is borderline, but there is enough coverage in neutral media for this to merit a keep. On a subjective level, it also just feels like a good article to have on Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a section in Big Water, Utah, the sources in this article are lacking. Scuba 23:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. The entire article is self contradictory. It says that he was unidentified, and then goes on and how he was not identified, which makes no sense. This reads like one of those murder cases, not an encyclopedia article. Ping me if you actually fix this, but underneath is a run of the mill missing person story. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian I think I fixed it, namely by adding a section that clarifies the identification. Scuba 15:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I'm fine with a merge if that's the compromise consensus. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Darkfrog24 that this is a good article to have on Wikipedia. I found it somewhat fascinating. As long as we get any existing kinks ironed out, I'd like to see this one kept. — Maile (talk) 15:06, 2 June 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. asilvering (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Gabriel (actress)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no evidence of significant, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish a lasting impact in the field. Most references appear to be minor news snippets, social media, or self-published material, which do not qualify as substantial verification under Wikipedia's standards. Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Business, Philippines, and Spain. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 13:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are demonstrably false. Reverse this unjustified nomination for deletion. You have claimed multiple falsehoods which are against the Community Guidelines of Wikipedia.

To clarify:

List of nationally and internationally distributed news organizations referenced in the article:

- The Inquirer.net

- The Philippine Star

- ABS-CBN News

- the Manila Bulletin

- Mega magazine

- Philstar.com

- PEP. Ph

All sources explicitly note Stacey Gabriel and her notable activities.

---

Meanwhile your claims of "self published" material being used is false. Note an example of it or kindly retract your false claim. If you cannot back up this claim, nor retract it, your submission will be flagged as an abuse of Wikipedia policy.

---

"Without additional, credible sources demonstrating notable achievements or career recognition"

Multiple independent sources outline dozens of TV series episodes Stacey participated in, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant.

Are these not notable?

---

"social media"

There are no social media references in this article.

---

Given no evidence to support this unjustified action, reverse this flagrantly unjustified and deceptive nomination for deletion. Mickfir (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mickfir (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Dear @Mickfir,

I want to clarify that the nomination was made in good faith, based on a review of the article’s current sourcing and in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO some of the listed sources are reliable, and this Afd only for english version. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why include false claims that social media and self published material was used as references? There is not a single referenced source that was self published nor any reference to social media. This is a harmful oversight at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

As for notability... I repeat, dozens of interdependently verified TV Episode performances and multiple national pageants including Miss Universe Philippines as 1st Runner-up. Mickfir (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me check! WP:AFD is not only for deletion it's a basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia. Many contributors will review it and vote, so there's no need to panic just let the contributors decide.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Let me check" ? You nominated this article for deletion without even checking if the claims you are making against it are true?

Perhaps this article is worth a read: Wikipedia:Don't lie

"basic procedure to determine whether an article is suitable for Wikipedia"

No. Wikipedia best practice clearly indicates that if an article has areas for improvement, the 'Talk' page should be used to suggest edits, or you make the edits yourself.

Nominating an article for deletion based on false claims is a flagrant abuse of Wikipedia recommended practice. Mickfir (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources like ABS-CBN News, The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, and others mentioned by Mickfir are reliable. But some, like IMDb, aren't and should be removed. — doclys (❀) 18:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the claims made by @S-Aura about incorrect sourcing were false - made without even checking them first. The IMDb references have been removed as per the advice @Doclys Mickfir (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss_Universe_Philippines_2024. Not seeing her being notable. She did not win the pageant and her acting career does not look like enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have another skim reader. Shame the wiki community is so full of them. May I respectfully remind the administrator assessing this that this very nomination for deletion was made under false pretenses of nonexistent social media and self published citations. There are none.
Multiple independent sources outline over a dozen TV series episodes Stacey participated in with national distribution, as well as her participation and placing 1st Runner-Up in the 2024 Miss Universe Philippines competition are noted. This is in addition to her success in the national Binibining Pilipinas pageant. This, in addition to a nationally recognized prison ministry program.

Mickfir (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin: the comments justifying the original nomination for deletion by @S-Aura contain false claims about the citations of the article. Not only does this invalidate the original AfD nomination but the community members that utilize false claims should be cautioned by admins.

Summary:

Claim: "Most references appear to be ... social media, or self-published material,"

Reality: there were never any such citations. All citations are from nationally, and in some cases internationally distributed news organizations.

This AfD discussion was raised under false pretenses and should therefor be retracted. AfD nominations should not be justified by outright falsehoods. Mickfir (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, No personal attacks WP:NPA.

Thankyou! 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 11:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting that you justified this AfD by making false claims is not a personal attack. Your claims are either correct or false. There is nothing personal. Just accountability. May I ask why you chose to include false information in your AfD nomination? Is not the Wikipedia Community dependent on telling the truth? Wikipedia:Don't lie

Or can you list which citation was from "social media" or "self published"?

There was clearly no such faulty citations. Mickfir (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doclys. Any references deemed questionable can either be replaced by more reliable sources or contested/discussed in the article's talk page, same applies for phrases and sentences that need relevant citations. -Ian Lopez @ 15:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific comments about which sources are acceptable/unacceptable and why would be very helpful, including from the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb references have been removed as per the recommendation above. All remaining sources, namely, The Philippine Star (and its sister news outlet Philstar.com), ABS-CBN News, Manila Bulletin, Mega (a fashion and lifestyle magazine owned by AGC Power Holdings Corp., which also owns Vogue Philippines), PEP.ph, Inquirer.net (online arm of The Philippine Daily Inquirer), Rappler, and GMA News Online are trusted media outlets. These sources feature firsthand interviews with Gabriel, transcripts of her live broadcast speeches, and/or notable career news. Firizz (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't WP:INTERVIEWs WP:PRIMARY sources that should not be used? Howard the Duck (talk) 00:29, 1 June 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. asilvering (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient media presence for a socialite, akin to Kardashians, "notable for being notable". --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're coming up on a month of this discussion being open, but could still use some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per TheJoyfulTentmaker and Altenmann. Luis7M (talk) 00:33, 7 June 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/Strictly Ballroom (band) (3rd nomination)

People proposed deletions

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

[TOI-1] "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[DS-2] "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[IB-3] "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[Telegraph-4] "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[TWF-5] "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[KSCL-6] "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[Waterstones-7] "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.

[8] "Indian rapper asks 'Talha Kaun?', Talha Anjum responds with a brutal diss track". Images.Dawn.com. Dawn Media Group. 21 May 2025. Retrieved 23 May 2025.

[9] "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.

[10] "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".

[11] "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".

[12] "Umair and Jokhay The man behind the rise of Talha Anjum amd Talha Younas".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]