Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The ed17 (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 5 June 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musk–Trump feud.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache watch

People

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

The result was redirect‎ to Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud. Closed as moot per the comments below about article duplication. I'm involved as the AfD nominator, so anyone should feel free to revert these actions. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk–Trump feud

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

I'm predisposed to a narrow read of WP:NOTNEWS, but even so this minor feud documenting the controversy of the day has only a very small likelihood of meeting our WP:SUSTAINED notability policy. I'd propose a merge/redirect to One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but others may suggest a better target. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:DUPLICATE Zzendaya (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Topic is already covered at Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud, which is undergoing its own deletion discussion. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BaduFerreira: Ah, I hadn't seen that. In the spirit of IAR and NOTBURO, I'll close this AfD and redirect the article, which is very clearly less comprehensive. That said, I'm involved, so anyone who disagrees should feel free to revert me. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:53, 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 no consensus‎. Or trainwreck, take your pick. But consensus is not going to emerge while this was so fresh even disregarding SPAs. Star Mississippi 15:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. While their buisness relationship has been publicized a lot, this is a common thread with Trump-related people, and this probably fails WP:ROUTINE as well. We don’t have Donald Trump–Mike Pence feud after their January 6th fallout, so I don’t see why this deserves an exception. This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now I am leading towards Week Keep as this article can always be deleted if this is not a long lasting and sustained conflict. Nkulasingham (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zzendaya. Deleting now is just going to trigger a WP:REFUND a couple days later; this is going to drag out for a while. –Fredddie™ 22:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, going into this I was pretty sure that I would be on the "Delete" side but after going through the coverage I'm leaning the other way... I hadn't heard anything about this but it does appear to have gotten a surprising amount of significant coverage. That being said I don't think covering the same material at One Big Beautiful Bill Act and/or Political activities of Elon Musk etc would be the end of the world (especially if the "feud" just fizzles out) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though in my view any resolution shouldn't be done yet. This feels like its firmly stepping into the type of stuff WP:RAPID recommends against. Etatrisy (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BREAKING until we have some idea about WP:LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per basically every other !vote before mine. The "keep" !votes are saying it meets NOTNEWS... when it doesn't. We don't (and can't) predict whether it's going to be lasting at all, and also the coverage about it is routine primary source journalism. By definition there aren't secondary sources at this point for a feud that has only come into the public eye in the last 24 hours. If/when there are secondary sources - such as large investigative journalism, rather than just reporting the news - WP:REFUND is that way (points). It is not a valid excuse that a REFUND may be merited in the future. As a distant second I would be okay with this being draftified in a userspace or in the Draft: space so it (and its history) can be maintained, to help placate the people claiming REFUND is too hard for them (I don't see any other reason "we may need to REFUND it" is a valid argument). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This does not appear to fall into any of the four categories of content which NOTNEWS advises against, none of that is routine coverage, and "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Your policy analysis is just weak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. The feud may result in impacts to specific programs/services, and those can be covered in their respective articles. Further, point 2 specifies enduring notability of the event. There is no evidence this will be enduring in its notability, and it's not appropriate to assume it will be. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is neither gossip or diary style coverage. We can't assume either way on enduring notability, we don't have a crystal ball. If in a few years there is no more coverage than what we have now you are welcome to come back and delete it on lack of enduring coverage grounds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to assume either way. If there isn't evidence it's notable now, then it should be deleted now. If significant secondary coverage isn't available now, it should be deleted now. If such coverage comes out later, WP:REFUND is that way (points). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been repeatedly provided with sources that other people believe are secondary and significant, you disagree... You're just beating a dead horse at this point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just say "I think (random link) is secondary" without explaining it. I've made clear (in my initial !vote, for that matter) that the sources and explanations so far do not actually prove the sources are significant secondary coverage. You're free to provide more/different sources/explanation to change my mind. But if you can't, this sort of "I still disagree with you" comment is not helpful to anyone - be it a person reviewing this discussion, or the eventual closer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just say "I think (random link) is not significant secondary coverage without explaining it.
    You've made clear that you're just going to go for WP:ICANTHEARYOU Selbsportrait (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming there is significant secondary coverage. So, quote it here. Quote what you think is significant secondary coverage - and I'll either change my view or I'll explain to you why it's either not significant or not secondary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you accept that each participant needs to support the claims they make.
    That's progress. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're the one making the claim. It's not possible to prove a negative. I can't quote something that shows there is no analysis/interpretation. You have the burden to prove there is significant analysis/interpretation, because you're the one making the claim that it exists. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can't prove a negative (which is false, e.g. Gödel's theorem), then how will you ever be able to support your claim that it's not significant?
    Denial ain't that powerful. Selbsportrait (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I wrote this above as a reply but I'll repeat it here for visibility. Too many editors appear to not realize that Wikipedia is a "lagging indicator of notability", and rushing to create articles before notability is established is putting the cart before the horse; it should the other way around. WP:DELAY explains why we should not rush to create articles based on breaking news: we do not predict whether a topic "might" be notable in the future; we evaluate whether it is currently notable. If a topic that previously not notable later becomes notable, it can and will be reinstated then; however, until then, creating a standalone article is jumping the gun. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Riposte97 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JUSTA much? Thegoofhere (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also look at WP:RAPID Laura240406 (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, is there a policy about rushing to create articles about breaking news events? Some1 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking for WP:DELAY, Some1 Thegoofhere (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons listed and described above by User:Zzendaya. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Irrespective of problems this article has with WP:TOOSOON right now, I do not expect them to still be problems by the time this discussion closes; not at the rate things are happening. My biggest problem with the article is large parts of it should be rewritten to better match Wikipedia writing standards but that's not cause for deletion. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giga Keep - This is gonna get spicy quick Dh75 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Egads, what a woefully ill-informed dumpster fire of an article creation. Political disagreements are a routine part of politics, even between people who were once closer in agreement on issues in the past. This is plain WP:NOTNEWS with a healthy heap of WP:COATRACK, as the article just becomes a platform on which to criticize both subjects. We have enough articles where a minor mention of their alliance-turned-sour can be given a brief mention. It is not a stand-alone topic. Zaathras (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Not endorsing keeping or deleting, but while I wouldn't have created this article, I don't think nominating it for deletion the same day the news breaks is helpful, and it will be easier to assess whether notability will be sustained in a week or two. charlotte 👸♥ 23:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is probably the biggest interpersonal fallout in recent political history. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an important ongoing event. Furthermore, as per what FunkMonk said above. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RAPID and WP:DELAY, coverage is still in the 24‑hour news‑burst phase. Suggest relisting for one‑to‑two weeks so we can see if significant secondary analysis emerges- otherwise a merge to political activities of Elon Musk would suffice. Dahawk04 (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ROUTINE is about "planned coverage of scheduled events".
    That's not it.
    WP:NOTNEWS is about original or unreliable research, besides including WP:ROUTINE.
    Again, that's not it.
    WP:TOOSOON is about "verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources".
    There is plenty already.
    WP:COATRACK is about "unrelated things to make a point".
    That's unrelated to notability, and related to what to include in an article, and how. There are enough deletionists around to keep that in check. At best it'd be an argument to burn everything from a page and start anew.
    I'm not sure how people can judge the importance of that topic. Could be a tempest in a teapot. Could be big. Nobody has a crystal ball.
    Voters might consult WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, and bring arguments instead of thumbs. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Coverage of current events by news is not secondary coverage. It is by definition primary. Investigative journalism, in depth analysis, and similar articles are secondary coverage. But there are none of those yet. Per GNG, secondary coverage is required - not just routine news coverage of current events, which, again, is primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether its primary or secondary depends on context... And in this context we primarily have coverage of tweets which would be the primary source with the news coverage being secondary. What that is supposed to prevent is making an article based on the tweets, not on articles about the tweets. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Coverage of tweets that just says "this person said this and here's a timeline of what happened" is not secondary. Secondary requires significant analysis/interpretation. A timeline or merely saying "this happened and here's a timeline of related events" is not secondary coverage. It's entirely possible for a source to report on information from elsewhere yet still be primary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. There also appears to be a lot of analysis of how we got here and the implications going forward. We also have a number of notable individuals offering their opinion on the matter, and coverage of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not secondary coverage. Saying "this is the historical context of 'how we got here'" is not analysis or interpretation. Offering opinions on the matter does not mean there is analysis or interpretation going on. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've selectively replied to my comment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I have not. You said That is not an accurate description of the coverage... We have interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context. I explained why that "interpretation of what the tweets mean and their context" is not secondary coverage. Explaining the definition of something is not secondary - likewise, explaining what the author thinks a tweet means is not secondary. The burden is on you to prove/show that there is "significant secondary" coverage. I look forward to you providing quotes (or another method) of showing what portion of sources you consider secondary in nature. I will happily revisit my position if your evidence is sufficient, alternatively, I will happily explain to you why your view of it being secondary/significant is wrong. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you have and continue to do so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Still waiting for you to justify and provide proof for your position. You have yet to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I and a number of other editors have, you have soundly ignored most of it... Going for selective responses and red herrings instead of anything resembling editing by a respected and able colleague. You don't even appear to have read the articles linked, you've only skimmed the URLs (and then falsely claimed that the URLs were titles). At the end of the day it doesn't appear that you can be satisfied, you appear to be WP:IDNHT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could have told me to read WP:GNG first:
    1. Presumed? That one is seldom on deletionists' side.
    2. Significant coverage? Check:
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-06-05/elon-musk-trump-feud-full-timeline-of-the-public-meltdown
    3. Reliable sources? Check:
    https://www.cnn.com/business/timeline-elon-musk-trump-x-dg
    4. Secondary sources? From your own source:
    "Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material."
    In case you have difficulties finding commentaries:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3wd2215q08o
    https://www.vox.com/politics/415599/elon-musk-trump-feud-bill-contracts-nasa
    5. Independent? That is usually implied by 4.
    Also note:
    "Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
    To discuss usually implies one does not beg the question at hand, like you just did. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, coverage of tweets is not secondary. Secondary requires significant in depth analysis/interpretation. The current news is just "this happened, this is the history". That is not analysis/interpretation, much less in depth. A timeline is not analysis/interpretation. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The timelines I offered establish significant coverage and reliable sources. And again, you are begging the question as to what is significant in depth analysis.
    It shouldn't be that hard to find "analysis/interpretation":
    https://www.wired.com/story/musk-trump-feud-venture-capitalists-pick-sides/
    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-blames-musks-criticism-decision-cut-ev-tax-credits-2025-06-05/
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis-1.7553387
    You may dispute that it's "significant" or "in depth", but then it's easy to do when one just has to argue by assertion.
    What would convince you - ten monographs written by political scientists based on a statistical model with a 5-sigma threshold? Selbsportrait (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant and reliable are only two of the requirements. An article topic can have significant coverage in 100 reliable sources - but if none of that coverage is secondary, it's not notable. A paragraph of analysis in an otherwise primary source does not make it significant coverage in a secondary source. All must be met simultaneously - significant primary coverage does not count just because one small paragraph in it is secondary analysis. It must be significant secondary coverage. The burden is on you tyo identify why those sources show significant secondary coverage. Merely saying "analysis" in the title/headline doesn't matter when all it is is a timeline with maybe 3 sentences total of "analysis". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're throwing out red herrings, none of the three articles you were just presented with have analysis in the title/headline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    www.cbc.ca/news/world/musk-vs-trump-sniping-analysis
    You clearly aren't actually reading what you're replying to. This thread is between me and Selbsportrait. Please don't try to derail it by commenting here when you clearly haven't even read the whole thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the URL, the title on the piece is "Musk vs. Trump: A power couple tumbles into a messy divorce" and it is marked as analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So you admit that it's only marked as analysis. Luckily, we don't just take sources at their word. You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there. You have yet to do so, even with 3+ requests from me to do so at this point. The only valid assumption is that you are repeatedly not doing so because you can't - because it's not actually analysis that would qualify it as a secondary source and/or because any analysis present is in passing/so short as to not qualify as significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit no such thing... Another red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "have analysis in the title/headline"
    Talk about herrings. An analysis is an analysis, whether or not there is "analysis" on its title/headline. But whatever: "World Analysis" is the kicker of one of them. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "You're free to quote the "analysis" that's present there."
    You're free to show that you read it too.
    Start at "Hints of trouble in political paradise", and the next section. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not analysis. That's simple news reporting - i.e. primary. A couple sentences of "analysis" interspersed within a timeline/news report does not "significant secondary coverage" make. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that analysis not the same thing as providing a timeline.
    And you still haven't provided any evidence that you read the piece. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "in 100 reliable sources"
    Citation needed. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources. No number of primary sources qualify a topic as notable. It could be 1000 primary sources. Doesn't make it notable. The requirement is that there be significant secondary source coverage. Not that there's lots of primary coverage of the topic with barely a sentence or paragraph of secondary coverage (analysis and/or interpretation). A timeline of events is not analysis or interpretation. There is yet to be shown any secondary coverage here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "in 100 reliable sources".
    Where did you get that?
    Arguing by bold is no better than arguing by assertion, or worse by denial. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reread my original response. The number is an example. 1000 primary sources with one sentence each of secondary (analysis/interpretation) coverage in them does not make "significant coverage in secondary sources" for notability. A source can be primarily primary even if it contains a small amount of analysis/interpretation that would be secondary. Even if there's 1000 such sources, that is still not the significant secondary coverage necessary for notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:37, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether a source is "primarily primary" or not is immaterial to the fact that it can be used for its secondary material. Which is the whole point of the discussion in the page you patronized me to read.
    A source that contains secondary material is considered secondary when the secondary material is used as source.
    1000 bits of analysis exceed what a page can contain, so please beware your synthetic examples.
    And you still haven't told me what would convince you. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean its notable. You cannot combine passing coverage in sources to meet notability. Each individual source used for notability must be significant secondary coverage. If it's only a sentence or short paragraph of secondary coverage, that is by definition not significant coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the concept of secondary source is relative, contextual, and something that needs to be discussed as per your own citation, it is certainly not (or, if you prefer, not) a matter of definition.
    Repeating the same naked denials over and over again without showing any understanding of the material you asked me to read is unconvincing, to say the least. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't provided any reasoning why the sources you cited were secondary. I've explained to you that one or two sentences, or a short paragraph, of secondary coverage does not "significant secondary coverage" make. It doesn't matter if it has 100 sentences of primary coverage - the secondary coverage is all that counts/matters. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't explained anything. You simply denied, denied, denied.
    And now you contradict yourself: first you suggested that a source was not secondary unless it contained a majority of secondary content. Now, the primary content doesn't matter.
    Make up your mind. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not mutually exclusive arguments. You're the one making the claim that there is such - thus you're the one with the burden to prove it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are:
    (1) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain a majority analytical content.
    (2) A source, to be considered secondary, needs to contain analytical content.
    (1) implies (2) but (2) does not imply (1).
    Your obduracy is getting obnoxious. Let's drown it under something more constructive. Try this:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/06/05/elon-musk-x-trump-attacks-epstein/
    Notice the "Analysis by Will Oremus". Why would it be a primary source?Selbsportrait (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not based on whether it's called analysis or not. It's based on whether it actually is analysis. Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis. There are a couple sentences that are analysis in that article. But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Merely gathering social media posts and historical information is not analysis."
    So you haven't read the piece, or you don't have a clear reading of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts".
    Either way, I don't need to prove what I just said, right?
    Meanwhile, enjoy this other gathering:
    https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/amid-trump-musk-blowup-canceling-spacex-contracts-could-cripple-dod-launch-program/ Selbsportrait (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "But a couple sentences is not "significant" coverage" ummm it generally is... A couple of sentences "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per WP:RAPID. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This could very well become one of the largest feuds in American political history, let's at least wait and see what happens before we delete this article. NesserWiki (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bigger than Burr–Hamilton duel. It's gonna be yuuuuuuuge, believe me folks. (sarcasm of course) CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE into Political activities of Elon Musk as its own section CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no rush to delete articles. Let it play out and see what lasts Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's very little "there" there in the first place for the article. Do we need a Wikipedia page for every twitter beef? Is this even notable yet? Trump has feuded with Elon before (even on Twitter too) and brought up government subsidies then too, and they made up after that. There is no reason to believe this will last longer than a week. It is worth maybe two sentences on Political activities of Elon Musk. Catboy69 (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is that Elon Musk called Trump a pedophile this time and everyone actually cares now. I’m sorry to be going against all those Wikipedia guidelines or whatever, but at some point people have to realize this is an important event that people care about. Notability is notability. Personisinsterest (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia isn't here to be a place for "event[s] that people care about". We are an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the very definition of an encyclopedia is "a compendium of things that people care about" or at any rate think relevant enough to make part of the body of knowledge/record for future relevance. Irresistance (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed... Our notability guideline is essentially a proxy for measuring how much relevant people care about something and deciding what is due for inclusion as a stand alone topic based on that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option could be to rename this article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk (or to Relationship of Elon Musk and Donald Trump, depending on who you want to list first) to focus on their overall relationship (which includes the feud) rather than just their feud. Some1 (talk) 02:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    might actually be a good idea. better then keeping or deleting. i'm not sure if this article exists though, but under a different name JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support this DecafPotato (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, and there would be enough to siphon from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump to provide a background. I was surprised that this article only focuses on the 2025 feud, and not the previous as well. Scope aside, there is more to this subject than meets the topic at present. Please ping me if a broader topic is created, thanks. CNC (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait or Weak Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. If this continues to escalate tomorrow and over the next few days, this article should be kept; if it dies out quietly, than it can be deleted or merged. All in all, it seems to be too early to call what will happen. Remember WP:NTRUMP. 2601:402:680:1270:1449:C1:1B29:3004 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is absolutely notable enough to be kept. EarthDude (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep:Redirect it is currently notable, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we still don't know if it will have lasting effects or not or if the notability will last. it could just blow over and not have much of any effects where it could go into another article or not even be notable enough. redirect per what the author said JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID and also because the coverage is already mostly sufficient for it to be notable and WP:NOTNEWS. I would be very surprised if this doesn't turn out to be obviously worthy of its own article in a few months. Loki (talk) 03:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Weak Keep: Although the topics discussed within the article may certifiably be considered immediately notable for many, notability is not determined from the immediateness of its occurrence (WP:TOOSOON / WP:DELAY). Many of the KEEPS appear to mention the possibility for it to become notable in the next couple days or weeks. But, notability cannot immediately be determined either by the possibility of higher significance in a possible future based on speculation (WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). But yes, this could indeed become a topic of higher importance within the next couple days. If the article is deleted and then it DOES become notable within the next couple days (causing a WP:REFUND), then this whole discussion would have been for nothing (WP:RAPID)... but I think that a KEEP should only be a reasonable choice IF and ONLY IF such notability is to occur within that short time frame. But if notability is not reached within that time frame, then it should be deleted and reconsidered IF and WHEN the topic becomes notable enough to where it would reasonably need a dedicated page instead as of a subtopic on a already existing page. ThatOneUnorigional (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect — This feud does not appear to be headed towards a prolonged conflict. I haven't found an appropriate redirect target yet; One Big Beautiful Bill Act may work. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold on a second. Did I read that right? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An article creator doesn't have to support their own article in an AfD request. The only reason that I created this was because there was a possibility of an impact here. That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow. Thus, no reason for this to exist. The page may still be useful as a redirect target, given that you searched for this exact title and there are likely others who did as well. It is still possible that there is something tangible to this, but from my reading of the situation (both internally and from public sources), Musk conflated the views of White House advisors with Trump's view. The length of time is not the issue here, for the record, but rather the consequences. Without a meaningful response beyond threats and market reactions. That said, I'm also open to Some1's idea, which I privately considered for several days before abandoning it. Writing an article on the two men's relationship would be a very difficult undertaking. The base is here for a section of such an article, but the author would also have to do a significant differentiation that may not be possible with a lack of sourcing. At present, I do not believe that such an article—which I simply would have called Elon Musk and Donald Trump—could exist. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability, then you should not have created the article — you should have created it as a redirect. Creating an article before notability can be determined is called jumping the gun. Had this article not been prematurely created, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion (which won't be closed until several days later) at all. For the record, I agree: this "feud" looks to be nothing more than a few-hours-long online spat (happens all the time) that encompassed a bunch of angry tweets and sensational headlines (yellow journalism). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "If you agree that this topic doesn't meet our criteria for notability"
    Timeline matters: one could have decided to create that page because it was noteworthy, and then found out that it should not. The strength of that belief also matters: one could believe that building an encyclopedia matters more than one's personal beliefs and that it's up to the consensus to decide.
    Both the inclusionist and the deletionist have a role to play. The former have the facts, the latter the logic. It's very important that inclusionists don't get too categorical with the logic they apply, for we don't live in a world closed under deduction, and we need to fix first. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not temporary. It is not possible for a topic to be notable and then cease to be notable. If a topic is observed to "stop being notable", that means it was never notable in the first place. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not conflate "is believed to be notable by one editor" with "is notable". One editor can believe that an article is notable, or not; consensus can deem otherwise.
    The implication you emphasized earlier is that an editor who submits an article for publication *should* (clarification pending on that type of obligation) believe that it's notable. My point is to say that belief needs not be categorical: an editor can change their mind, or don't put much credence in their beliefs.
    Topics and pages are two different things. That a topic *is* notable (as in, forever and ever) does not imply we can't decide to repurpose a page for other reasons. Notability only obligates us to preserve valuable information. We could delete all the pages of the encyclopedia except one if one day everything worth nothing could fit on one page. Notability would thus be preserved.
    (I know that's not plausible: it's just a thought experiment to make a point.)
    That page is about a page, not an editor. Once a page has been created, it's out of the original editor's hands. Remonstrating should be reserved to personal talk pages, and only if an editor has formal authority over them. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not encourage editors to unilaterally create articles on non-notable subjects because "they can always change their minds". It's true that they can change their mind, and it's true consensus can override their initial decision to create the article via AfD. However, this process is disruptive, time-consuming, effort-wasting, and could have been avoided if the original creator had exercised prudence and consulted on a talk page to gauge consensus on whether a subject could warrant its own page (i.e. a split proposal, or start a draft), rather than act unilaterally and then have buyer's remorse. As you can see with various !votes that boil down to "it shouldn't have been created, but it now exists, so oh well, let's save it, I guess" (which is basically the sunk-cost fallacy), editors are often hesitant to delete an article once it has been created, even though it is sometimes unfortunate but still necessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment.
    And now you're going for armchair psychology about editors who disagree with you.
    The question if any gun has been jumped has yet to be settled. So perhaps you should hold your horses yourself. Selbsportrait (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We should not encourage turning talk pages into trials either, yet you revealed that you were doing so all along one minute after I posted my previous comment. I don't believe I said that? What statement are you referring to? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not what you say, but what you do with words that matters most. I'm referring to the comment you made one minute after this one. Since I made my comment at 17:34, it should be a comment a bit after that.
    And just so we're clear, your implicit argument is of the form:
    (P1) A* has been caught drunk typing a few times already.
    (P2) A* was probably drunk typing this time too.
    (P3) We should discount the output of those who type drunk.
    (C) We should discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time.
    The alternative is to consider what A* did on its own merits.
    There are contexts where this kind of ad hominem argument is valid. This page is not one of them.
    I'm just using "drunk typing" for effect here. Replace that with any predicate you please. Selbsportrait (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is distracting too far from the main topic, so I'll probably disengage after this reply. I did not say, or even imply any of that: I did not say that we should delete this article because it was created by a problematic user (it's because it doesn't meet our notability guidelines), or that we should discount what they have to say (in fact, they agree with deletion/redirection), or that this AfD is a "trial" that should result in disciplinary action (that would be the wrong venue, and I do not think someone should be disciplined for one mistake, only given a stern warning), or that the user in question is acting in bad faith (they are not). I am not sure why you interpreted my words this way, but perhaps I did not articulate myself very well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I did not say, or even imply any of that"
    Yes, you did. Right here:

    other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns.

    Let's spell it out:
    "editors should be made aware" => this is relevant to the actual discussion
    "this context" => the page under discussion is probably the result of drunk typing
    "sanctioned in the past" => being caught drunk typing
    "demonstrative" => an inference is being made
    "legitimate concerns" => the argument is valid
    Either you retract that "editors should be made aware", or you own what you're doing right now.
    To disengage, one must engage first, and not ignore the points being made. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I didn't want to drag this on further, but you've made some serious allegations here. You originally wrote that I was turning talk pages into trials, suggesting that I was scrutinizing their entire edit history and calling for disciplinary action to be taken. I found this to be a gross exaggeration, so I asked for clarification; in response, you did not explain why you felt my comments were "trial"-like but invoked your drunk-typing analogy, asserting that I had suggested that we should discount the output of those who type drunk and discount the value of what A* did because he was probably drunk typing at the time, i.e. we should delete this article because of the article creator's history, and anything they say should be ignored. Again, I did not say this: I wrote editors should be made aware because this is relevant context to consider, not because it is the smoking-gun justification for deletion; otherwise, I would have phrased it as, "Delete, because the article creator often creates articles on non-notable current events and has been 'caught' doing so before." I also did not say anything about their "output" or "value" being irrelevant, which I obviously disagree with. You're making it sound like I presented a long list of irrelevant evidence of past misbehavior, hurled ugly insults and baseless accusations, and threatened to have them sanctioned, which is not the case and does not appear to be assuming good faith. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The "often creates" bit allows us to rephrase the argument:
    (P1) A* often creates articles on non-notable current events.
    (P2) A* probably did so this time too.
    (P3) We should discount the output of those who often create articles on non-notable current events.
    (C) We should discount the value of the page under discussion, i.e. it (probably) fails notability.
    Without something like P3, P1 and P2 adds nothing to the current discussion. One reading of it is that this ad hominem argument supports the claim that the page is not notable. The alternative is that this argument does not "inform" how to judge the current page.
    "Does not appear to be assuming good faith" is often used as an ad hominem too. It probably is one. Should it allow us to discount the value of the position it accompanies, i.e. that this page is non-notable? Let's hope not.
    From times immemorial, Knights and Gnomes chased down Dragons away from thy wiki. While this sport can bring vigorous merriment, they are often followed by complaints about the sad state of undeveloped entries afterwards. Perhaps Knights should let our Dragon population grow for a little while, and organize jousting tournaments between themselves instead. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "That possibility is likely to dissipate tomorrow."
    I would take the other side of that bet, but I'm not sure why deciding what to do with that page should rest on the result of that bet.
    A Musk-Trump page could be useful. A mention on the Big Beautiful Bill page is warranted either way, but it's really not the same thing. Selbsportrait (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ElijahPepe, you could rename the feud article to Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk to expand the scope, or create a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk article and redirect this feud article there. I do believe that the relationship between these two men is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Some1 (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A change in scope requires consensus, not to be done unilaterally. The closer of this AfD will determine whether there is consensus to change the scope of the article, or leave it as it is, or delete/redirect/draftify it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article gets kept, then yeah, a change in scope and title would require consensus on the talk page. If this article gets deleted/redirected/draftified, that doesn't prevent another editor from creating a Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk / Trump-Musk relationship article, which has a different (and broader) scope than this feud article. Some1 (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The event is gaining immense media coverage, and it's still too soon whether to really consider this a short or prolonged conflict. Until we see what happens we should keep the article as is. Tofusaurus (talk) 05:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per WP:RAPID. This article probably shouldn't have been created so soon, but the feud looks to be notable per WP:EVENTCRIT. It's had a substantial economic impact already and significant coverage from diverse sources. However, given the characters involved this could either blow over in a day or be a protracted conflict. So, it's too soon to say if coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. EvansHallBear (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, as people said above. It's too soon to say. Trump is well known for getting into controversies with all kinds of people. Not all warrant an article, even if they are prominent people. In my opinion, we have to wait and see the consequences of this. Given a couple weeks, if nothing comes out of this, it should be deleted. Sure, there are plenty of news articles about this, but not everything that has news written about it warrants a Wikipedia article.
  • Not sure why this article was created in the first place. This AfD could've been avoided if the creator had waited a bit longer to see how things went. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 06:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was created too early, but the event is likely to easily meet the WP:GNG given the media coverage so far. Melmann 07:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This right here will be a peace of history. I don't think that Trump or Musk will refrain from further attacks on one another, even if its just on X. We have a US Prez and World's richest man going against each other. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT Divyanshu8999 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. As pointed out above, there is no article for Elon Musk—Donald Trump relationship. This article could cover the full history and dynamic and be better suited to evolve over time. Dflovett (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we were to do that, we could use content from Views of Elon Musk#Donald Trump. ―Panamitsu (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a bad idea. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:20, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a great idea. Their relationship warrants an article, not just this particular event. EatingCarBatteries (contributions, talk) 06:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Too. soon to tell. Could fizzle, could explode. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The feud is even analyzed in international media, including naming (long term) consequences and so meeting all aspects of WP:NEVENT. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 09:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify We have wp:notnews for a reason, and this may well blow over and (given how childish the pair of them are acting) they may be best buddies again this time next week. So we should wait to see if this has any lasting consequences. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON, WP:10YT. Let's see where this goes.LM2000 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Probably WP:TOOSOON but to me the obvious notability of this event leads me to lean keep. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 12:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of general encyclopedic interest and notability. It's a political drama more suited to celebrity gossip shows than Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I thought the page creator was TBAN'd from making new pages through anything other than the AfC process? EF5 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for bringing this up as I was not aware of this, but I must say I'm not surprised given my past dealings with this user. It appears based on this ANI discussion that they were topic-banned by the community for six months ... which expired last month. Almost immediately, their pattern of disruption has continued. It appears they did not learn from their all-too-brief period of sanction. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles I have created are here. Of the last nineteen since the topic ban, only this one has been sent to AfD. I did not create it as a one-sentence page, which was largely the issue, and I have been expanding it. This crusade against me is not appropriate in this AfD. There are other venues for this if you believe that I am acting maliciously. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:42, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe you are acting in bad faith and did not accuse you as such; however, disruption made in good faith remains disruptive. I hope this AfD will serve as a reminder to refrain from jumping the gun and mass-creating articles about current events before notability is established — again, we do not predict whether a topic might be notable in the future. As I have stated above, this is not a personal "crusade" against you, but other editors should be made aware of this context. The fact that you have been sanctioned in the past is demonstrative of the fact that I am not the only editor to share these legitimate concerns. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass creation does not appear to be at issue here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Their talk page says otherwise... InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking because, although it was not my intention, some editors have raised concerns that this could be interpreted as a personal attack. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh its obviously a personal attack... What I'm saying is that its also wrong, this article under discussion here was not part of a mass creation and given that you've already seen their article creation history you know what. So you know for a fact that there is no issue with mass creation in this context but you brought it up anyway purely as a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article was probably created too soon; however, I personally have no doubts about the notability and long-term significance of the event, which is why I'm voting for keep. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Another article created too soon about something we will after forgot soon enough. Not everything that Trump does deserve an article, Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and I don't think there is any real benefit of having an article about this here, in an encyclopedia. Cosmiaou (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC+2)
  • Keep This was all over the news yesterday and definitely took up most of the top news. Additionally this could flare up again if the BBB fails. BigRed606 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "This was all over the news" is not a valid argument to make. See WP:SUSTAINED: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. WP:TRUMPCRUFT is a great essay that talks about this as well. It's too early to make the call on whether this article meets our notability guidelines. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and carries zero weight. The bit that actually matters says "may not" instead of "does not" I don't think you can say that isn't a valid argument. If its too early to make that call then its too early to delete (or even have this discussion), that argument only goes one way and its not in favor of deletion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    People often say this when an essay is invoked (that they disagree with), but just because an essay is non-binding does not mean it's automatically wrong and should be immediately tossed aside as irrelevant. Essays often contain good advice, especially those that have been continually shaped by consensus. The fact that SUSTAINED says "may not" and not "does not" does not change the meaning: it is still true that press coverage does not guarantee notability, but SUSTAINED suggests that it may not be the case if proven otherwise. The editor who made this !vote did not explain why they believe this to be the case other than "it was in the news", which is a weak (if not invalid) justification. Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable. If it's too early to tell whether your chicken is done cooking, we don't assume it's cooked. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Regarding your last point, if it's too early to tell if an article meets notability guidelines, then by default, it is not notable" if that was true then NOTNEWS wouldn't say "Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." Everything we have so far indictates that its notable and will remain so... Hard to imagine future biographies of either man aren't going to talk about this in-depth. The argument that it won't receive sustained coverage is nonsensical, even if it fizzles there will be sustained coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Delete Gossip and trivia. WP isn't the 'National Enquirer'. Having reviewed much of the commentary here, the suggestion/proposal to rename the article more broadly (a la Relationship of Donald Trump and Elon Musk) would be the more productive choice. A good deal of overflow content from the respective individual articles can be merged there with redirects. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is obvious WP:TRUMPCRUFT WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON also apply. The spectacle of two wealthy and powerful men bickering on social media might be appropriate for a discord but it's not encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify It is way too soon to know if this social-media tiff between these two powerful men will have any lasting significance or be forgotten in a week when one of them tweets on some other subject. Placing this in draft space for the next 6 months will avoid wasting the hard work that has already been done by the creator in assembling sources and documenting the early hours of the dispute so that, if it does have lasting significance, the article can be returned to mainspace or portions of it incorporated in other relevant articles. However, if it does not have lasting significance, it will allow an admin to delete it at a point in time when its encyclopedic value or lack thereof is actually able to be determined. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also not object to the scope of the article being broadened to cover their entire relationship, per several !voters above. I also do not think anyone needs to wait for the AFD to close to begin that work. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering CNN has a timeline now I’d say it’s pretty notable.--69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would also support broadening the article per the above. 69.74.180.42 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm in the wait camp, the mere existance of a timeline doesn't factor in. We know RS are covering this. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 05:19, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, the announced decommission of the Dragon capsules has now been canceled, apparently. Maybe in a few days it's all forgoten (or perhaps gets growing). Wait a while, the article can be keep temporarily until the fog of war goes away. Iberia-Tao (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the proposed redirs, Political activities of Elon Musk, is long already, so we'd have a subpage anyway. And this particular topic will have its continuation, with its own repercussions. — Kochas 23:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. The Trump-Musk fallout could have major political and economic consequences in the coming months and may even affect the 2026 United States elections. I'd say it is too early at this point to determine whether the article violates WP:NOTNEWS, but I'd definitely recommend it for deletion if there doesn't turn out to be any major consequences. MilaKuliž (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – If the story is sustained for more than a few days, then keep. Lf8u2 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait → Weak Keep - way too quick of a nom. Deleting an article on one of the largest news items of 2025 that almost certainly will pass WP:LASTING within a week causing the inevitable recreation is so silly. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 02:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't clear to me what Wait means here - the usual !votes are "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect". Does Wait mean "keep for now" or "delete and bring back if sustained"? One possibility is "Draftify", which would move the article out of main space for the moment, but that will make it hard for others to work on it. Personally, I'll go with Keep and link this to various articles about Musk and Trump, as appropriate. It also will need a redirect from "Donald Trump-Elon Musk feud". (I think "feud" is too strong but I'm failing to think of anything better. Lamona (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait means 'keep for now', per WP:RAPID it was too quick to create an AfD, I was basically signalling that this AfD should result in a keep, but a few weeks later I could be swayed. I've always lent towards keep in this AfD, but I'm officially changing it to a weak keep as I've also grown increasingly unconvinced by the arguments in favour of deletion as the story has progressed and the article been expanded to detail the 2022 feud as well. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 01:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd encourage @InfiniteNexus to WP:DROPTHESTICK, especially regarding whatever issue you may or may not have with this article's creator, which now seems to be sprinkled all around this AfD discussion. The creator's history has no bearing on the merits of whether or not this article is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. RachelTensions (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this discussion, I have only discussed the article creator's past behavior twice: first, to note that they have a history of rapidly creating current-event articles that are often sent to AfD due to notability concerns; and second, in reply to another editor's comment on the user's previous topic ban. I did not make any additional references to their history other than in replies to those two statements; all other comments pertained to the notability of the topic. My intention was to alert !voters of the context of this AfD and to caution the editor against engaging in said behavior in the future, as it could and have been seen as disruptive. I did not anticipate the replies to those two comments to balloon out of control and create the impression that I am waging a personal war against the user, which was not my intention. I do apologize if my comments, which were intended as sincere advice, were interpreted as such, but I do maintain that the editor's background is relevant context, and I was mindful to remain civil but direct. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now the third time, your last sentence is all you needed to move on here. Regurgitating and justifying your arguments again, in summarized format, is not exactly dropping the stick. It's more like reformatting the stick into a pole and entrenching it. CNC (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I dropped the stick in my last comment and moved on; why did you have to pick it back up? It's unfortunate that my words are being cherry-picked as a "gotcha" moment. Whether or not you agree with me on the relevance of the context, this has been blown way out of proportion. This will be my final reply; moving on to more important matters. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No you didn't, but you have now. Thanks. CNC (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Plenty of detailed secondary coverage. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly violating WP:NOTNEWS and/or WP:TOOSOON. AmericaRidesAgain723 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only actually sustainable argument against this is that it violates WP:TOOSOON, Which is a very weak argument. Also, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. And WP:notnews is very, Very, wrong on multiple reasons. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 04:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This could be moved to something like 'Elon Musk and Donald Trump' and it could information about their relationship before this. KnowDeath (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we could move the article to "Relationship between Elon Musk and Donald Trump", much the same way as Relationship between Friedrich Nietzsche and Max Stirner. MilaKuliž (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support this. KnowDeath (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a week or so per WP:RAPID. As others have said we don't know if this will keep getting significant coverage past the current news cycles, so I don't believe we should delete it outright at this moment. Sophocrat (talk) 05:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename?). The sources support a page on this, but I do not know if another name would make sense, or if in the event of multiple such "feuds", maybe a date qualifier in the title such as "2025 Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud" or maybe even something even more specific and refined. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait as too soon for standalone article, even if notable enough not to delete. As referenced in the discussion, there is the previous feud that isn't even mentioned, though will excerpt that after this comment for consistency. Overall I think a Musk–Trump relationship based article, as other editors have already suggested, would be the best approach to broaden scope for a more notable topic; therefore including this content within as merely one part of a broader topic with long-term SIGCOV. Am otherwise opposed to merging to a Musk or Trump child article, as this is about both individuals, thus content doesn't belong to a child article of only one party to the dispute. CNC (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with being opposed to merging this feud stuff into the Musk or Trump article. I want to mention too that this feud article has received 30,309 page views in two days, so clearly readers are interested in this topic. Some1 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giga keep. this may reflect a potential split of the Tech Right and Populist/MAGA Right. Important stuff man Shadow Dreadlord (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, not a breaking news platform. If it becomes an historic break between the tech right and MAGA then after we would have an article about it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of CRYSTAL is at issue here? This isn't any of the five categories or otherwise mentioned... Going line by line none of it seems to apply here, so do us a favor and pull every quote from there you think applies here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot predict a social media spat will become historically significant in the future. I think points 3 and 5 are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally none of points 3 or 5 are relevant here. Not a single sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand... Point 3 is about "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"" but this article doesn't do that, a synth complaint has been raised about a single section but no such claim has been made about the article writ large nor does it appear that one could be (and the extant synth claim is about information from the past, not about the future)... Point 5 is about "product announcements and rumors" (and not rumors in general, rumors about a product) and this article isn't about a product at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Culturally relevant and a feud between capital and the government ForFawkesSake (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- This is not a question of whether the feud impacts other 'keepworthy' events or phenomena, but whether this feud in and of itself is sufficiently "event-like" to justify its own article. I believe that it is. Irresistance (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Also - compare this to the article about "Covfefe" and ask yourself if THAT is seriously worth including more than the circus going down right now as part of this feud ;) Irresistance (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Covfefe? The hashtag #covfefe had been used on the Internet 1.4 million times within 24 hours of Trump's tweet. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay - but would that not be more valid as an expression or symptom of the presidency and/or character of Trump (as president) - and not so much worthy as being an event in and of itself...? Trump's behavior (however you feel about it) was the thing that made the impact - Covfefe was merely one instance of it. This feud does have some similarities but I still believe is sufficiently impactful as its own "event" to warrant an article. The Covfefe tweet did not have such an impact. Irresistance (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm on your side. We even have COVFEFE Act and Category:Hip-hop feuds, like the Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud. Hence why I wrote Strong Keep under your initial comment. Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Taylor Swift–Kanye West feud started 16 years ago and its article was just created last month. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud? Rosa Olmos (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good example of a feud between two equally notable individuals, even though it lasted much longer than this topic. The AfD in 2024 was a snowball which is quite revealing tbh. PS please strike your bold for the benefit of the closer to avoid voting twice. CNC (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I allow you to edit it, if you or somebody else deem it voting twice. Or are you to referring to User:Irresistance indeed casting 2 votes? Rosa Olmos (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK done, bold removed. Thanks. CNC (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I changed one into a comment, excuse the apparent double vote - unintended Irresistance (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize. AfD isn't based on votes anyway, my fault that I adopted that view, my formatting was also unintended: Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.. It's just hard to edit the comment, once it's posted. Rosa Olmos (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Fully passes Wikipedia:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:ROUTINE --Rosa Olmos (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It should be merged into another article or redirected to an anchor section. – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That would contradict Wikipedia:LENGTH. Hence exactly such particular-topic "summary" articles. — Kochas 19:08, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn’t the article be trimmed? – 216.49.130.15 (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SIZERULE at 1,500 words there is no size-based justification for that. CNC (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This feels like a very temporary event; it won't affect anything in a permanent way, not nationally & not internationally. The fact that most of this has been a back-and-forth type of talk on Twitter/Truth Social proves that it won't have a lasting effect, in my opinion. Diamondcladskies (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments based upon feelings without policy grounding aren’t helpful. Consider amending to reference relevant policy. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 17:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a prerequisite for tendering a vote? I see a dozen or more each of 'keep's and 'delete's above that are nothing but feelings about how deeply important a social media spat is, and that it's one of the most important events in the 2025/American political history, and stacks of predictions that it will have massive, long term consequences (such as affecting the 2026 election. Should all votes that don't cite policy be discarded from the final tally? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AfDs are not a democracy. They are not votes. Arguments without policy grounding will be discarded by the patrolling admin, yes. I was simply informing them of this fact. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:17, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was a valid vote. So nothing to worry about. PackMecEng (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I see no reason to delete this, including the Not News arguments above. This article is one of those things that WP readers will benefit from, by having the community of WP editors collect facts and present them in an organized way. KConWiki (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significance of the participants notwithstanding, this has been extensively covered by RS. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Both The New York Times and The Washington Post have just published articles detailing the rift between Musk and Trump, which spanned several months and only culminated in this brief 24-hour online spat. We should not give WP:UNDUE weight to this incident while ignoring the larger context of their long-simmering tensions, so this should either be merged back into Political activities of Elon Musk or refactored into a larger article covering his role in the second Trump administration. It should not solely cover his relationship with Trump, as some have suggested, because we would be pulling too many unrelated details such as their earlier spat over Musk's acquisition of Twitter. Response to the Department of Government Efficiency (which was previously titled "Response to Elon Musk's role in the US federal government") could be merged into that hypothetical article well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the feud has a longer history, we should not give undue weight to the current events and the article should be expanded to cover that. I have no idea how the existence of more history lead you to the conclusion that this article should be deleted. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it appears like you're grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive. The assertion that this conflict spans months you just provided invalidates the vast majority of deletion support on the grounds of NOTNEWS and TOOSOON. Clearly the right decision if it is true that there is many months of history to this feud is to abandon the AfD and expand the curren feud article to detail the extensive history instead of shoving it into other tangently related articles. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 22:14, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not be non-neutral and inaccurate to describe the leadup to their online spat as a "feud", leaning into sensationalist yellow journalism territory. We are not a tabloid, and no sources have characterized their entire relationship as a "feud". Articles dedicated to criticism or controversies are generally discouraged. I don't appreciate or agree with your characterization of my comment as grasping for reasons to keep this AfD alive; and yes, it is still TOOSOON to declare that this incident should exist as a separate article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of your argument now appears to be in favour of a rename. Even then I may disagree, we have plenty of articles on feuds as it stands, and the fact that no source have characterized their entire relationship as a feud isn't compelling as this article isn't about their entire relationship, it is about the ongoing feud.
    My comment on grasping is not made in isolation. It relates to the conduct I've observed throughout this AfD, starting with the undue criticism of ElijahPepe and followed by the vast number of arguments you've attempted. However my opinions on your motivations do not matter if you can make compelling arguments. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 23:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My position has been consistent throughout the discussion: I do not think an article dedicated to the social media dispute that occurred on Thursday should exist until notability is established. I am less concerned with how this outcome is achieved, whether through redirecting to One Big Beautiful Bill, merging with Political activities of Elon Musk, refactored and renamed into a broader article, or outright deleted. The majority of my comments have been dedicated to demonstrating why this topic does not meet our notability guidelines. If the closer finds consensus against keeping, they will have to perform a WP:BARTENDER close. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic scope is not only about the recent feud between Musk and Trump that "that occurred on Thursday", but also the previous spat in 2022 that was also described as a feud at the time, per content. CNC (talk) 08:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CommunityNotesContributor: When did that happen, and why? The article is now pulling two unrelated incidents together to draw a forced connection, akin to WP:SYNTH. The previous "feud" (if it is even neutral to call it that without sources to support its use) is even less notable than last week's, so the latter would be the primary topic and the article should solely cover that. The article title doesn't necessarily imply there weren't other "feuds" in the past. We can mention it briefly in the "Background" section, but it probably does not warrant an entire paragraph per WP:UNDUE. I do not see consensus on the talk page for this change in scope; was this done unilaterally? InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving this discussion to the article's talk page, as it is not related to deletion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "is even less notable than last week's"
    Still begging that question, I see. Selbsportrait (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unconstructive to make snarky comments under every one of my replies, especially one that was not even directed to you. You're welcome to weigh in if you have something to add, but otherwise, this is not helpful and, frankly, incivil. This AfD has not been closed (probably should), editors continue to cast !votes, and consensus has yet to be detrmined as to whether this topic is notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of constructiveness, your 350-word and five-point request has already been answered.
    That took less than three minutes.
    Before that, I have compiled and published a small set of commentaries, so that editors who want to help can have a head start, and to provide a solid moat against earlier naked assertions of non-notability.
    This took more than three minutes.
    What metapedians get out of metapedianizing may always elude me.
    In the great online battle between smarm and snark, I picked my side.
    Sorry about that. Selbsportrait (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's bordering on bludgeoning, to be honest. RachelTensions (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: Its still a developing story so we should keep it for now, but we can see how it stands later on. TheBritinator (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: and probably rename to "Relationship between Trump and Elon" per @KnowDeath above. WinKyaw (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is clearly significant, and it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon Not a kitsune (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Relevant content can be covered elsewhere. Encyclopedic notability of this particular turn of events has not been demonstrated. This article is largely excerpts and summaries of other articles and play-by-plays about tweets and unfollows.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't wikipedia articles supposed to be almost entirely excerpts and summaries of other articles/sources? WP:V and all that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant other Wikipedia articles, mainly Views of Elon Musk. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh ok, that makes more sense. Not sure I entirely agree but I get it now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please have mercy I only recently got that article back below 9,000 words 😭 CNC (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KConWiki. Zero Contradictions (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a temporary feud between two people. The only thing that has happened up to now is them exchanging insults on social media. In my country, one of the richest people also has a feud with the government through social media and the press. That does not need a new article and neither does this.Bigar (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. A social media fight that lasted one day does not have enough encyclopedic value for its own article. The information would fit better within one of the many other broader scope articles involving the 2 subjects. Ratgomery (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bit more than a day, but given your last sentence, would you support merging instead? --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I doubt this is going to be a simple feud that peters out quickly, especially with Elon owning X and Tesla, I have my bets there is going to be much more drama to go on. Also there's the whole "Trump is on the Epstein Files" and who knows how that will shake out. G5bestcfb (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a celebrity gossip magazine. Almost all the sources in this article are immediate reactions from 5 June to the twitter spat, followed by significantly less from 6 June, then only a couple sources from 7 June and none from 8 or 9 June (with a few sources from years ago synthetically attached to this subject). If this subject does not have significant coverage enduring enough to make it even a few days past the immediate gossip circles, then it's hard to accept that this is meets the criteria for a notable event. If this turns into anything, then we can revisit it, but right now, it's just gossip with no wider consequences. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not determined by the sources in the article but by all extant sources on the topic, you will easily be able to find signficant coverage from the 8th and 9th. I suggest a google news search limited to the past 24 hours, that will turn up pieces like these: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wary of replying to so many comments, but I keep seeing this argument being used. However, the existence of sources alone isn't the sole determinant of notability, and it doesn't automatically warrant a standalone article. Some topics may meet sourcing requirements but are nonetheless better off as a section on an existing article, per WP:NOPAGE. See WP:N: [GNG] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. We also need to consider the WP:LASTING significance of a topic through measures such as the WP:10Y test: is the topic likely to remain notable in the long run, or will it simply be a blip in time that we're devoting undue emphasis on? WP:EVENTCRIT sets a higher bar than some other topics on Wikipedia. Pardon of Hunter Biden; Death of Matthew Perry; Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller. These topics all received brief bursts of widespread news coverage, but they do not and should not have standalone articles because they are ultimately fleeting events with little historical significance. If this event ends up having significant ramifications later on, then we can consider restoring it in the future. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a red herring, I did not argue that the existence of sources alone is the sole determinant of notability, or that it automatically warrants a standalone article. Also note that WP:10YT instructs "Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." so if you're trying to use it to argue for deletion you simply do not understand what it is saying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutrafor me Although this matter has almost gone viral on TikTok in China, I think it can be kept or deleted directly (it still has some record value) 后藤喵 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's an important event that will affect future events. in future articles when this has lost familiarity but still affects future events, this can be easily wikilinked instead of having to explain the whole thing a million times. as other people have said, in the unlikely scenario where this does not achieve impact, then it can always be deleted Plastixfy (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Political activities of Elon Musk or Delete. It was a 3 day thing that doesn't seem to have any impact. Especially since he deleted all his tweets. Looks like WP:TRUMPCRUFT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is EXTREMELY notable news going on right now. This is the fallout of a formerly tight relationship. If this does not happen, then I believe it should be merged into Political activities of Elon Musk/ It is a fairly well-written article that could use some extra information. Whykiepedia (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was extremely played up. 2003:D1:C737:C0AF:B4BF:EB8B:B177:5E77 (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly. The feud was definitely played up by the media, but there is notability. I think the ultimate solution would be to merge this like I commented above. Whykiepedia (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. 129.104.244.113 (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into One Big Beautiful Bill Act#Musk–Trump feud. Seems this feud, and related coverage, has mostly died off. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. I think it’s too soon to definitively determine lasting notability and it does little harm to keep it up. On the contrary, I think it is very helpful to have it up right now because the feud is currently the focus of a lot of attention and people (like myself) look for bird’s eye views like this article in order to understand what’s going on.📻NuclearSpuds🎙️ 07:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NTRUMP — Czello (music) 15:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook WP:NOTNEWS failure, per many many many others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a couple more days to see if the current fizzle-out remains. If it does, I'm inclined to merge into Political activities of Elon Musk or One Big Beautiful Bill Act as editors see fit, as there would be no sustained coverage. If coverage continues, keep. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified the other half of the argument. -insert valid name here- (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the threshold of significant coverage in reliable sources. (Unsurprising, given the clash between the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man.) If someone wanted to broaden it into Trump-Musk alliance, or relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, then perhaps that would be sensible, but that's not an AfD matter. Neutralitytalk 00:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments"-WP:JV Thegoofhere (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Relations of Elon Musk and Trump to increase the scope. We do not rush to remove articles about recent events. Thegoofhere (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Significant political event. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Politics of Elon Musk: Per the nominator, This could easily fit better in individual sections such as Politics of Elon Musk. Per WP:ATD-M, we should merge rather than delete when we can. Looking at the 'Second Trump administration' and 'Musk on the Big Beautiful Bill' sub-sections along with the '2025 feud' section, I think that there is sufficient content that could be merged into one or more articles. I am not opposed to additional merging or even redirecting, but am opposed to deletion.
    For some additional comments, I don't see NOTNEWS as convincing when this wasn't a routine event based on the definition at ROUTINE. Per routine: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for a whole article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts ("And finally" stories). Wasn't an announcement, wasn't a scheduled event, wasn't run of the mill. For the rest, this isn't a Who's Who violation as both are notable nor does this appear to be either a NOTDIARY issue or an original reporting issue. I believe most of those citing NOTNEWS should clarify the violation more as just pointing at a policy isn't helpful and leaves no good explanation. Also, I will note here that news coverage has continued into this week: USA Today, New York Times, CNN, Al Jazeera, PBS. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorganize - I think it's a better idea to rewrite the article to make it less newsy, more encyclopedic. --HarlambiDaabrev (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As unfortunate as it is it's still a notable event so Keep. NYC Guru (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This wasn't lasting and it's already over with. Not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:22, 13 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.

Roberto Parra Vallette

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A mayor doesn't get an automatic notability freebie just because of the population of the city — the notability of a mayor hinges on the quality and depth and volume of WP:GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources that can be shown to support an article with. But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as directory entries and raw tables of election results and simple certifications of his election victories, which are not support for notability — and of the just two footnotes that come from reliable sources, one is a dead link and the other one is just covering him in the context of his candidacy in a much later non-mayoral election that he didn't win, and thus isn't supporting notability as a mayor. Obviously he could keep an article that was referenced properly, but the fact that his city has 334,248 people living in it does not magically exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the thing is that most news sources that could eventually support this article are offline. I'm sure lots of references could be retrieved from regional newspapers like El Mercurio de Valparaíso and La Estrella de Valparaíso. There is a Santiago Mercurio archive online but is only available to subscribers, a source which could eventually serve here. La Tercera and El Mostrador had online versions in 2000 and probably could be at least partially available on the Wayback Machine. The purpose of this comment is to show this could be further expanded and referenced with reliable sources but would need some effort gathering the sources. Bedivere (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage of a three-month mayoral spell? Geschichte (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for sure, it's not a common event to have a mayor replaced in Chile. Their tenure was short but it certainly was covered by major national and regional sources.
    Now, leaving that aside, there are some book sources that could be used to further expand the article. The Tributo a Valparaíso (Fernando Vergara Benítez, 2007) (partially available on Google Books) mentions the "tireless work by former mayor of Viña del Mar and social assistant, Mr. Roberto Parra Vallette, a pioneer in Chile, dedicated with his family for more than two decades to the rehabilitation of drug addicts, founding in 1982 (or 1983?) the Casa de Acogida Hogar La Roca" (p. 34). An article, from 2000, mentions him in this 2000 magazine, but the article is not completely visible. There is this El Mercurio article (Chilean newspaper of record) mentioning his election as mayor in an extraordinary city council session. There is an in-depth article by CNN, dated 2021, in the context of his candidacy for the Constitutional Convention. --Bedivere (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't keep poorly-sourced articles on the basis of speculation that better sourcing might exist somewhere that nobody has actually searched for or found — we keep or delete articles based on the quality and depth of the sources that people show. If all one had to do to save an article for deletion was to idly speculate that other sources might exist, then even outright hoaxes wouldn't be deletable from Wikipedia anymore — and even if the article gets deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date if improved quality sourcing actually does turn up that got missed now. So just speculating about the possibility of better sourcing existing somewhere in the world doesn't prevent deletion, if those sources don't actually turn up and get added to the article now.
    And we need to see a lot more than just "mentions" and non-winning candidacies for offices other than the one that constitutes his attempted notability claim, so none of the sources in the comment immediately above this one add up to enough all by themselves either. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of sources known to be available would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Luis Trejo

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Chile. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody with access to archived Chilean media can write and source something more substantive than this. Mayors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for existing, and have to show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just states that he existed, and just cites the absolute bare minimum of sourcing needed to prevent it from being speedied as completely unsourced, without adding any of the more substantive content or sourcing that we would actually need to see. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article sufficiently meets the notability guidelines for politicians, as it addresses the first topic of politicians who have held province–wide offices, in this case, that of mayor of Viña del Mar.
Just as there are political figures with extensive coverage without holding an official position, in this case, it is a figure with historical notoriety without much media coverage. Carigval.97 (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor of a city is not a "province-wide" office. It's a local office that falls under NPOL #2, where the notability test depends exclusively on media coverage and cannot be passed without that. Bearcat (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the rules, media coverage is a second important point, not necessary exclusive (that's why I was talking about cases where there are political figures without positions, but with sufficient references). Similarly, that position –mayor of Viña del Mar– is a province-wide office: that important city in Chile is a town in the Province of Valparaíso. Mr. Trejo has encyclopedic relevance as a mayor of a large city in Chile.Carigval.97 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Media coverage is essential to passage of WP:GNG, not a mere option that can be bypassed. NPOL does not say that media coverage is optional; even a politician who does pass NPOL #1 (which a mayor does not) still has to have GNG-worthy sourcing too, and the only pass they get is that as long as their holding of the office is properly verifiable, we don't rush their article into the delete bin for not already being in a better state than it is — we give it time for improvement to a GNG-compliant standard, because it's an automatic given that the article will be improvable.
But mayors don't get the same indulgence: mayors only get articles if and when passage of the criterion for local politicians has already been shown off the bat, because there isn't the same guarantee that every mayor of everywhere can always be improved to a GNG-compliant standard. No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having to have GNG-worthy media coverage — there are just some levels of government at which the officeholders are given a grace period for improvement, and some levels of office at which they aren't given the same benefit of the doubt, but there is no level of government at which people are exempted from having to cite GNG-worthy sourcing at all.
I don't think you understand the definition of "province-wide", either. The fact that a city is in a province does not render the city's mayor into a province-wide officeholder, as he's mayor of the city and not mayor of the whole province. A province-wide office is one that has province-wide jurisdictional authority, like a governor or a provincial-level legislator, not a mayor of an individual town or city within the province. Mayors are local officeholders under NPOL #2, not province-wide officeholders under NPOL #1, which is precisely why a mayor cannot be exempted from having to pass GNG on media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasons, Bearcat, but Trejo's management as mayor of Viña del Mar is reflected in the document that refers to his social policies regarding legal aid, as well as in press reports that mention his management of the Viña International Festival. The lack of more digital news is due to the fact that the internet was not sufficiently widespread at the time. However, this lack is complemented by sufficient historical documents that do give him prominence in his field: the history of the mayoralty of Viña del Mar.
Regarding "No politicians, at any level of government, are ever exempted from having GNG-worthy media coverage", it's regrettable that there are cases where even long-standing English officials, such as Arthur Henderson, Baron Rowley (Labour), have few references, as well as Sidney Jones, Mayor of Liverpool, who does not register digital press releases, but rather press sources. Despite this, their notability lies in the positions they have held.
Finally, a city's case may remain provincial, but autonomous. Similarly, and being a local city, Viña del Mar is an important cultural and economic location (services, tourism). Based on this, and the fact that Trejo is a politician, the subject of the biography has sufficient notoriety to have held said office, as verified by official digital archives of proven reliability (Universidad Alberto Hurtado and notes from the Judicial Corporation). Carigval.97 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring up WP:WHATABOUT "arguments". Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's not just a matter of media coverage for the tenure of a politician's biography, a mayor in this case. The most important thing here is that "Politicians who have held international, national, or subnational office (such as members of national legislatures, governors, or mayors of large cities) are presumed notable." In this case, Viña del Mar is one of the largest cities in the country and is an integral part of Greater Valparaíso, the second largest urban agglomeration in Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igallards7 (talk) 3:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Igallards7. The article has also been significantly expanded since the nomination. Luis7M (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NPOL does not state that mayors of large cities are presumed notable. The correct language in NPOL is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." The language does not specify city size or even position a local government. The standard for all local politicians is what Bearcat describes earlier - the need to "show significant press coverage enabling us to write a substantive article about their political impact." This is true for a mayor of a population of 49, or a population of 32 million. In practice, this means that a local official should meet and possibly exceed WP:GNG to have a stand alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Destinyokhiria 💬 18:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Knochelmann

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

Subject fails notability guidelines for politicians, and sources from here and a cursory search are insufficient to establish general notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Knochelmann meets the notability guidelines for politicians due to extensive coverage of his tenure in office from local media, such as this article with biographical information. Other articles about his priorities and policies in office include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I know that this is not a criterion for notability, but as an aside I'll note that Kenton County is the third-most populous county in Kentucky after Jefferson and Fayette; there is substantial public interest in covering the county's leader. Mad Mismagius (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:21, 20 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. Accusations aside, nobody has provided sources justifying this person's inclusion. Sandstein 19:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lorne Maclaine, Baron of Moy

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

Minor nobility? figure, has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." to pass WP:BIO WP:GNG Suggest redirect to Clan Maclaine of Lochbuie Nayyn (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No coverage at all outside of Burke's Peerage, which includes more than 100,000 living people - clearly not enough to fulfil WP:GNG. Even a redirect seems generous. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 21:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only coverage is passing mentions in directories. If kept, move it back to the original concise article title, without the silly disambiguator, which was only added as part of a single purpose account's campaign to promote the Scottish baronage as real. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Celia's comment is both misleading and inappropriate. The suggestion that this is part of a "campaign to promote the Scottish baronage as real" implies that the Scottish baronage is somehow fictional, which is factually incorrect. Scottish baronial titles are recognised under Scots law, confirmed in legal commentary and by official bodies like the Lord Lyon.
Furthermore, accusing editors of being "single purpose accounts" without evidence is a form of personal attack that contravenes WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. My contributions are broad and varied, and this line of argument adds nothing constructive to the notability discussion.
Let’s keep this focused on sources, not conspiracy theories. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:37, 12 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 14:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahzeeb Hafi

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

Not a notable poet, writer, and engineer. Fails Wp:GNG.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:30, 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 speedy delete‎ by Izno as WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilraj Singh Rawat

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

Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources, also the article is little promotional, may be a fan creation. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Did a search myself and didn't find anything that would lend notability. Only thing I can imagine is that there are non-English sources available. nf utvol (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking more LLM creation, actually. Which I suppose is not entirely exclusive with fan creation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 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.

Junie Yu

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Suffers from WP:BOMBARD. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can understand the nominator's concern about "WP:BOMBARD" given the initial article creation, it's worth assessing the subject's actual notability separately from how the article came to be.
If Junie Yu indeed meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically for politicians, WP:NPOLITICIAN, and general notability, WP:GNG) through verifiable, independent sources, then the article should be kept. The focus should be on the subject's notability, not on the initial submission process.
Let's evaluate based on policy, not just initial impressions.
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Baricuatro
1bisdak (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Pam Baricuatro also fails WP:NPOL, she's one level of government higher than Yu (city vs municipality), and can be argued she may pass WP:GNG; of course that can definitely be determined by nominating that article for WP:AFD yourself as well.
Looking at the references on this article, it's Facebook, the Bohol provincial government, the Calape municipal government, election results databases, and actual WP:RS provide coverage mostly to his children (LOL?) passing the nursing board exams and being in a national beauty pageant, instead of him personally. There's one reference solely about him where his corruption cases were dismissed. Looking at all of this, delete as having failed WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the 2025 local election results, incumbent vice-mayor Sulpicio Yu Jr. unseated incumbent mayor Julius Caesar Herrera. See also the 2013 Bohol local election results.
See also:
Dan Lim
Jose Antonio Veloso
Luis Marcaida III
Mikee Morada
Category:Mayors of places in Bohol
Category:Filipino politicians by province
Category:Local politicians in the Philippines
1bisdak (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you need to read WP:OSE. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP the article.
Junie Yu is notable based on his extensive political career. He served as mayor for three consecutive terms (June 30, 2007 – June 30, 2016) and as vice-mayor for three consecutive terms (June 30, 2016 – June 30, 2025). Furthermore, he unseated incumbent Mayor Julius Caesar Herrera in both the 2013 and 2025 elections, and is set to assume office again as mayor by June 30, 2025. This consistent holding of significant public office directly meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for politicians (WP:NPOLITICIAN) and provides ample ground for "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. 1bisdak (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To closing admin, subject of the article fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. I suppose 1bisdak has to paste the provision on that policy where Yu applies? Being mayor for 3 terms, vice mayor for 3 terms, unseating the previous mayor, and defending the mayoralty doesn't make you pass WP:NPOL. I would really highly suggest 1bisdak to rean and understand WP:NPOL; it's not even that long.
As for WP:GNG, while there were improvements in the sourcing in the article since June 6, these were a court case (WP:PRIMARY), and a self-published Scribd document (again, WP:PRIMARY). As prior sourcing failed WP:RS, and added ones still do not pass WP:RS, the article still fails WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junie Yu's six consecutive terms as mayor and vice-mayor (2007-2025) demonstrate sustained "significant elected office" under WP:NPOLITICIAN.
  • His unseating of incumbent Mayor Julius Caesar Herrera twice (2013 and 2025) further proves his political notability and the likelihood of significant coverage.
  • While some current sources might be weak, his long tenure and political impact mean verifiable, independent sources should exist, meeting WP:GNG. The issue is finding them, not a lack of notability.

As WP:Notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." 1bisdak (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact phrase "significant elected office" (your quotes) doesn't appear in WP:NPOLITICIAN.
People defeating incumbents do not merit Wikipedia articles for most of the time, unless those offices are the ones found in WP:NPOLITICIAN.
Where are those WP:RS sources? You've been arguing about importance without actually demonstrating it by finding sources. Sources about his offspring don't count. We need actual sources not theoretical ones, "or they're out there". This person's career spans the last 10 years or so, WP:LINKROT should not be an issue for internet sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further, failure to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN won't be an issue if the person meets WP:GNG, which can be demonstrated by finding actual sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of what *specific* sources offer sigcov (or don't) would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 09:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Calape excels in competitive index, tops 755 municipalities nationwide". boholchronicle.com.ph. June 17, 2016.
1bisdak (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is focused on Calape the town, not Yu the person. None of the references used in the article pass WP:GNG, a requirement as Yu fails WP:NPOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His extensive political career, marked by multiple terms as Mayor and Vice Mayor, his success in unseating a notable incumbent mayor, and his unbeaten political record, establishes him as a historically relevant figure in the governance of Calape. His sustained tenure in such a prominent public office reinforces this notability. 1bisdak (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For local politicians, WP:NPOL provides this: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", not defeating incumbents or having multiple terms in different positions.
In this nomination and on the article per se, this was not demonstrated. Perhaps coverage exists somewhere, but like I said, it's not demonstrated anywhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:13, 22 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. A decision on the target does not require a relist Star Mississippi 02:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countess Maria Antonia von Waldstein

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

The article is pure genealogy. There is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:SIGCOV). Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 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 11:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Szwedkowicz

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to warrant her own article. Upon a WP:BEFORE search, no sources passing WP:GNG show up. I noticed that the article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject as well, and the article seems to be written in a promotional tone. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.
I believe that Magdalena Szwedkowicz meets the notability criteria, especially within the Polish film and television industry. She is a well-known producer with significant contributions, and the English article is a faithful translation of the existing Polish Wikipedia page, which is well-sourced and has been maintained without dispute.
I understand the concerns regarding tone and sourcing, and I am open to improving the article in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I will work on adjusting the language to make it more neutral and will add reliable, independent sources in English or Polish that verify her notability.
Please feel free to suggest any specific changes or improvements. I’m committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s guidelines Jotdr4822 (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jotdr4822 You're new to Wikipedia, so maybe you lack experience creating articles. Please review WP:PRODUCER along with WP:GNG for guidelines. The subject of the article needs to meet some requisites, such as being part of creating or co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, which Magdalena doesn't (or doesn't yet).
In regards of the tone, it must be encyclopedic. Review WP:MOS.
Wikipedias in different languages are independent of each other, and the English Wikipedia has higher standards than most of the other ones.
If you could improve the language of the article and add multiple reliable, independent sources that would help a lot in reviewing the article. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 12 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 23:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Glenn Haber

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

A friend of mine, knowing I am a Wikipedian, requested on behalf of the article subject that I nominate this for deletion (also evidence of the subject's desire at ticket:2023111810000545). Based on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, this probably qualifies as a low-profile author who is not particularly notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:27, 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 14:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Tavakoli

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

Someone that says they are the subject requested deletion on BLPN and on the article talk page. An IP editor attempted to nominate for AfD discussion, but the nomination wasn't correctly formed. I am nominating as a courtesy. I think that the subject probably meets notability, but give some weight to the request from (presumably) the subject, so I am neutral at this time. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The subject of the article initially got interested in it back in 2013, when IP66 (presumed to be her) expressed the belief that the addition of {{Notability}} to Janet Tavakoli was intended as a retaliatory action in response to criticism she leveled at Wikipedia in an article on HuffPost. To my knowledge, before the addition of the template she never objected to the existence of the article. I harbour a good-faith belief that, had the template never been added, we likely never would have heard from her.
  2. Apparent efforts by Janet to have the article removed have largely relied upon the clarification that the article had been created without her participation / knowledge / consent. I find the notion that Wikipedia requires the authorisation of the subject of an article to document notable material regarding them profoundly troubling. Examples of pertinent edits: One, Two, Three (see also: the edit summary of Edit #3).
  3. While she has admittedly expressed a preference for article deletion, I think it's only fair to observe that her contributions to the website have been far from an unequivocal attempt at its deletion. Instead, she has been positively falling over herself to tell us about her career, accomplishments, and prominence. In the very same edit as previously linked she refers to being interviewed by, writing for, or being written about by C-SPAN, Forbes, CBS Evening News, and CBC News - in addition to clarifying one of her books is now in its third edition. I've never seen quite such a self-promotional (bordering on self-aggrandizement, tbqf) effort at claiming not to be notable in all my life. That particular edit almost reads like satire.
  4. As a matter or principle, I don't believe in being more Catholic than the Pope (it's an idiom). The only argument in favour of deletion that I can possibly see is to suggest that the subject of the article is insufficiently notable. Even Janet herself has not been prepared to stake this claim. Now - I could understand someone not having realised this, but Janet has actually been incredibly careful with her choice of words. I have reviewed every edit by both IP66 and Contributions/Requester123 and I have yet to find a single instance of Janet claiming not to be a notable figure. We've had "I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 18:42 (UTC)), "as I never claimed to meet Wikipedia's notability standards" (29 May 2025, 23:47 (UTC)), "does not claim to meet notability standards" (31 May 2025, 22:09 (UTC)), and "Page created without consent of living subject who does not claim to meet notability standards" (1 June 2025, 14:11 (UTC)). But never just "I am not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." If she isn't prepared to claim she isn't notable, I don't see why anyone else should on her behalf.
  5. The subject of the article is demonstrably a significant figure who more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. She has authored a minimum of nine books under her own name, in addition to ten books under the pseudonym Michael K. Clancy. IMDb describes her as an "internationally renowned finance expert." According to this page, she has written for and / or been quoted by The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, New York Times, The Economist, Business Week, Fortune, Global Risk Review, RISK, IDD, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, LIPPER HedgeWorld, Asset Securitization Report, Journal of Structured Finance, Investor Dealers’ Digest, International Securitization Report, Bloomberg News, Bloomberg Magazine, Credit, Derivatives Week, TheStreet.com, and Finance World. The same page further states she has been featured on television by CNN, CNBC, BNN, CBS Evening News, Bloomberg TV, First Business Morning News, Fox, ABC, and the BBC. Finally, she has been profiled by both Bloomberg and the University of Chicago.
  6. I could foresee the use of a pseudonym being cited as potentially being an example of her not seeking to have a public profile. Speaking as a self-confessed zombie nerd, the use of a pseudonym for zombie-focused science fiction novels but not finance-focused books strikes me as being an effort to separate them in a bid to avoid her criticisms of individuals and bodies from being associated with her other pursuits. That she expressly claims authorship of the latter on her website suggests it's not a bid at anonymity.
  7. While it's not necessarily part of the process, I believe we could look at WP:LOWPROFILE to help us gauge whether the deletion request forms part of an apparent effort by a person to 'lie low'. Criterion #1 is 'Media attention': Janet has herself, while arguing in favour of deletion, referred to numerous outlets that she has granted interviews. Criterion #2 is 'Promotional activities': In addition to Janet Tavakoli having a prominent biography on the website of her company - which she has named after herself - she also has the personal website JanetTavakoli.com which lists some of the books she has written. Criterion #3 is 'Appearances and performances': Janet promotes her availability as a speaker at events. I would also argue that some of her financial books would appear to qualify. Criterion #4 is 'Eminence': Janet has been profiled by the University of Chicago, "Structured success" and Bloomberg, "The Cassandra of Credit Derivatives". Additionally, she has appeared as an expert before forums of the IMF, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve bank. Finally, Criterion #5 is 'Behavior pattern and activity level': I've seen nothing to suggest her career is in any way over or in a lull. Zombies and Men (Z-Factor Book 4) by "Michael K. Clancy" was published in mid-2022, and the 3rd edition of Credit Derivatives and Securitization: Instruments and Applications was published earlier that same year.
  8. The only known example of harm caused to Janet by the existence of the article is the receipt of a single spam email. While I could perhaps be somewhat persuaded by this were the subject of the article at disproportionate risk of falling for scams and the like, to my knowledge Janet is a perfectly competent (and, indeed, rather impressive) individual who is readily capable of disregarding such trivial inconveniences.

For whatever it might be worth - I bear no ill will toward Janet. The more I learn of her, the more I admire her. I just don't happen to think there's a great argument in favour of deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 10:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED. Elsewhere a community member has raised the notion of this being a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE case, but I've yet to see an argument that even a single factor cited on the page applies. I believe the onus is on those proposing that the article be deleted - not pointing the finger at you, Russ - to demonstrate that it should be. As this has not happened to any meaningful degree, I am presently unable to support deletion. ···sardonism · t · c 15:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, similar past discussions have often ended in delete when any notability was marginal, or in keep when notability was solid enough that the article seems essential to the encyclopedia. As WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE says, "editors should seriously consider honoring such requests." Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. (Saw this mentioned at the BLPN thread). The article has received an average of 4 page views daily over the past year (from May 28, 2024, to May 28, 2025). The general reader base won't be impacted at all if this article were to be deleted judging by the extremely low page views. If the BLP subject, who may not "clearly pass the general notability guideline", wishes to delete their article, we should honor their request. Some1 (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks Russ Woodroofe for your assistance. The subject of this article is of borderline notability: I agree with Oaktree b that the article would probably survive a deletion nomination on pure notability grounds (as either keep or no consensus), but the article was tagged for notability in October 2021 and there were a grand total of 6 edits to it from that point until the article subject began requesting deletion a few days ago (four automated, one vandalism, one vandalism revert), so it's not a slam dunk. BLPREQUESTDELETE says Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, ... Obviously this person is not a government official, and the case for passing GNG is nonzero but far short of a clear pass, and the subject has identified a genuine harm (being targeted by scammers). Needless to say that Sardonism's very long comment is completely beside the point. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is exactly the sort of situation that I warned about in my speech earlier this year at Wikimedia NYC: very marginally notable people being targeted by scammers. The interviews (and articles in Forbes) do not contribute to significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject has not sought fame, unlike two other examples this year. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE. The subject, while sufficiently notable to be included in an encyclopedia that seeks to be a compendium of all human knowledge, falls short of the degree of notability that reasonably requires Wikipedia to maintain an article against her wishes. Routine activity as a speaker in one's area of expertise and a supporting CV are not the earmarks of the more robust notability that would warrant keeping this article regardless. Requests of this nature have been honored throughout our history, albeit not with perfect consistency, and we should continue to receptive to these request, and grant them when we can. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete per BLPREQUESTDELETE as detailed in the policy, this is a case of marginal notability. While she does have multiple books that were reviewed in the general press and a several hundred citations on GS across three books, this would probably still fall within the "average professor output" under WP:NPROF. Furthermore, while we cannot base deletion decision on the fact that scammers exploit this situation, marginal notability + request for deletion is sufficient reason for me even in a case like this where the subject doesnt keep a low media profile per se. --hroest 16:55, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The book reviews are enough that I would go for a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR if we did not have a request from the subject, but I think the case is still borderline enough for us to respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't think it will cause significant gaps to our coverage to not have an article on this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lyakhov

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

Subject does not meet inclusion criteria per the sources in the article. The sources do not meet WP:RS as the subject is the author of some of the articles. CPDJay (talk) 09:23, 4 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! 07:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look at all notable and the article was created by someone with a declared CoI (likely the subject himself). I would delete. Ostalgia (talk) 09:35, 14 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.

Tas Qureshi

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

Prod that was redirected to Robert Braithwaite (engineer). I don't think it is appropriate to redirect to 1 of his patients even if notable. Braithwaite's article doesn't even mention Qureshi. Article subject fails WP:BIO. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a de-prodded article, this is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I did a variety of searches under various permutations of the subject's name, and could not find really any reliable, independent sources with significant coverage, so I do not think WP:BIO is met. And although there is a track record of academic publishing (ResearchGate), I do not think that this meets any of WP:NPROF. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:04, 19 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 Biafra Nations League. The Bushranger One ping only 22:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princewill Chimezie Richards

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

Fails notability guidelines, as notability is not inherited from the Biafra Nations League. Searches fail to indicate notability of the individual aside from serving as a spokesman for the group. In lieu of deletion, the redirect could be restored or relevant content can be merged to the aforementioned article. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone sees this, would they be able to move the comment on the talk page (which I'm assuming is a keep vote) here? I'm unable to easily on my phone. Thanks! Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2025-06 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this anyways - here's all the sources used within the article:
"Renewed border tension: Biafra League barricades entrance to Bakassi, hoist flag" - No mention whatsoever of Richards. Would be more suitable for the Biafra Nations League article, but no author listed.
"Five Feared Killed in Bakassi Peninsula as Biafra Separatist Groups Hit Cameroon Warships" - Richards is only mentioned in the end as a spokesperson for the group.
"Militants kill Sailor, fail to hijack vessel in Bakassi" - once more, Richards is only mentioned as a leader or spokesperson for the group.
Little to no material exists on Richards himself. All news articles I can find simply have him as a spokesperson or founder. The article in this state serves as nothing more than a fork with limited information on the organization/terrorist group/separatist militia (unsure what exactly to call it). Any sources worth keeping are best merged with the Biafra Nations League, and the name should be a redirect unless more material comes out with the notability of the individual rather than the organization. The only sourced statement one could make is that Richards is a leader of the Biafra Nations League. jellyfish ✉ 01:11, 14 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Phoebe Dahl

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

Article is pure puffery - all notability inherited from Roald Dahl or Ruby Rose Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:45, 11 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 12:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Hayes (adventurer)

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

Self-promotional article, subject does not meet notability standards. Article was created and heavily edited by user RowenaFernandes, who was banned for advertising and COI. All significant subsequent edits and expansions (most of them unsourced) came from a succession of accounts whose only contributions are on this article, likely to circumvent the initial ban. These accounts include 112.203.124.109, Litolividomaliwat, Service pa, Erictobeprecise, and Sonia.sherif. The attempts at ban evasion and COI/self-promotion should be enough for deletion, but the subject also has received no coverage besides a handful of low quality and self-published sources. A very niche Guinness World Record held briefly almost 20 years ago does not in itself establish notability. — Arcaist (contr—talk) 11:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alerted to this a few days ago, which I find a bit bizarre given the page has been published without comment / warning for 15 odd years - and only after a couple of new inputs from someone on my recent summitting of Mt Kanchenjunga appeared. References to all my work are everywhere online and I have little idea of inputters / input bans and other 'warning' comments. 2A00:23C7:F883:F201:5B4:B60E:DE2:73B5 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted because of the odd "Agree" comments by low-editcount accounts. Needs more input by experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I did not relaise there was a minimum edit count needed to participate in these discussions. While my account is old, I am trying to edit more these days, and this page was put on the "suggested edits" section in my homepage - I saw the AfD banner and thought I should try getting involved. Please feel free to disregard my Agree comment if you do not conisder me experienced enough to comment. I am here to learn after all! NoSlacking (talk) 18:09, 11 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.

Aina Asif

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.
For example:
These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.
Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the error. Here you go
[20] as rising star, [21] as a cast, [22] for his early drama roles, [23] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.
The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.
I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.
Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.
Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.
Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.
[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.
[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.
Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.
[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.
[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:
Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.
Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.
1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Churnalism/WP:NEWSORGINDIA: Author is part of syndicated outlet that allows for paid content, 2.) Churnalism, reads like promotional routine coverage - author has large amounts of writing in a single day: e.g. 10 articles created/edited on June 20th, and writing style looks LLM-generated on many articles 3.) Churnalism, author has vast amount of writing in a single day: e.g. 20 articles on June 21 4.) Source only loads 2 headlines 5.) Same author/reasoning as #2. Also, all of these sources are from May 2025, I assume due to Judwaa coming out this year, but it's not WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage. - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 22:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you evaluate? Your WP:ATA are becoming an issue.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Most of the current arguments to keep the article are weak/shallow, but there is also not much support to delete the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm finding it hard to sort through and see actual significant, reliable coverage vs what is paid content. The !keep votes from sockpuppets from this and past nominations make the sources even more questionable to me.
    More recent coverage seems to be bylined and (from what I can tell) published by more well-known papers, like Siasat and Gulf News. But the actual articles seems like fast-paced entertainment-style news at best, which makes for questionable notability, and churnalism or paid content at worst (per the sources I commented about above). From what I've been able to look through, I'm leaning towards delete. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found significant coverage which are independent and from reliable sources: [24], [25], [26], and [27]. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • [5] Interview [6] Already mentioned above, but: Churnalism, author has vast amount of writing in a single day: e.g. 20 articles on June 21 [7] Unbylined / churnalism [8] Asif is not talked about in the article, and is only mentioned in the image caption. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:58, 22 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 no consensus‎. Not going to waste more community time with a sock nomination. Any established editor is welcome to bring this back if they see merit when reviewing the restored article. Star Mississippi 12:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Machhoya

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

Depended only on single source since 2011, 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) 09:18, 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 12:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vantia

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

Unsourced, hoax article, There is no identification of the notability of this article that was created by WALTHAM2 who created many Hoax articles using unreliable RAJ sources, not enough coverage, fails GNG. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trending towards delete, but it seems reasonable to given it a bit more time for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article should be deleted due to lack of reliable references. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:22, 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodiya

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

Unsourced, not enough coverage, hoax article, 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) 07:53, 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! 23:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judith of Babenberg

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

Nothing is known about her beyond genealogy. Historians do not discuss her. That she was born to one powerful man, married to another, and mother of a few others is not grounds for a standalone article (WP:NOTINHERITED). Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 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 speedy keep‎. Procedurally. No objection to an editor in good standing opening a discussion if needed Star Mississippi 18:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardeshi Rajput

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

Depends on unreliable sources: see reference of Suresh Kumar is not reliable and not enough coverage. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:36, 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Wai Onn

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

I believe that the subject fails WP:NBASIC, the notability criteria for biographies. I have checked all 25 references and cannot find any independent sources. There are several press profiles but they are all highly promotional. Five are from Nigerian newspapers: WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA says Nigerian journalists are known to give news coverage to individuals and organisations in exchange for payment. My WP:BEFORE check did not find independent coverage on the first few pages of a google search.

My notes on the sources as at 14:56, 1 June 2025
  • 1. The Borneo Post “Malaysian double record holder honoured in Britishpedia's biographical encyclopaedia" promotional newspaper article
  • 2. The Nation (Nigeria) "Hong Wai Onn's contributions to palm oil industry" promotional newspaper article
  • 3. A Chemical Engineer in the Palm Oil Milling Industry. Self published book by Hong Wai Onn
  • 4. Heriot-Watt University "Shaping a sustainable future: Insights from WattMEC 2025" conference where Hong spoke
  • 5. Nigerian Tribune "Innovation, Leadership, and Sustainable Engineering: The Journey of Hong Wai Onn" promotional newspaper article
  • 6. Bernama "Industry Stakeholders Call For Stronger Collaboration To Unlock Oil Palm Biomass Utilisation"reports what Hong said
  • 7. Bernama "Malaysia Urged To Embrace Bio-based Economy In Palm Oil Sector ForGlobal Sustainability – Expert" reports what Hong said
  • 8. The Guardian (Nigeria) "A STEM visionary transforming the palm oil industry" promotional newspaper article
  • 9. IChemE "Palm Oil Processing Special Interest Group" Hong is a member
  • 10. IChemE "HRH Tuanku Zara Salim appointed Royal Patron of IChemE Malaysia" Hong is a member
  • 11. IChemE "Promoting the value of chemical engineers to Malaysia's Minister of Energy" Hong is a member
  • 12. IChemE "Chemical Engineers help Malaysia's Primary Industry Minister to make palm oil industry more sustainable" Hong is a member
  • 13. The Chemical Engineer "New IChemE Malaysia Board visits Royal Patron" Hong is a member pf IChemE
  • 14. IChemE "Learned Society Committee" Hong is a member
  • 15. IChemE "Congress election" Hong is a member
  • 16. IChemE "The MSPO Standards Revision Continues" Hong is a member
  • 17. The Sun (Nigeria) "From humble beginnings to a leader in sustainable development" promotional newspaper article
  • 18. Free Malaysia Today "TVET grads will expedite automation of palm oil sector, says expert" reports what Hong said
  • 19. Business Insider Africa "Transforming Africa's palm oil industry: The untapped potential of biomass valorization" promotional news article
  • 20. Society for the Environment "Outstanding Finalists Announced for the 2020 SocEnv Awards" listing of award nominees
  • 21. IChemE "Hong Wai Onn Gets Recognized by the Prestigious Freedom of the City of London" Hong is a memeber
  • 22. Vanguard (Nigeria) "Leader in circular economy innovations in palm oil processing" promotional newspaper article
  • 23. World of Buzz "The Knights Award 2023 Honoured 70 Local & International Personalities & Companies For Their Outstanding Achievement!" report on non-notable awards
  • 24. China Press (in Chinese) "2022年杰出博智风云人物才智奖 – 孔伟安" [2022 Outstanding Talent Award – Hong Wai Onn] promotional newspaper article
  • 25. Hongwaionn.com "Society" Hong’s website

TSventon (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My notes on new sources as at 15:26, 1 June 2025
  • 7. Ministry of Plantation and Commodities "Oil palm smallholders urged to adopt tech to increase yield — plantation think tank" reports what Hong said
  • 8. Malaysian-Japan International Institute of Technology "12 External Evaluators for 3rd MJIIT Chemical Engineering Design" Hong is supervisor at university event
  • 18. Free Malaysia Today "Geopolitics important no matter your field of study, students told" reports what Hong said
  • 24. Sunrise News "Dedication to Empowering the Next Generation" promotional news article

TSventon (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing the article on Hong Wai Onn. I understand and respect Wikipedia’s policies regarding notability, neutrality, and verifiability, and I’m grateful for the community’s commitment to upholding high standards.
I would like to make a sincere appeal to retain the article, with a willingness to improve it based on constructive feedback. If some of the sources are perceived as promotional or borderline, I am fully open to removing them. However, I would like to highlight that many of the references used are genuinely independent and neutral.
For instance, Mr. Hong Wai Onn has been featured by IChemE, an internationally respected, independent professional body. Mr. Hong holds no editorial influence over the institution, and his features result from his elected roles and professional contributions. These recognitions reflect peer-reviewed acknowledgment of his impact in sustainable engineering.
Similarly, Bernama, Malaysia’s official national news agency, is not known to accept self-promotional material lightly. The articles referencing Mr. Hong were not press releases but news coverage related to his professional achievements and public service. These were not authored by Mr. Hong and reflect third-party reporting.
Mr. Hong is also a two-time recipient in the Malaysia Book of Records and the first Malaysian engineer to be granted the Freedom of the City of London—both significant, independently verifiable recognitions. Coverage from Free Malaysia Today, China Press, and Business Insider further affirms his notability across different media ecosystems.
I welcome any specific guidance on language or sections that may appear overly promotional. I am more than happy to rephrase or remove such content to meet Wikipedia’s standards—rather than see the entire article deleted.
Thank you once again for your fair consideration. I believe that with collaborative improvements, this article can meet the necessary criteria and serve as a valuable, balanced entry for readers seeking information about a notable Malaysian chemical engineer. Bryony Jackson (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GPTZero says that there is a 100% chance that the above comment was generated by AI. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Engineering. Baqi:) (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources all appear to be promotional and/or non-independent. The page creator's claim above that the sources from IChemE are independent is a bit rich given how much time the article spends going over all his positions on various IChemE committees and boards. The fellowships of the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Institution of Chemical Engineers are not the kind of highly selective honours that could provide a pass of WP:NPROF#C3, and there's absolutely no sign of a pass on any of the other NPROF criteria. As far as I can tell he fails NBASIC. MCE89 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Major claims that I see:
    • Freedom of the City of London, but that article does not sound like a notable achievement.
    • Malaysia Book of Records, which appears to take all comers on request (the linked website is dead, and the only non-dead independent source cited in that article has a quote from its editor: "We will encourage any record people want to create," he said. "It's not that easy to get into the Guinness Book of Records. To get into Malaysia's book is easier." Unlike its international model, Malaysia's book turns no one away.
    • Britishpedia is a redlink, which suggests it's not that notable an achievement (analogous to media-stars where we only list awards that are themselves notable). Worse, googling around suggests it's a pay-to-play/vanity-press.
The news-like sources typically credulously parrot each other and these types of claims, meaning we can reject them as being reliable. This is therefore all exactly on track for WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA (via echo-chamber from underlying analogously-flawed details). Where are the independent, reliable sources and claims of actual notability that have any sort of substantive and independent gatekeeping, per WP standards? If your have to resort to making these sorts of claims, or you have been fooled into thinking these are actually worthwhile claims, then you don't have a viable article here. DMacks (talk) 19:29, 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sivad Heshimu Johnson

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

Fails WP:Oneevent and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Hirolovesswords (talk) 10:02, 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 15 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 merge‎ to Count the Stars. There is consensus to redirect this to Count the Stars after merging content there or to The Devil Wears Prada (band) as needed. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shapiro (music agent)

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER, should be merged and redirected to The Devil Wears Prada (band). 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]
  • 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NBIO. Not independently notable. 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]
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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buffalo Six. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahim Alwan

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

WP:BLP1E, 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:

Mukhtar al-Bakri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Faysal Galab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yahya Goba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shafal Mosed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yaseinn Taher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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]
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]
  • Merge per nom. I've taken a look at three of the six; all coverage in the articles and on the web is related to this event, none seem otherwise high-profile, and the role of each individual in this event was, I would argue, not substantial. Therefore, WP:BLP1E applies. I'm going with "merge" here because we always redirect after merging, so "merge/redirect" is redundant. How much we decide to merge, if anything, is up to the editor who performs the merge. I agree here that there's not much beyond trivial details from local news in most of these articles, but perhaps the merging editor wants to salvage some stuff. Toadspike [Talk] 09:48, 16 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cheever

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

I 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]

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

Shah Kamal Quhafah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]

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

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

The subject 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]

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

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

A before did not return evidence of notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 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. Consensus is that WP:NAUTHOR is met. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (author, pastor)

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

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]

Also, the Christianity.com article[29] appears to be an independent source. The site is owned by Salem Media Group. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 30 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! 23:31, 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 14:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Edwards (Australian composer)

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

This Article 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]

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

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

Does not 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]

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

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

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. CutlassCiera 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. CutlassCiera 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). Intothatdarkness 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 redirect‎ to Family of Pope Leo XIV. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mildred Agnes Prevost

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

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 StabroTalk • 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 StabroTalk • 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 StabroTalk • 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 StabroTalk • 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 StabroTalk • Contribs 17:10, 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

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

Fails WP: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]

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

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

Non-notable 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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Vladyslav Yakubovskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avner Netanyahu

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

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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage, 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]
    @Oaktree b "aren't online"? You know better than to require online sources... Toadspike [Talk] 07:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm saying I can't verify them, so I can't say how extensive they are. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 22 June 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on independent sourcing that speaks to notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote something similar earlier in the conversation. By now, people may not be reading what I wrote, so I'm writing again. Because of the ignore all rules rule that was made to make sure that articles that are obviously notable are not deleted because of rules, I think that voters should think about whether they believe this article is notable rather than about policy. As I said earlier, why would non interview sources be any more credible than interview in this case? Many credible sources found him notable enough to write about. Thank you. Orlando Davis (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of bludgeoning or you will lose access to edit this discussion. That's your opinion to which you're entitled, but it does not overrule consensus which is what you have consistently been trying to do. Star Mississippi 02:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? The consensus so far is to keep. Are you trying to divert from a consensus you don't like by accusing me of bludgeoning? "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I don't like being lawyered. Orlando Davis (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could write a longer statement about how IAR, while being a good reason to be bold, is not a free pass to ignore broader consensus whenever one wishes to or how the common sense of "noteworthiness" or "celebrity" is not actually what is meant by the guideline we've unfortunately titled Wikipedia:Notability (the former more commonly considered under WP:SIGNIFICANCE), and instead we mean "can we write an article meeting the core content policies" (q.v. WP:WHYN).
    I'm not sure how much that would actually help though, so I'll — while acknowledging the fact that we have discretion to bend even the core content policies (barring WP:NPOV) given a Very Good Reason — simply opine that editors have failed to establish the no doubt Very Obvious Very Good Reason we should be measuring the Obvious Notability by something other than the usual standard, which does in fact require sources to be independent of the subject, among the other requirements (direct and in-depth, reliable, secondary). Given that, in my opinion, we lack both the Very Good Reason or the sources that can meet the usual standard, I see no other option. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't need IAR, it meets GNG ("...now I know my ABC's") Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am convinced by above explanation and nomination statement. Notability has not been shown by the participants in this discussion. Historyexpert2 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a deletion worthy offense but the article also should have been declined at AFC for tone as well, it doesn't read like an encyclopaedia entry. Now for the real meat and potatoes, I am not seeing sources that meat [;)] the requirements for Notability as Alpha has explained above, emphasis on secondary. I tried looking his name up in conjunction with different movies that he worked on or even the models that he sells but I couldn't find anything. (Unfortunately?) As a species we usually value the person that put the design on paper more than the person that puts that same design into the real world and this seems to be a similar case. Moritoriko (talk) 00:10, 23 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]


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

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]

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) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of MuhammadRiyad, see investigation)[reply]
Maximum sources comes from unreliable sources and most likely from promotional website. For example these:[30][31][32][33][34] 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]
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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Bragg

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

No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources, only from church sources[36]. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Last Days (2025 film). Since no one has come up with appropriate sources, I'm closing in favour of the WP:ATD. asilvering (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Yang

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

Refs do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Radheshyam Bishnoi

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

I 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]

Comment Also found these sources on Google, [37], [38]. Afstromen (talk) 05:52, 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 [41], [42], [43].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]
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]
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]
  • Comment- Hi @Afstromen, I'm a bit confused about the AFD process. I have some questions. If the page was accepted from AFC, why didn't you wait for experienced reviewers to review it before nominating it for AFD? Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? Also, the page creator Jodhpuri uploaded a photo on Wikimedia Commons (1.68 MB) with the mention "Own work." I asked them about it here, but they haven't responded yet.- SachinSwami (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding sources, Bhaskar News has written against the wrongdoings of the Indian government, and even during IT raids on their office by the central government, they continued to raise their voice against such issues. We have seen this kind of journalism, but if a news article mentions the journalist's name, that source holds more weight; otherwise, the news lacks significant value. This is because promotional or social media information, or news created based on someone submitting a story to the office, often does not include the journalist's name. Hence, such sources are not reliable. Additionally, the Young Naturalist Award by Century Asia Group is a private award, not given by the Rajasthan government. SachinSwami (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean? Could you please be more specific?
    Well I accepted this draft because I believed it contained significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. However, user CNMAll14 added a notability tag and raised a concern regarding the nature of the sources, noting that most reliable sources were published only around the time of the subject’s death. Due to this, I nominated the article for deletion so that more experienced editors could provide their opinion. I agree that while the sources are reliable, and have significant coverage but sources were published around the death time, which raises questions about whether the subject meets Wikipedia’s general notability guideline.
    Before nominating for deletion, I confirmed that the article had previously been moved from mainspace to draft space. I accepted the draft based on multiple reliable sources but acknowledge my responsibility to address any oversights in evaluating the nature of the coverage.
    Additionally, I did not review the image when accepting the draft, which was an oversight on my part.
    If you review my AfC history, you will see that I take conflict of interest issues seriously and do not accept drafts when COI concerns are present. I also request COI disclosures as needed. Afstromen (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jodhpuri, Please answer here about your uploaded photo on Wikimedia commons. read Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest (COI) guideline, and disclose whether you have any COI.Afstromen (talk) 08:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    CNMall41 had also tagged the second page. Did you check the page you accepted? And did you bring it to AFD? The answer to that is "no."
    So, I have doubts about your review of the AfC history for that page. I created the page Nagamani Srinath, which was declined by Greenman and Gheus, with significant comments from them. Those comments were helpful for me to understand how to create pages properly in the future. I wanted to see what other important comments would come on that page. But suddenly, you accepted it, which was surprising to me. Later, when CNMall41 tagged the page for notability and unreliable sources, I checked some of the AfC pages you accepted and realized that, like me, you are also new to Wikipedia, so I ignored it. SachinSwami (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I still believe Nagamani Srinath is notable per WP:ANYBIO as she is a recipient of the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award. While I may not be a highly experienced editor, I am doing my best. Instead of making allegations, we should communicate with each other constructively and respectfully. But again Were you worried that if reviewers sent it back to Draft, it would be harder to bring it to Mainspace again? What does it mean?Afstromen (talk) 09:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also please See this. Afstromen (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with the tags placed by CNMall41 on the page. I also know that this page is notable, but receiving the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award and having sources for it is not sufficient under WP:ANYBIO. The person must have made significant contributions to their field, earning widespread recognition (e.g., in arts, science, literature, sports, politics, etc.). This requires confirmation of their contributions through reliable and independent secondary sources. Additionally, if a person is famous only for a single event (e.g., a viral video or a single news story), they do not qualify as notable under WP:ANYBIO unless their long-term contributions or impact are proven through sources (see WP:BLP1E).
    Also, I responded because you pinged me. I haven’t directly accused you of anything. Based on the photo added by Jodhpuri, I only mentioned that it “ I'm a bit confused" and asked about it while staying within WP:AfD rules. If my question has hurt your feelings, I apologize.-SachinSwami (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologise, but please take care of this. If you are unsure or confused about any of my actions, feel free to ask me anytime. However, I kindly request that no direct or indirect allegations should be made without reason.Afstromen (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    yes. this picture was captured by me. Jodhpuri (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is distracting from the notability discussion. As far as Nagamani Srinath, I went ahead and sent that to AfD here as I still have concerns and notability is not inherent simply for winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -The sources in it are not reliable, and the award is also not credible. Importantly, according to the comment above, the person who created the page has admitted to taking the photo themselves. There may also be a possibility of a conflict of interest (COI).- SachinSwami (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person who created the page may have a conflict of interest, and the subject is not notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draft as a WP:ATD. It is possible that sources before death exist and have just not been found. I would not rule out the opportunity to do so. BD2412 T 20:21, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there consensus for an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am extremely confused by the attitudes in this discussion towards obituaries. I think some participants may be confused about the distinction between death notices, which are typically short announcements or paid advertisements submitted by family members, and staff-written obituaries. A proper staff-written obituary in a reliable source is absolutely a GNG-qualifying source, and there is no requirement that we find coverage from prior to his death. See WP:Obituaries as sources. The obituaries in the Hindustan Times, ThePrint and The Indian Express are all bylined articles in reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject, and I do not see any reason why they would not count towards GNG. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to throw slight at voters in AfDs. Also, you are citing an essay, not a guideline or policy. Even if it were a guideline or policy, it still says "usually notable," not is notable. Fact of the matter is that someone worthy of notice (which is part of a guideline, not an essay) would be covered outside of the obituary. Sorry, but having press write about you around the same time to honor your life is not the same as the press writing about you for what you are accomplishing in life. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if you interpreted that as a slight, that was not my intention. You are correct that WP:Obituaries as sources is an essay, but what guideline or policy are you relying on for saying that obituaries are not GNG-qualifying sources? Obituaries are very frequently used as evidence of notability. In fact I would regard them as quite high-quality sources for biographies, since they provide a general overview of what someone has accomplished during their life rather than forcing us to piece things together from bits and pieces of coverage. I'm not seeing any policy basis for discounting obituaries as sources. MCE89 (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, the main notability guideline, and the discussions associated with that guideline. The fact there is nothing saying the "don't" establish notability does not mean they do. I don't need to prove a negative.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N says that someone is notable if they have been the subject of multiple pieces of significant coverage in sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. These obituaries appear to meet all of those criteria. I’m not asking you to prove a negative, I’m asking you why obituaries should be held to a different and higher standard. And the discussion you are citing is an informal talk page discussion from 16 years ago where several participants made exactly the same distinction I’m making here - a paid death notice in the classifieds section is not useful for establishing notability, but a staff-written obituary is. MCE89 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they were notable before their death, it would have been documented in significant coverage. It would be the same as if someone received a lot of press around a single event (see WP:ONEEVENT). An obituary is an indicator that the person is notable, but having several obituaries in reliable sources which are pretty much churnalism would not be considered significant coverage.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree and leave it there. I agree that obituary coverage can fall into WP:ONEEVENT territory when it’s focused on the manner or circumstances of death (which is why we have guidelines like WP:VICTIM), but retrospective coverage on someone’s life and accomplishments that happens to be published upon their death is in my view a perfectly good GNG-qualifying source as long as it otherwise meets the WP:SIRS criteria. We’d have a lot of historical biographies that would need to be deleted if there was actually a requirement to find SIGCOV from during the subject’s life. And I don’t really see why we would disqualify these articles as churnalism given that they are bylined articles in reliable sources. MCE89 (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I would disagree. There seems to be discussions with this disagreement as well but nothing showing consensus that they do. Sorry, but having sources published about your life at the time of your death may indicate notability, but if you were notable when you were alive there would already be coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point to any guideline or policy that explicitly states that independently written obituaries cannot count towards GNG like any other piece of independent SIGCOV? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have pointed to discussions on people disagreeing about it, just like we are here. I think a RSN discussion would be warranted and will open one in the next day. Would be good to get something for this and future AfDs. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if RSN is the right noticeboard for this? RSN is for reliability, not notablity. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Sometimes my fingers have a mind of their own when my brain is in a fog (as it was earlier). Thanks for pointing it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:26, 17 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. Star Mississippi 14:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kliff

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

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]

  • 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 [44] discusses Kliff's views on the ACA and give some background on her. This has a review [45] of a NYT article she wrote with a colleague. The Nieman Lab published this article [46] 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: [47], [48], [49]. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

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

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]

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

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

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]

  • 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 delete‎. Consensus is against retention given sourcing and BLP concerns. Star Mississippi 02:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Costas

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

This article 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]

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.
TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 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. TarnishedPathtalk 13:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, refer to WP:IBTIMES for the reliablity of International Business Times. TarnishedPathtalk 00:02, 2 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Kalabekov

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

This article 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]

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]
Delete, lacks independent coverage and looks to be blatant self-promotion (or perhaps paid promotion, which would be even worse). Ostalgia (talk) 09:40, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Nuristani

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

Fails GNG 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]

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

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

Fails GNG 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]

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]
  • 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 delete‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Heelaman

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

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]

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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhar Khanzada

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

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]

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

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

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]

* 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: [51] is a bunch of quotes from one guy and [52] is just a short event announcement, not an actual book review. The Jerusalem Post article [53] 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:
    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.

Captain Mayuran (Saba)

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

A bodyguard that lacks notability per Wikipedia:Notability (people). ÆthelflædofMercia (talk) 02:12, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thomasfan1916 (talk) 14:57, 15 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 12:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. 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]

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]
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. 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]

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]
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Khairul Basar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG 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]

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]

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]

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]
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]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG 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]

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]
@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]
  1. ^ "Kolkata gets its own Da Vinci Code version with Charnock fiction". The Times of India. 12 March 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  2. ^ "If Only Job Charnock Knew!". The Daily Star. 28 May 2017. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  3. ^ a b "Actor Soumitra Chatterjee launches Victor Kalyan Ghoshe's latest novel". Indiablooms. 22 Mar 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  4. ^ "Shirshendu Mukhopadhyay launches author Victor Ghosh's latest book Paranormal 2". The Telegraph. 11 Jun 2023. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  5. ^ "The Job Charnock Riddle is written as a visual treat: Victor Ghoshe". Trans World Features. 22 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  6. ^ "Tomb of God". Kerala State Central Library catalogue. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
  7. ^ "Tomb of God". Waterstones. Retrieved 24 May 2025.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Elvish Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

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

Subject 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. —tonyst (talk) 18:41, 22 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Draftification was discussed, but there does not seem to be consensus for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG 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]

  • 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

  1. ^ "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.
  2. ^ "Young Stunners' new Album Rebirth is a must listen". Samaa TV.
  3. ^ "Open Letter - Talha Anjum [Album Review]".
  4. ^ "Open Letter Talha Anjum's album blend of hip-hop and Urdu poetry".
  5. ^ "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. [55]. 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]
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 Delete: 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 deleting the article to take care of these issues would be beneficial in strengthening arguments for keep is the appropriate action to take. 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]
@ToadetteEdit, @Edard Socceryg I would like to make a request to you that we draftify this article. I hope we will find out more reliable references in Future. Behappyyar (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to draftification if you agree. But the draft should be submitted via AfC and should not be moved back to mainspace. But U have a concern about the long-term notability of this subject, which is why I think draftification is not ideal. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I understand your concern regarding long-term notability. Personally, I don’t have any issue with draftification as long as it goes through AfC and isn’t moved back to mainspace without proper review. Behappyyar (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AfC would definitely be advisable for this article. In fact, a complete non-AI written and sourced article would be much better, provided notability can be proven. My support goes to taking the article out of mainspace (for now) either way. 11WB (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you support. I will definitely work on it in draft space. Behappyyar (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that leaves it up to a single AfC reviewer (who I am one of) to decide the notability of a page that is already at deletion discussion. You are more than welcome to copy this to draft space but I would object to draftification as it would simply be recreated and we will be right back here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit of research regarding the AI side of this. I understand this would not be the place to discuss my thoughts on that, so I will instead simply change my vote to match TE and Edard. I no longer believe returning the article to draft is appropriate. 11WB (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe draftification could allow space for improvement, especially if future sourcing strengthens notability. It avoids immediate deletion while keeping quality in check. Please reconsider your decision. Behappyyar (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the editors who !voted delete are okay with moving it to draft — especially you, as the nominator — then I don’t see any issue in doing so. Behappyyar (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Again, if it is moved to draft, it can wind right back in the mainspace and we would need another long discussion at AfD. Once deleted, it becomes eligible for speedy if moved back. So, the proper decision I feel would be deleted. You are free to copy the information over the draft space, but I feel the discussion here needs to be decided so we don't wind up here again next month. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I will not bring it to back to the main space by simply moving. I will follow the entire process and submit through AFC. Behappyyar (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again (please focus on what I am saying), you are more than welcome to copy a version of this to draft space where you can work on it. It's easy and accomplishes your goal. You are more than welcome to submit that draft to AfC. If the result here is draftify, it can be moved back by anyone, including an AfC reviewer (a single person) in circumvention of a deletion discussion. It is a waste of everyone's time here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CNMall41. My personal reason for switching my vote relates to the AI/LLM presence in the article, as I detailed from my initial observations on the 7th June. 11WB (talk) 19:08, 13 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Ghorbani

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

Fails WP:GNG 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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Junker

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

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]

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. FlipandFlopped 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is the second AFD for this article subject in one month. Let's not see it recreated and back on AFD in a couple of weeks. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chee

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

Still fails WP:GNG as refs don't pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 20 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]
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]
 No WP:COI. No Yes Primary src. ✘ No
Co-authored by the subject [3,5,12,14,16,23-26]
 No No Primary sources; vanity press, etc ✘ No
[7,10]
 No Interview/blogs No WP:SPS Yes About the subject ✘ No
[15]
 No Written by the subject No No Not about the subject. ✘ No
[6]
 No Likely self-submitted (WP:ABOUTSELF). No Not a reliable, third-party source. Yes ✘ No
[2, 8, 9, 10] Promotional ranking & marketing or services sites
 No Promotional in nature. No No ✘ No
[1] and other Thinkers50 lists.
 Yes Yes Thinkers50 is a reputable organization. No Just a name on a list ✘ No
[4, 19] (Forbes, PGA articles) etc.
 ~ No Failed WP:V No 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. requested sourcing did not eventuate Star Mississippi 16:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaoul Sassoon

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

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]

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 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]
Yet, this shouldn't get resolved by whom someone likes (whether the subject or Saddam), or by whom we dislike. We regularly delete bios of wonderful people and keep these of villains, value free. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last chance for the keep !voters to provide sources in support of their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 12 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

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

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]

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

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

More reliable sources needed, violates WP:RS unless proven then i will withdraw nomination. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:30, 18 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]
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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doar family

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

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]

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

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

Subject 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]

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

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]

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:
  1. Global Digital Influence: Ranked by Dexerto as the 12th-largest Kick streamer worldwide and Africa’s #1.
  2. 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:
  1. The most watched streaming gamer of the first quarter of 2023 (surpassing IShowSpeed), Dexerto & SVG.
  2. 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.
  3. 12th biggest streamer worldwide, Dexerto.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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)

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

This article has 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]

  • 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)

Kane County John Doe (1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: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]

Delete per nom, crime does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:15, 16 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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:
Alinur Velidedeoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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]
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]
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=1294142056"