Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

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

If possible, please use one of these instead:

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

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

People

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

The result was delete. There was consensus to delete because the article is built from social media posts, other primary sources, and user-generated content, and no secondary coverage was found to establish notability. Draftification was proposed by one editor as a possible alternative, but the article as written contains comments on the potential "infamy" and speculation about the personal life of a living person, which would also be inappropriate in draft space, per WP:BLP. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChairThatSpins

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

Entirely unsourced (aside from many external links to Macinanti's social media posts) BLP, no evidence that this meets WP:NBLP. ZLEA ^TǀC 05:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZLEA ^TǀC 05:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little confused on what exactly you're saying isn't backed up.

First section of the article: Besides some slightly vague wording which I'll give you credit on, none of it is downright non-factual. You can check the linked channel for the first upload date, for the video and the reply from Mike Desjardins, you can check the linked video's replies as the comment is even pinned, same with the view count and release date. There's no argument against Mike Desjardins being the developer, as his Twitter account has been confirmed by themeatly, who on his account has posts dating all the way back to 2014. And the YouTube channel that replied to mikes video, has been linked by said twitter account.

So, for the next section regarding the interview:

It's linked, and you can very clearly see Adrienne Kress in it, and there's also no discussion about whether she worked on the books as she has multiple credits for the books as seen in the linked post for Bendy Books. Again, same with the amount of views. The only thing here that's really disputable is him being infamous in the community, but considering the fact he has multiple shirts (with these being posted by the @Bendy twitter account, and literally sold BY joey drew studios) it's not much of a discussion.

And as for the last one in regards to B:SOTM, the video linked there does show the chair in the update, and the chat shows it was a live stream when this was recorded if you look at the footage. There's no easy way to verify this besides video footage, unless you want to pull up the SteamDB version from around 5am on 4/14/2024 (which if you really want, I can do to prove.) but yeah.

Again, as for the shirts being listed at the end there; those link directly to @Bendy, not his own personal tweets. Which, if there's any source of information that I think matters- it's probably the developers themselves.

I do agree I think this needs to be stated better- I'll work on adjusting the page to be better informed in that regard, but I think it's not misleading and does show enough evidence, but maybe not in the best way. If you think any of this is wrong/inaccurate, please do point out specific details or anything I've listed here. Hoping this can be resolved, thanks.

OmotamiaDev OmotamiaDev (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Made a mistake: meant to say "you can check the linked video's replies as the comment is even pinned, same with the view count and release date. There's no argument against Mike Desjardins being the developer, and as his Twitter account has been confirmed by theMeatly, who on his account has posts dating all the way back to 2014. And the YouTube channel that replied to Joe's video, has been linked by said twitter account in a circle that confirms validity." OmotamiaDev (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Shazback noted below, user-generated content such as social media posts and YouTube videos are generally unreliable. It doesn't matter if none of it is downright non-factual, as Wikipedia's content is based on verifiability, not truth. We also have notability guidelines that help us determine if a topic should have its own article. Most importantly, a topic is generally notable enough for its own article if it has received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources independent of said subject.

On a side note, I noticed that you have declared a conflict of interest with ChairThatSpins on your userpage. Users with conflicts of interest with certain topics are usually discouraged from creating or editing articles on said topics, and are instead encouraged to make edit and article requests to ensure the outcome is neutral. - ZLEA ^TǀC 07:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: possibly Draftify as a WP:ATD, but as is this page has numerous issues, chief of which is WP:N. To the article creator, I would suggest 1) reviewing H:FIRST and in particular identifying what are the WP:THREE articles from WP:INDEPENDENT sources that establish the article subject's notoriety as per Wikipedia's WP:GNG; 2) creating this article in draftspace and asking for a reviewer to help you assess if it is ready to be published. Note that social media and user-generated content (Twitter/X, Youtube, other wikis, twitch...) are generally not considered reliable to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; links to user-created content are not references and don't establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any valid sources. JSFarman (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails the most basic standards of a BLP article to otherwise keep. Go D. Usopp (talk) 05:42, 3 November 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 per A7 by BusterD. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Munday

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

no significant coverage in RS (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
bullshit 385052g3 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC) — 385052g3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Radio, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Podcaster Max Munday deserves a Wikipedia page, due to his high profile podcast, youtube channel, blog, and contributions to Radio Today, as well as radio stints. Maxico2010 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Maxico2010 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete a 15 year old who got 7th in a school swimming championships and does a bit of media. Fails WP:BIO. Possible WP:COI concerns too. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Maxico2010 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Almost certainly self-promotion, clearly fails GNG. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't see it immediately but Maxico2010 does identify themselves as Munday on their userpage. This is straightforward self-promotion and could probably have been dealt with via CSD A7. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG by any measure. Niafied (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant autobiography 2003 LN 6 05:31, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total notablity fail. Speedy is warranted. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, per 5225C. Article creator is on an express train to getting blocked for WP:NOTHERE self-promotion. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- And, potentially, sockpuppetry... 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:20, 30 October 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!} 01:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Russello

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

WP:GNG – Unable to find significant coverage of the subject after a search. There's a few passing mentions in local news sources, but I was unable to come up with multiple in-depth sources. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 01:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Michigan. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 01:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Visual arts. jolielover♥talk 02:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic doesn't meet the notability as it is hard to find any reliable coverage about the subject! MichealKal (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She does good local things, [1], but that's not quite enough to show notability in Wiki. I can only see two articles about this person anyway. Not enough to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL. Fails notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG or to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me when references containing significant coverage are found. Fade258 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one possibly unreliable citation is not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you find and add three better sources. Bearian (talk) 06:35, 31 October 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.

Chioma Goodhair

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

I am nominating this article for deletion under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The subject lacks significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Most references are interviews, promotional mentions, or event coverage, and do not demonstrate enduring encyclopedic notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammirex99 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 20:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- a casual search online does return multiple coverage, but not fully satisfied regards RS SIGCOV, possible ATD would be to redirect to The Real Housewives of Lagos, where the subject is already mentioned.Lorraine Crane (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Katz (chef)

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

non-notable, advert, no coverage in reliable sources about Katz. Polygnotus (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 18:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any coverage about him, mostly confirmation of where he's worked. This reads like a resume. The food writer could be notable, but besides columns he's written, there isn't much. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note The article is tagged as potential UPE. I can affirm that it is paid editing, and that the paid editing was declared, but that declaration was lost in a deletion. The paid editor was Anya Rubstein. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Tag removed. Polygnotus (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 5 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 15:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aniket Ujjwal Nikam

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

Indian lawyer, also spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party. Son of a public prosecutor and member of parliament. Not inherently notable, not elected to office, notability is not inherited. Coverage is passing mentions as a lawyer in the routine legal cases he has been involved in. So quite unequivocally fails WP:GNG; WP:NPOL. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Law, India, and Maharashtra. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — routine mentions as a lawyer, nothing biographical or significant. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
information and news sources shown this information is correct so i request you keep this page RefreshNatureIQ (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NPOL. Svartner (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage and does not meet other criteria as the nominator stated. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:34, 30 October 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 Aleksandr Melnik#Career. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Melnik

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

Insufficient significant coverage to warrant an article. Only source listed is a very barebones list with a single credit, while virtually no other coverage on this person is available online. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, and Russia. Go D. Usopp (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Only one non independent filmography database cited no significant coverage establishing notability. Insufficient sourcing for a living person per WP:BLP. Thilio^{R O B O T🤖 talk} 13:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aleksandr_Melnik#Career: his father- Anton is mentioned there; per WP:ATD-R, a section in the page explaining Wikipedia's deletion policy that states: "A page can be blanked and redirected if there is a suitable page to redirect to, and if the resulting redirect is not inappropriate".

-PS-WP:NFILM is for films, the applicable specific guideline here would rather be WP:PRODUCER- e.ux 22:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. e.ux 00:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PRODUCER 3. Melnik's work was also recognized with the prestigious Nika Award.--Тихонова Пустынь (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says so but the 3 sources do not confirm it, though. Did he receive that award personally? e.ux 09:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aleksandr_Melnik#Career. As I understand, he didn't receive the prize. It was Mongol that won, and he was part of the team. News media are just wrong about it. I am not sure how WP:PRODUCER works, but in three out of five films he wasn't the sole producer, and in two of them the films were directed by his father. The two remaining, Mayak and The Northern Sea Route, or the Russian Road in the Ocean are not enough. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:38, 31 October 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.

Daniel Farkas

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

Not the production manager of Dune, this Daniel Farkas fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. Not notable as a businessperson, no enduring impact or coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Romania, and Chile. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned in multiple reliable, secondary sources as an important businessman in the development of iron mining in Chile. He is also one of the main characters in the chapter "Húngaros en la industria minera de Chile" in the book Encuentros Europa-Iberoamérica en un mundo globalizado published in Budapest. Daniel Farkas is also repeatedly mentioned in sopurces as a link between the booming iron mining of the 1950s and 1960s and the more recent mining entrepeneurship of his son Leonardo Farkas. Ingminatacam (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems like a promotional cruzade. Also delete Hacienda Atacama and other creations by Ingminatacam, obvious COI. --Bedivere (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) EmilyR34 (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sándor Krebs

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

Hungarian sports shooter, competed at two Olympics, was not a medallist. Therefore fails WP:NSPORT. This is confirmed by the second link in the references, the first is broken. The remaining three are paywalled and not verifiable in any case. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Hungary. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would be glad to I would try to see if someone who speak Hungarian and have access to offline archives can find. The notability of pre-internet era is quite hard to establish. Mag2k

(talk) 10:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before changing my opinion to Keep with enough evidences in Hungarian supporting notability. Mag2k (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:01, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the sources that I've already added into the article, the athlete clearly meets WP:GNG. The first article contains more than 400 words of coverage on him; the second article contains around 118 words of coverage on him; the third article contains 76 words of coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hungary at the 1956 Summer Olympics#Shooting, where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG due to limited SIGCOV. The coverage in two of the three sources listed by Aviationwikiflight are minimal based on having only ~100 words of coverage (I can not access them due to a paywall, so further analysis beyond word count would be appreciated). Mr. Krebs also competed in the 1960 Olympics, so a hatnote can be added to point to his participation in those games. A redirect to Hungary at the 1960 Summer Olympics#Shooting with a hatnote pointing to 1956 is fine too, but my preference is to redirect to 1956 since he competed in multiple events. Having multiple suitable redirect targets is not a valid reason to choose neither and delete anyway. Frank Anchor 13:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source contains 400 words of coverage as the article is entirely about him. Linking all the text would probably fall afoul of WP:COPYVIO.

Second source:

A fegyverés nyomszakértői csoport vezetőjének nevét országhatárainkon túl is ismerika sportlövő berkekben.Krebs Sándor alezredesötvenszer nyert magyarbajnokságot 1950 és 1957 között a kisésnagyöbű sportpuskaversenyeken. Ott volt amelbournei és a rómaiolimpián, több Európa-és világbajnokságon. 1953. január 7-én kerültjelenlegi beosztásába,munkatársa Hegyi István hadnagy. A lőfegyverek és lőszerek, valamint a lövések soránkeletkezett nyomokszakértői vizsgálata afeladatuk, ami — hanem is mindig — sokszor együtt jár a helyszíni szemléken, nyomozási kísérleteken és abírósági tárgyalásokonvaló részvételükkel.

Third source:

Az Újpesti Dózsa olimpikon sportlövője. Az UTE sportlövő szakosztályának vezetőségi tagja két olimpián képviselte a magyar színeket. Az 1956-os ötkarikás játékokon a kisöbű puska fekvő számban a hatodik, további két számban a 9. és 10. helyen végzett. Rómában nagyöbű puskával az összetett számban a 8. helyen zárta a versenyt. Sokszoros magyar bajnok. Az Óbudai temető szóróparcellájában vettek végső búcsút tőle.
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing. The two references posted appear to be more WP:ROUTINE coverage, which would be expected for articles of that size. Even if the remaining, larger, source is GNG-appropriate, one such reference is not enough to get past the GNG threshold, so my !vote remains at redirect. Frank Anchor 13:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references provided by Aviationwikiflight meet GNG. I think it is a stretch to suggest the obituary (third source) is just routine coverage (especially in combination with the verfiable coverage of him being a 2x Olympian). --Enos733 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I would consider to be more routine coverage (notice of the subject finishing n 8th place in the 1960 Olympics) https://library.hungaricana.hu/hu/view/SomogyMegyeiHirlap_1960_09/?pg=27&layout=s (top left article, result is found in third column). - Enos733 (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the main source found is clearly SIGCOV, and the others are arguably SIGCOV as well: I disagree with describing a ~100 word obituary of the subject as "ROUTINE", a part of the notability guideline for events. He seems to have been a prominent weapons expert after his career and received some coverage for that as well, such as this / this. He also has a 600-word entry in Who's who in Hungarian sports life, although it's mostly a massive listing of his sports results. There's certainly enough for a high-quality article here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources above, passes in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Aviationwikiflight and BeanieFan11. There is enough for an article beyond one shot at the Olympics (pardon the pun). Bearian (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable sports shooter and per user:Bearian. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NSPORT criteria.BabbaQ (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw We're clearly shooting in the SNOW here... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:18, 4 November 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.

Ellie Costello

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

I have taken the liberty of searching for available sources on this individual, but could only find a limited number of mostly questionable sources that don't go much beyond quick biographies. In my view, there isn't enough to warrant an article under WP:NBIO at this time.

The WP:PRIMARY source used in this article from GB News is unfortunately also not reliable per WP:GBNEWS. WP:METRO is also not reliable. I welcome any participants who wish to find any more sources, but unfortunately I don't think there is enough. Delete. 11WB (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ellie Costello is a British journalist and presenter at GB News, and she has some independent media coverage in major news outlets such as ITV News, The Standard Originalflavors (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. 11WB (talk) 05:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are unfortunately not enough to satisfy a WP:BLP article. The ITV News one is about something that has no relevance to the article. The Standard is another of the same report of the wedding which is already present in the article, and only scrapes by on reliability per WP:THESTANDARD. 11WB (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have a decent amount of coverage from a search. Passes, but not by much. ←Metallurgist (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I close this as speedy keep? No point this being open for the full week if it's been determined the minimal coverage she has is enough to pass. 11WB (talk) 01:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11WB, you can close as speedy keep if no one has argued for delete. But if you still disagree, you should keep it open. -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I only ask out of respect, as I've missed the mark with recent BLP/biographical AfD nominations. 11WB (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have to be careful with the amount I say in this AfD now, as I realise it can look like bludgeoning. That isn't my intention. I wanted to note that the only source I can find confirming the birthdate is this. This is very likely an AI prompt article. Just something to consider. 11WB (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete dearth of WP:PERSISTENT or SIGCOV in reliable sources. GBNews is neither an independent nor a secondary source; there's no coverage of the subject or their work elsewhere, and sourcing requirements for a BLP (WP:BLPSOURCES) are far higher than any other article; the necessary sourcing is not demonstrated here. ANYBIO is not passed: The subject has not received a well-known and significant award or honor, been nominated for such an award several times, made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field and does not have an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. —Fortuna, imperatrix 08:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see enough in RS; what's in the article is primary (her employer) or in non-RS. Getting married is fine, but we need more than that for notability. The only RS I could find was about a stalking incident [2], which I'm not sure is quite enough for notability either. Lots of coverage in non-RS [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, there isn't enough to satisfy WP:NBIO at this time. The few WP:RS sources that I found cover events in the subject's life such as the stalking and her wedding. Unfortunately, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV of her career to warrant a standalone article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 5 November 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David B. Pakman

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (people) this article requires citations to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." An examination of this article, as well as the corresponding COI discussion, would indicate that this does not meet that standard. Recommend deletion. Volcom95 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Volcom95 (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets the criteria of WP:Notability (people) through multiple, reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage.

Independent secondary sources include:

• TechCrunch – “CoinFund’s David Pakman on how the bear market built stronger crypto companies” (2023).

• Bloomberg – Interview/profile on CoinFund’s venture investments (2021).

• The Wall Street Journal – Coverage of Venrock’s investment strategy including Pakman’s role in Dollar Shave Club (2015).

• The Information – “CoinFund Managing Partner David Pakman on tokenized assets” (2024).

• Internet History Podcast – Full interview with Pakman on his career at Apple and eMusic (Brian McCullough, 2017).

• U.S. Congressional Record – Testimony by David Pakman regarding internet music licensing (112th Congress).

These references demonstrate substantial, independent, and reliable coverage of Pakman’s professional career and public activities, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

The article can continue to be improved with additional citations and formatting, but deletion is not warranted as the subject’s notability is well established. CLPRjjrko (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think the article meets WP:Notability (people). There are several strong, independent and reliable sources that cover David B. Pakman and his work in venture capital and crypto investing.

Bloomberg ran a piece in 2018 (“Venture firm with Rockefeller roots turns to crypto startups”) that quotes Pakman and highlights his leadership at Venrock as it began backing blockchain projects.

Axios reported on his move from Venrock to CoinFund in “David Pakman leaves Venrock for CoinFund” (2021), which clearly shows his notability in the VC world.

Fortune has featured him more than once — in 2018 (“Crypto VC: Venrock & CoinFund”) and again in 2022 (“A crypto VC on why the space is ripe for insider rounds”) — both articles focus on Pakman’s perspective and investment approach in crypto.

These are well-known, independent business publications that provide significant coverage of Pakman himself, not just passing mentions. The subject is clearly notable in the venture and crypto sectors, and the article can be improved with more citations and formatting, but it doesn’t merit deletion. ~~~~ CLPRjjrko (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your input here. I noticed that your account was only recently created and is exclusively populated by edits to the article in question here. If you have a COI, I strongly urge you to disclose it at this time. If you are an employee of Cryptoland PR or a member of their management team, please let us know about any paid interest you may have in keeping this article in the Wikipedia mainspace. Volcom95 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe he is notable for his role in founding apple music and he is cited as such. He also has coverage about his career in notable publications, WSJ, CBS News, and other coverage as subject matter expert. I added a number of sources and cut the puffery/PR after the comment on the talk page. Jumplike23 (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and the person is notable enough that more sources than what are on the page almost certainly exist. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does not appear to be the usual promo in this space and also meets WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is widely known for starting Apple music which meets WP:GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 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 14:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M31 Movement

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

I'm not even sure what this page is about. It uses {{Infobox military conflict}} but seems to be more about a person? A search for "M31 Movement" on google gave me nothing but watch parts. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete pernom. Mag2k (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't appear to be any RS coverage. Intothat darkness 13:49, 3 November 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. This is a marginal case, but the general view is the article can be improved, and that is preferable over deleting outright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Armstrong (astronomer)

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

Non-notable amateur astronomer, sourced only to a database and a meeting report that barely mentions his name. Of the two deadlink extlinks only one provides any depth of coverage and is of unclear reliability. Being a minor planet discoverer is not itself a criterion for notability; we need depth of sourcing or significant scholarly impact. Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 23:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. e.ux 00:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has discovered 70 supernovae..... https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JBAA..113R.248H/abstract, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-0-387-46269-1.pdf. Does meet WP:PROF "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable source"... through criterion SNC1b " made a significant discovery"..... e.ux 00:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument to WP:PROF#C1, for which "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" does not refer to the number of discoveries, but their impact, as usually measured by citations from the scholarly literature. But I can only find one well-cited paper coauthored by him, "The Rise Time of Nearby Type Ia Supernovae", in which he is in a middle position among 11 authors. That's far from enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's #C1a -highly cited academic work-, I am basing my !vote on C1b.

He migh also be considered a Wikipedia:GNG pass anyway: https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000JAVSO..29...49H http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3112508.stm Discovered the first ever supernova found from the UK (https://britastro.org/vss/Novae_Supernovae_hurst_Clanfield_20100313.pdf) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-0639-5_10" describing him as a leading supernova discoverer. e.ux 02:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C1b: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline."

Note the singular: C1b is passed by a discovery that is deemed to be significant or major. Making many minor and routine discoveries (supernovae happen all the time) is far from the sort of thing this covers. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep: I'm inclined to agree with Eva UX. We have some good impact there, although I'd like to see a bit more still to be sure. Renerpho (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep: The article needs additional work, but there is enough to establish notability. Mag2k (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've copied the content to User:Urhixidur/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers so that it's not lost regardless of the decision. Urhixidur (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Urhixidur: You may be interested in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planet discoverers that is ongoing right now (we are currently working on a replacement here: User:Renerpho/List of minor planet discoverers). Renerpho (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you create that, its a potential redirect. ←Metallurgist (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article needs a little work, but the subject passes notability criteria. Off the topic comment: instead of academics/scientists/professor, we should tighten the criteria for athletes, beauty pageant contestants, and actors. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article should be expanded, but per Eva UX appears to at least be notable enough. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One would think this passes, but I dont see any sources at all. The few above have only passing mentions, nothing focused on him. And when I search Mark Armstrong astronomer, all I get is Neil's son, who doesnt have an article himself (and maybe should). There is literally nothing to build this on, which is why it has two useless sources and barely anything for an article in nearly twenty years. ←Metallurgist (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wanted to lean keep but on further inspection the most notable Mark Armstrong is Neil Armstrong's son. I can't find any sources for Mark Armstrong the astronomer. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1b for the reasons identified by Eva UX.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — echoing Eva UX, this passes WP:PROF#C1b on the basis they noted. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:00, 3 November 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 Višnjan Observatory. (non-admin closure) Z E T A³ 18:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanja Brčić

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

Non-notable amateur astronomer, sourced only to a database and a deadlink user-generated wiki. Tagged as expand from German but while the German version has more sources, none of them are of any higher quality. An earlier prod did not lead to improvement. Passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Astronomy, and Croatia. e.ux 23:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is mentioned on page 918 in the Istrian Encyclopedia and is mentioned in this encyclopedia entry on the Višnjan Observatory. ~~If we had an article~~ We have an article on the Višnjan Observatory, so I would say merge/redirect there.4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have one,@4meter4, see my comment below. e.ux 00:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't realize; I modified my comment.4meter4 (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Višnjan Observatory: as the Istrian Encyclopedia notes his role in the automation of that observatory (among other sources)-https://istra.lzmk.hr/clanak/zvjezdarnica-visnjan e.ux 00:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per the previous. I don't know why Višnjan Observatory wasn't linked from Vanja's article but this seems to be an obvious solution. Renerpho (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per other comments. Mag2k (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Višnjan Observatory seems to be the best WP:ATD. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mergre with Višnjan Observatory Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 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!} 23:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Sharma (youtuber)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete :Fails to meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the specific notability criteria for online video creators (WP:YOUTUBER). The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most of the cited references appear to be routine mentions or press-release-type articles rather than in-depth coverage.

The article focuses mainly on his video content rather than establishing independent notability. Routine reporting about viral videos or content experiments does not satisfy encyclopedic standards. For comparison, see CarryMinati, whose article demonstrates substantial, reliable, and sustained media coverage meeting Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria. Simply having viral or popular videos is not sufficient to merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Bech07 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Science, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete pernom, as missing WP:GNG and WP:YOUTUBER. Mag2k (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails per WP:YOUTUBER. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. LexyNight (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Larson

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

This person doesn't meet WP:GNG for Athletes or WP:SPORTCRIT. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and American football. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SPORTCRIT x2step (lets talk 💌) 18:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would a podcast like this be a good source? NotJamestack (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [4][5][6] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of current NAIA football coaches
Subject meets WP:GN as a current college head coach listed at List of current NAIA football coaches. He is also associated with Concordia University Irvine. If not kept, a redirect to List of current NAIA football coaches would be appropriate. Bech07 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG per the sources shown above which save the article. NotJamestack (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by WikiOriginal9. Non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources- this passes. Jordano^5³ 20:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue by WikiOriginal9. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SPORTSBASIC per the sources above.4meter4 (talk) 06:55, 4 November 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.

Veer Bhai Kotwal

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

This article have no source from long time. Ishwarsinh Kotwal (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Biology, India, and Maharashtra. Ishwarsinh Kotwal (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scattered mentions in Gbooks, but not enough for notability. Probably more in the native language. As it is, not enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. @Oaktree b: Did you search without the honorific title "Veer"? He's most commonly known as "Bhai Kotwal" without the Veer or Vir (which is a Hindi title given to honor heroes). If you search for that there are tons of hits in google books with snippet views of promise. Note that there are buildings and schools, a road, etc. named after him in India. There was also a 2020 film about his life. He's clearly a well known figure. I might suggest removing the Veer from the title because it literally means/denotes "hero".4meter4 (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try a search without Veer, thanks for the info. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be honest, not much more comes up [7] has about a paragraph mentioning him. The entire Gscholar search [8] is about a dozen items... I don't see substantial coverage. I would assume most sources aren't in English, but that's about all I can search for. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no doubt that the guy is notable, but the article isn't sourced, and I don't find much of anything... It's still a !delete for me. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Revolutionary movement for Indian independence#Kotwal Dasta – Where he is mentionted. Svartner (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Have to agree with lack of SIGCOV sources from casual online searching, though I suspect could just be language barrier, like more sources in the subjects native language, the alternative wiki of this sane page, does have additional citations in at least one of them, also found this online with the subject being commemorated with a stamp in the image of him.Lorraine Crane (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator appears to have been blocked as a sockpuppet. Zalaraz (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eno Jerry

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

Subject literally fails all notability guidelines I could test; not anywhere near WP:NAUTHOR, not close to WP:GNG either, as a cursory search did not reveal anything useful. Nothing close to WP:ANYBIO as well. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best is probably source 5, but I don't see how a human resource degree is notable for a pastor... This is Nigerian PROMO. Like so many others we see, nothing notable... Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the sources are about the subject - they are all by her, or about her husband. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails general notability guidelines of Wikipedia and the sources are either promotional or generally unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Heretoforeyou (talk) 03:51, 31 October 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 23:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Beltran

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Article relies on self-published profiles and routine listings. Per WP:BEFORE I also didnt find anything LvivLark (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. LvivLark (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a poorly sourced about about a BLP. I don't see any assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG as he has received in-depth media coverage as an author and academic: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Calkhoven (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His books are self-published, the highest level of cite on Scholar is 9 citations. While H-index isn't perfect, his is "2" which is very low. He doesn't meet WP:GNG nor NACADEMIC. Lamona (talk) 17:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO, as it relies mainly on self-promotional and primary sources such as the subject’s own website and event listings, with no significant independent coverage from reliable media or academic outlets. The tone and sourcing indicate promotional intent, focusing on marketing claims rather than verifiable achievements. Without substantial, independent secondary sources demonstrating lasting significance, the article fails notability and neutrality standards and should therefore be deleted. Herinalian (talk) 20:55, 2 November 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.

Jack Clark (AI policy expert)

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

We have interviews, biography listings, trivial mentions, podcasts, self-published blogs, a few more interviews and routine coverage generated from his controversial tweets between October 17-19, 2025. The only substantial coverage is from an article on Entrepreneur.com, which appears to be an undisclosed paid piece, as there are no other articles from the bylined journalist and nothing on Alistair Barr’s LinkedIn profile indicates any association with Entrepreneur.com. Subject lacks reliable sources that are independent to justify a standalone article and should therefore be merged or redirected to Anthropic as an ATD-R. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Journalism, Europe, and United Kingdom. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, the article should be renamed, since "expert" is POV. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"AI policy expert" is indeed not ideal. Do you have an alternative to suggest? Maybe just "AI policy", although it's more of a topic than a professional role. Alenoach (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"AI strategist"? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the Entrepreneur.com article is undisclosed sponsored content. It was originally published on Business Insider ("This article originally appeared on Business Insider"), where Alistair Barr works. The Business Insider source is just less convenient because it is paywalled. Barr is a former editor of Clark, but Business Insider would indicate if the article were sponsored. Secondary, independent, reliable sources centered on Jack Clark include the article from The Wall Street Journal the one from AP News, and this one from Axios. I only listed here those from prominent newspapers.

The only part that could fit in the article on Anthropic is the last paragraph, with the content related to David Sacks, the rest is too specific to Clark. A merge would result in deleting most of the article, so I believe it's more of a keep or delete decision. Alenoach (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Clark told Axios, AP News or WSJ about Anthropic is irrelevant when trying to establish Jack Clark’s own notability, because notability isn’t inherited. The Business Insider article clearly states that Alistair Barr and Jack Clark worked together in the past, which raises concerns about its independence as well. Also noting that most of the sources cited in the article and this AfD are related to Anthropic, so you’re not actually losing out on much content if the consensus to merge is reached. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 'inheritance' of notability if Anthropic is a major player (which it is) and Clark was a significant founder.

Keep I find the nomination unconvincing and clutching at straws, having already decided the outcome. Clark is one of the major voices in UK AI direction (and notably contrasting to most of the US techbro viewpoints). We should have this article, the clear demonstration of that is a job for editors to do some encyclopedic journalism here, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a classic case of "inherited" notability, actually. If he's only known for co-founding one company, then he's only really known for one event. Do the other things actually have significant coverage? "Clark maintains a newsletter" and "Clark gave a briefing" sound like run-of-the-mill activities for the chattering class. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artificial intelligence-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the Business Insider article, I had difficulty finding reliable, independent secondary sources that are about Jack Clark himself and not just something he said at one point, etc. Enervation (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with the Business Insider article I see APNEWS and Remio. Adding to that, he has articles on G-Scholar that have significant cites, including one that has over 50K. There are a number of interviews - which, while they do not confer notability they do indicate that he is worth interviewing. Lamona (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the title, I suggest "Jack Clark, AI developer". Lamona (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed earlier, what Clark says about his company is irrelevant in establishing his notability. Remio isn’t a reliable news publisher and the paper/book with 50k citations lists 30 other authors, with the main ones being: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (NeurIPS 2020) — Edited by H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin. Also the citations are irrelevant here since he is not being evaluated under WP:NPROF and your keep vote isn’t based on any policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people who are not academics do research and publish, and I see no reason to exclude his publications in this analysis. (I've also found some book chapters that I'll try to add to the article.) That one article is an outlier(1), but there are others. Also the BI and APNEWS are not him talking about his company, they are others writing about him. I do agree that Remio is a "trade publication" and not a source of notability. We should add his government commission positions to the article. This still leaves us with two good sources - and that is a policy: wp:gng.

(1) The number of "authors" on research publications varies greatly by field. In areas like biology I've seen >100 names on an article because they include everyone involved in the research, which can involve research labs in multiple countries. So I think we should withhold judgment about the importance of the number of authors unless we have information about the context of the publication. Lamona (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have accessed the paper first. It says: Jack Clark led the analysis of ethical impacts — fairness and representation, human assessments of the model, and broader impacts analysis, and advised Gretchen, Amanda, Girish, Sandhini, and Ariel on their work. Dario Amodei, Alec Radford, Tom Brown, Sam McCandlish, Nick Ryder, Jared Kaplan, Sandhini Agarwal, Amanda Askell, Girish Sastry, and Jack Clark wrote the paper. It sounds like he had a solid involvement. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article reads like a self-promotional resume/CV padded with routine coverage and recycled press mentions. It fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO by a wide margin. Nearly every citation either quotes Clark as a spokesperson for Anthropic or republishes his own statements from Import AI. That is not independent, significant coverage, it is media repetition of a company mouthpiece. The few “secondary” sources offered (AP, WSJ, CNBC, Politico) are about Anthropic or the broader AI safety debate, not about Jack Clark as an individual. He is simply one of many interchangeable policy commentators quoted for a line or two. The Entrepreneur/Business Insider article touted as “in-depth” is dubious at best — clearly functioning as puff coverage, not independent journalism. The rest of the article is propped up by sources which fail basic tests of reliability and independence. Clark’s actual influence is derivative of Anthropic’s prominence, and that’s already covered in that article. Absent multiple, in-depth, independent profiles focused primarily on him, not his employer or his own media output, this page is promotional fluff masquerading as encyclopedic content. Strong delete, with a redirect to Anthropic as an ATD-R at most. AllyJams (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)*[reply]
Merge: to the "Anthropic" article I suppose is fine, not much for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or alternatively merge to Anthropic per nom and AllyJams. Puff piece throughout, including the title. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:56, 7 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ASMR Darling

AfDs for this article:

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

I have seriously considered whether to make this AfD nomination. Despite Taylor being an unarguably large YouTuber in the ASMR community, the sources used in this article establish such little notability that I am surprised the article has lasted this long. Refs 1, 5-14 and 16 are not reliable, as they are all from social media websites. Whilst WP:RSPUSE allows for some to be used if it is from the person the article is about, this article uses these excessively. The 4 sources that are not from social media do little to establish notability outside of trivial mentions. We've seen Draft:CaseOh recently rejected outright with arguably more sources than Taylor has. Unfortunately, Taylor Darling is simply not notable enough for a standalone article anymore. 11WB (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. 11WB (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although there is SIGCOV in RS, most of the sources I found in a BEFORE are just passing mentions. Also, the sourcing is pretty poor, mostly considering of primary sources like Twitter and YouTube. paintdvd ^{talk to me} 00:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While two of the four non-social media sources are okay in my estimation (the NPR and Today ones), I don't feel they establish lasting notability on their own. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak coverage. ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 30 October 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!} 23:03, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Scorer

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails nbio. Reliable sources don't discuss this lawyer in any depth, they only provide his commentary about other people. The article itself reflects this fact, most of it is just a bunch of "he said x", "he criticized y", "he represented z", there is very little to say about him. It would be better to have an article about the events he was involved in, if they are notable. This article was deleted twice. V. S. Video (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and United Kingdom. V. S. Video (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the sources in the article are mere mentions and/or one-line quotes. One exception is a few paragraphs of quotes in The guardian. However, I do not find sources about Scorer other than author and organization member bios. Lamona (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/20/starmer-grooming-gang-inquiry-left-in-turmoil-after-two-survivors-quit-panel a piece in the Critic: https://thecritic.co.uk/the-law-is-failing-grooming-victims/ and the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68227540 Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none of these are about him. The Guardian and BBC are mentions in sources about something else, with short quotes. Quotes by him are not about him. The Critic is an article by him, which is not a source about him. Lamona (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is coverage of cases he is involved in, and he gets quoted in those articles. The coverage is not directly about him or particularly significant. Notability of the cases does not extend to the lawyer per WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. After a review of available sources online, I did not find anything that covers him directly and in-depth, as required by WP:SIGCOV. Jcgaylor (talk) 19:35, 31 October 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.

Peter Werth

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

Fails WP:BIO. No real sources to speak of for the fashion designer or his namesake company. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Other than the piece in the Manchester Evening News (which seem based on a press release with the byline: "men Administrator") all I'm finding about this Peter Werth is his website, Instagram, Facebook, EBay, Postmark, Wordpress, Etsy, but no SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC) Additional comment: I found the citations on Newspapers.com (location to UK) that were kindly brought to the table by 4Meter4 (thanks again!), however only one of the newspaper articles provided SIGCOV, that being Tufnell Leads Peter Werth Buy In in the Daily Telegraph. The other newspaper citations are simple name checks with no coverage of Peter Werth himself, or his company. The two book citations are duplicates of one another (under different titles) which seems to be a fluffy description of what the models (atheletes?) are wearing, and not about Peter Werth himself (or his company). While I am keeping an open mind if additional SIGCOV is found, at this time I still don't think notability been established per WP:GNG, and as far as his company (not sure if this two sentence stub is a BLP, or on his business of the same name or both), and if it's the business, the company doesn't meet WP:NCORP nor WP:CORPDEPTH due to incidental trivial coverage. Hopefully some decent sources can be found, but if not my !vote remains D*elete. Netherzone (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a prominent men's clothing brand of long standing in the UK. It has some coverage of being influential in sports fan culture in the UK with certain type of football enthusiasts (particularly Manchester) embracing its clothes as part of their subculture. It was difficult finding materials because, as with most fashion reporting, it was mostly on the clothes and pictures of models on runways (nominal stuff like this) and other rather trivial fluff). That said, the following materials could be used:

Walsh, Fiona (October 4, 1987). "Paul Michael's Right Pattern For Profits". Sunday Telegraph. p. 32. (covers acquisition of Peter Werth Company by PML Group)
"PML Group". The Daily Telegraph. October 6, 1987. p. 25.
Hall, James (January 10, 2008). "Tufnell Leads Peter Werth Buy In". The Daily Telegraph. p. B3.
Redhead, Steve (2015). Football and Accelerated Culture: This Modern Sporting Life. Taylor & Francis. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9781317411550. (coverage of impact on sports clothing/culture in UK)
Treadwell, J.; Hopkins, Matt (eds.). Football Hooliganism, Fan Behaviour and Crime: Contemporary Issues. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 143–144. ISBN 9781137347978. (coverage of impact on sports clothing/culture in UK)
Wiggins, Liz (November 5, 1997). "Designer Chic On the Street". Dorset Echo. p. 18. (brief but names Peter Werth as a top men's designer on par with Calvin Klein in a critical assessment of the fashion industry)
Moore, Ashley (April 30, 1998). "Commando Cool". Stafford Post. p. 26. (again brief but critically assesses Peter Werth as a top fashion brand)
Young, Kate (November 26, 1999). "Trivial Ideas for Men". Isle of Wight County Press. p. 17. (this is an example of low level coverage that happens a lot mentioning stores caring Peter Werth clothes with pictures of products and brief comments; there's a lot of this kind of thing. Not SIGCOV but shows relevance to broader culture)
Walsh, Fiona (March 28, 2000). "Better Times in Store as HoF Stands Still". Evening Standard. p. 42. (not SIGCOV but confirms addition to House of Fraser brands)

Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, thank you for the research you have done. Is it possible to please provide links to the actual articles (rather than just the publication), so that others can can read them and assess their coverage? I was not able to find any of that material. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I come up with when I search those titles:

"No results found" when searching "Paul Michael's Right Pattern For Profits" on The Sunday Telegraph
27 articles on current events when searching "PML group" on the Daily Telegraph but no mention of Peter Werth
In searching the book "Football and Accelerated Culture: This Modern Sporting Life" I found what reads like fluff name-check mentions of his brand, "Peter Werth long sleeve knitted polo (often in burgundy). Manchester's Ferries had been wearing Peter Werth with the thin hoops for years. It just seemed to complement the wedge hairstyle of the rest of the costume. This seems like it is about the athletes not the designer.
In searching the book "Football Hooliganism, Fan Behaviour and Crime: Contemporary Issues" I come up with exactly the same fluffy words as above, "Peter Werth long sleeve knitted polo (often in burgundy). Manchester's Ferries had been wearing Peter Werth with the thin hoops for years. It just seemed to complement the wedge hairstyle of the rest of the costume.
In searching "Designer Chic on the Street" in the Dorset Echo, I come up with "Your search has returned 0 results."
I can't access the Stafford Post at all.
When searching the "Isle of Wight County Press" for "Trivial Ideas for Men" in 1999, I come up with "Your search has returned 0 results."
When searching for "Better Times in Store as HoF Stands Still" on the "Evening Standard" I come up with "No Results".

Maybe because I am in the US and perhaps you are in the UK? Links would be really helpful! Netherzone (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. I suggest accessing the paper directly for the date given, and going to the page number provided rather than trying to duplicate search hits. You probably will have better luck. Or just search for "Peter Werth" on the given day rather than typing in the article title. These all cropped up just searching for "Peter Werth". Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources found by 4meter4, I'm inclined to keep this article. One of the things we handle poorly in our advice pages is the 'multi-subject' or 'merged-up' article. I think we can justify one combined article for the designer and his design company with the sources we've found. I'm much less certain that we can justify separate articles about the person and the business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, did you actually read the sources? They are just mentions or photo captions, only one provides SIGCOV. Netherzone (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are "just" mentions that, taken as a collective whole, would likely be enough to build a policy-compliant article (albeit a short one), which is the whole point of our notability requirements.

Of course, I'd probably pick sources focusing on other things, like the 2011 bankruptcy and subsequent sale to JD Sports. I think that the 2013 article "Lumsden identity for Peter Werth puts style before fashion" in Design Week will be particularly helpful in describing the changes made after the bankruptcy; two years before, their "The Gild goes back to menswear brand's Islington roots" indicates the existence of problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately the sources provided by 4meter4 are unconvincing to me. I looked through a few of them and Werth is only mentioned briefly. Aesurias (talk) 03:13, 8 November 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balboa (band)

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria for musical groups. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources for the band besides the one passing mention in the article already. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO: bylined coverage in Allmusic is an WP:RSMUSIC source: [15], [16], [17]. Staff reviews in Punknews are valid per WP:RSMUSIC: [18], [19], [20]. Exclaim! is another WP:RSMUSIC source: [21]. ResonantDis_tortion 20:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Resonant Distortion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by ResonantDistortion demonstrate a pass of WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 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 23:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Yusuf Ali

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

Article is completely unsourced, and a BEFORE check shows that this individual is not notable by the Wikipedia definition. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if the individual is not considered notable despite his noble status and relation to the King; the Wasikadars of Awadh is a 'source' but I accept that it might not be profound enough Noodles09 (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Noodles09: Please read our guide to properly citing sources. If you can provide citations to multiple reliable, secondary sources, this article may be kept. Just being the brother of a royal consort is insufficient; sourcing is required to prove notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I probably will be unable to provide sufficient evidence so understand the deletion. Thank you. Noodles09 (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ←Metallurgist (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails nom.4meter4 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Bernstein (artist)

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

Many of the sources listed are primary versus secondary including Instagram, YouTube, and Bernstein's own podcast. The Good Housekeeping Article is a listicle of podcasts and at least one of the Pink News articles is a list. Page lacks requirements for Biography of a living person and also that of WP:Artist. Hey Alma is not a reliable secondary source and when you search for their name mostly TikTok and Instagram links pop up. There are more stringent requirements for WP:BLP pages and we must use higher quality secondary sources to reflect that standard. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: LGBTQ+ studies and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The MTV and Teen Vogue sources are reliable, secondary sources that are intellectually independent of one another and independent of the source, and they include significant coverage, so the subject meets WP:BASIC criteria for notability. That means he can be considered notable without meeting WP:ARTIST. The article should be reworked to rely less on primary sources, but it should not be deleted for reasons of notability. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that WP:ARTIST is mostly a red herring here. I think "artist" was just a convenient term to add to the title for disambiguation purposes. Bernstein is primarily known as a podcaster and activist now and so the general notability criteria are the relevant ones. In addition to the sources noted above the article in Paper (magazine) is solid evidence of notability, even if it is mostly an interview. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG with [22], [23], [24]. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article should be cleaned up to use better sourcing but that is not a valid deletion rationale. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that sourcing could be improved, but that shouldn't be too hard as Matt's public profile has definitely become more prominent since this article was initially written. Geelong 1985 (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Matt Bernstein (internet personality). The artist designation in parenthesis has created notability issues. The article focuses on his internet presence. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a bit more text and sources (NBC, Haaretz, etc) and removed some of the extraneous citations to their IG/Youtube pages. More stuff could be added. Rainsage (talk) 01:07, 28 October 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 14:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John MacCoone

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Many sources make no mention of the individual and any that do record little more than his existence. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to Matt Lunker's points, find sources AFD isn't coming up with anything particularly notable, mostly user-generated sources. That isn't to say that there isn't something out there somewhere. At best, it could be kicked back to drafts. Snowman304|talk 13:46, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, Scotland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOL as a member of the Rhode Island General Assembly. Sourcing is a bit spotty, but that's common for historical figures like this, since it can be difficult to find sources about figures this old. It's likely that there are sources out there. Lovelyfurball (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete until we can verify the fact that he was actually a member of the assembly. Lovelyfurball (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have confirmation from a ref that he was in fact a member of the assembly? I've requested this on the article talk page but so far with no response. The ref for a similar assertion that he was a judge indicated instead that he was but a juror. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only have a brief reference on the page of the book which is mentioned as the source for the General Assembly, however, the book is not made available online unfortunately, all it states is that he was a court (assembly) member in 1661 representing Westerly but residing in Cambridge, Massachusetts nearby.

Hopefully this can qualify him to have the page be kept for that fact that he meets meets WP:NPOL as a member of the Rhode Island General Assembly, rather than being deleted. Political officials, deputies, and court members I would assume would count towards WP:NPOL in my opinion, I never asserted that he was a judge though, just a routine colonial juror for Westerly court cases.

I should clarify that John MacCoone/ McCoon also purchased a good size of the land of Westerly, Rhode Island, as pointed out on page 128 of the following link: https://dn721809.ca.archive.org/0/items/powersbanksances00inpowe/powersbanksances00inpowe.pdf which would hopefully help the case that he was indeed one of the founding men who helped purchase the settlement of Westerly.

Details pertinent to several of John's descendants of Westerly who were Deacons and Bishops for the Seventh Day Baptist Church can also be found on page 412 of Representative men and old families of Rhode Island found here: https://archive.org/details/representativeme1908jhbe/page/412/mode/2up 108.59.60.242 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the brief reference as you seem to be given to novel interpretations of sources.

You asserted on on my talk page that he fulfils WP:JUDGE and, again, being a juror is not of note. Neither is purchasing land. It's unclear what you mean by "founding man". The notability or otherwise of his descendants has no bearing on his own. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a pretty thorough search I couldn't find anything to confirm it. I say we at least draftify it until it can be verified. Lovelyfurball (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (at least until better sources are found). At least two of the sources here, Douglas archives and Doug Sinclair's archives, cannot be assumed to be reliable sources as they are either one-person or an informal website. I don't know about the Scottish Prisoners of War Society, but it states that it is "a dedicated community of descendants and researchers interested in learning more about our ancestral Scottish prisoners of war" - that sounds like something an historian would not cite. There is an aspect of Original Research (OR) as some parts of the article use sources that do not mention MacCoone. It also feels that there is some stretching of source material to make claims that cannot be found in the source. I suspect this is a topic of personal interest, but that does not make it encyclopedic. Lamona (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established through significant coverage/verifiable sources. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Michail

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

Fails WP:NBIO. References are almost all interviews or authored by the subject. Anerdw (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Greece, and Australia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see made up in one day awards. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A cursory google search returns nothing that would satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Ark Hyena (she/they) 03:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability; creator now blocked for UPE and sockpuppetry. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:32, 28 October 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.

Abolfazl Jaafari

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

After a WP:BEFORE check, I couldn't find anything that goes beyond brief mentions of his name or institutional affiliation, which would not satisfy WP:BIO. While a few sources list or mention some of his academic works, none provide the kind of substantial, independent discussion that WP:NACADEMIC expects. If every professor with a few published papers were automatically considered notable, we'd have thousands of similar pages, but the guideline draws the line higher, focusing on those whose work has received wider recognition or demonstrated significant impact in their field. In this case, there just isn't enough evidence to support that level of notability. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Iran. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 20:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's true that biographical info on the subject is scarce (I did the some research as the nominator has), but the Google Scholar h-index of 50, (in a relatively low-citation field) convinced me to create the page (30 papers with 3-digit citations: WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #4, WP:AUTHOR #1). It is nonetheless expandable via citing literature and educational background. Xpander (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assistant professors are almost never found to pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability claim is about something else, i.e. the subject's works, not their academic position. as in e.g. WP:NACADEMIC #5. Xpander (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does have some citable publications under his belt but nothing written by a secondary source that would make him exceptional or notable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Agnieszka653 @Bearian, This is a criterion as per WP:AUTHOR #1 : "widely cited by peers or successors;" As I mentioned 30 articles with +100 citations each is definitely notable. Xpander (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why hasn't he gotten tenure? I don't get it. Bearian (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant to the criterions mentioned. Being a well-published researcher is enough for either WP:NACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Xpander (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The page is a stub (now marked as such), and not the best although I welcome seeing understatements when too many academic's pages overstate. There is a clear and unconditional pass of WP:NPROF#C1 based upon his publication record. I checked the top 3 of his cited papers, and they appear to really be him, and in reputable journals. I will also comment that his citations/year have reached the healthy number of ~1500. I have no idea why he is just a "Research Assistant Professor", I have to wonder whether this is a translation glitch. As mention above, that assistant professors (and associate) are rarely considered notable is because they do not have the citations and/or awards. He does, and it is definitive enough that Speedy Keep is appropriate; sorry, it is an erroneous nomination.
Delete Junk article. ←Metallurgist (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just an uninvolved closer's note but this subject works at the Research Institute of Forests and Rangelands in Tehran, Iran and they probably handle tenure and promotions there differently than at Southwest Missouri State University (for example).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:22, 6 November 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. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. ^Complex/_Rational 18:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Boam

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:BIO. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United Kingdom. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is lacking in sources, but I think that it has just enough sources to pass WP:NOTABILITY Filmssssssssssss (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's surprising that an editor with only three previous edits (all about Boam) could recreate the article so fluently in a single edit. Wikishovel (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising at all, seeing as the current version is almost word-for-word identical to the version deleted earlier this month from the same editor, albeit with just enough added sourcing to evade G4. Owen× ☎ 18:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am a bit dim. I'm also struggling to see how he's become more notable today than 18 days ago. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I really wish we could give highly experienced and trusted non-admins like you, Wikishovel, the user right to see deleted pages and revisions. Until then, feel free to ping me if you need deleted content checked. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX I confess that I had not checked the logs when I sent this to AfD. Thank you for confirming the lack of ability to G4 it. It looks as if this will run its course. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for renominating it. Pinging all participants of the previous, very recent AfD: @Pigsonthewing, Smartse, Elemimele, DimensionalFusion, Unilandofma, Bearian, DUDUZ02, PacificDepths, PokemonPerson, and Zalaraz. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO is met. I was surprised with the previous close to be honest. The sources unquestionably provide WP:SIGCOV of the subject. SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the previous article; I could have sworn it was a bit more meaningful than the current one. Everything for which Boam and his ilk stand makes me want to vomit, but I have to admit that he's more wikipedia-notable than an average councillor, because of the media attention his antics, in-fighting and chaos leave in their wake. Unfortunately I think there should be an article about him (basically what I said last time). Nevertheless, the decision last time was delete, and community decisions shouldn't be subverted, so I'm not !voting. Elemimele (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 21 September snapshot of the article here. Wikishovel (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for the 21 September revision is identical to the sourcing of the final deleted revision. Owen× ☎ 22:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Subject is a notable elected official with significant coverage in reliable sources including The Guardian, BBC and ITV News. Meets WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Article will be improved with additional citations and neutral wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielAdams75 (talk • contribs) — DanielAdams75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Keep~~ – The subject is a notable elected official with significant coverage in national reliable sources, including BBC News, ITV News, The Guardian, and Professional Social Work Magazine. This easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, as the individual has received substantial, independent, and non-trivial coverage. I am improving the article with additional citations and neutral wording in line with WP:NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielAdams75 (talk • contribs)

Please note that we only get to make a recommendation once at deletion discussions. We can comment, or strike and change our recommendation, but it's not a ballot. Wikishovel (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — This is a slightly unusual case of WP:NPOL for local politicians: the councillor's party are in the news a lot here lately, and anything mildly controversial about one of their members gets amplified to hell and back. The Kent local council leader told her colleagues to "fucking suck it up" on a leaked council Zoom meeting last week, and it made the front page of the Guardian. I'm convinced by the arguments of User:DimensionalFusion, User:Bearian, User:DUDUZ02 and User:Zalaraz on the AFD of two weeks ago. And apologies for my opaquely dry sarcasm above, but the cynical gaming of WP:CSD#G4 and the edit history of the article "creator" aren't helping the case for notability: if you thought the first AFD was somehow unfair or against policy, you should have taken it to WP:Deletion review. Both two weeks ago and now, this is a WP:BLP1E at best over the ice cream incident. Wikishovel (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've only just noticed that his birth date is unsourced, and the entire "Early life and career" section is sourced with fake/AI-generated references. Some of the references in other sections also had incorrect titles: these were either changed at source at some point, AI-generated, or simply bowdlerised to make him look a bit less guilty of ice cream-related naughtiness. Article creator has also not yet responded at their user talk to a COI warning on 19 September, and a paid editing confirmation request posted yesterday. I've tagged the article for COI. Wikishovel (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and a {{trout}} to the article creator for recreating this out of process. He wasn't notable last month, and he isn't notable now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I stand by my original statement. The coverage is puerile. That's different from a human interest story, which can be significant and thus notable. Bearian (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As before. DUDUZ02 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article attempts to promote the subject's small family businesses. Sources are weak (many of them dubious, possibly non-existent), apart from the Guardian, which basically just covers the ice cream incident. Insufficient to establish notability. --NSH001 (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K Bijay Kumar Reddy

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

Lack of notability and significant coverage - being a guinness world record holder doesn't make you inherently notable, there are tens of thousands of them EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 04:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Odisha. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 05:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There may be tens of thousands of Guinness record holders, but they do not belong to the same category nor to the same place. Many notable figures have a wiki based on a single award. This artist has many other works which are centrally recognised and have gained praise. His works and achievements make Odisha proud. Soumya6722 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to agree with the nom, that simply being a Guinness world record holder does not confer notability. The citations (probably based on a press release) consist of human interest trivia of the "hey look at this cool weird thing" variety and are not serious journalism; rather they are closer to churnalism or filler. Therefore fails GNG and definitely fails WP:NARTIST as there are no indications this artist has been a part of notable exhibitions, nor has their work been written about in serious art magazines, academic journals or art history books; nor is their work represented in the permanent collections of several notable art museums or national galleries. His tiny carved spoon is an interesting and smile-worthy curiosity, however, it certainly is not a notable artwork, nor is he a notable artist. Netherzone (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The critique incorrectly applies institutional criteria (WP:NARTIST) to an inherently ephemeral, public art form rooted in cultural traditions like chalk art .

For artists in this category, notability is established by community impact and widespread media documentation (GNG), not gallery inclusion. The volume of national/regional press—even if framed as human-interest—demonstrates significant public attention, and the verified world record offers objective proof of skill that transcends the institutional art market. Soumya6722 (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Netherzone. No coverage in (online) Odia media. Upd Edit (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The essential coverage has been added Soumya6722 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If the winner is covered in several human interest stories or other verified stories, then they're notable. Otherwise, not. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — one-time Guinness record holder, nothing more. Hans India barely discusses anything outside the record. Classic BLP1E fail. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.thehansindia.com/news/national/birthday-tribute-to-modi-by-chalk-artist-bijay-907528

https://www.thehansindia.com/amp/news/national/bijays-ganesh-idol-echoes-peace-1000833

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhubaneswar/artist-creates-micro-sculpture-of-pm-modi/articleshow/99859454.cms

https://indiabookofrecords.in/maximum-miniature-monuments-of-india-carved-on-chalk-by-an-individual/

These are the other works of the discussed artist that had significant coverage earlier. The Guinness is a milestone he has achieved. Soumya6722 (talk) 06:05, 25 October 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 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kasim Abid

AfDs for this article:

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

1 reliable, independent source, rest are primary. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iraq. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - the line "Why his work matters ... Abid’s viewpoint is distinctive because he approaches..." screams LLM. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 20:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TNT for multiple reasons. There is the obvious AI, as well as a lot of original research under "Some personal/contextual notes". With two sources here, this is borderline non-notable, so I don't think this should be losing too much. Somepinkdude (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user:Bearian and the absolute necessity to delete LLM slop. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice to draftification on request. $Salvio giuliano$ 07:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waclaw Kolacz

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. While some new references have been added, there is still insufficient independent, secondary coverage establishing notability. Most of the cited material is primary, institutional, or family-sourced. The main editor has stated that he is the subject’s son [[25]], creating a conflict of interest under WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Article remains largely dependent on non-independent references, and fails to meet the threshold for inclusion pending reliable secondary sources. Acrom12 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acrom12 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (and question for article creator) - The formatting looks like it was written by AI, and all of the citations are not verifiable except one. Alukotron, did you use artificial intelligence (AI) or a large language model (LLM) to help create the article? Netherzone (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask the AI to help me with formatting, since Wikipedia does not provide clear instructions, and I hope that I did not go against the rules of Wikipedia by doing so. However, the text - that is the content of the article about Waclaw Kolacz - has been carefully selected and crafted by me, and is all based on documents and letters that are in my possession, but it used to belong to KOLACZ. As I live in the United States and have limited access to other publications, I still managed diligently to create this brief encyclopedic entry about the memory of my father. There is really no conflict of interest only because of my blood relation to the subject. If you would read a chapter that I included in my book "My American Experience" about my father (Waclaw Kolacz) you would definitely see that I talk about my father from the very objective standpoint using more than a mere criticism in regard to his life and activities. I am open to suggestions, and I beg of all of you involved in this discussion to not render a negative verdict to delete this article. Help me to preserve the memory of this guy who went through enough while being alive. It's time he really rests in peace having the memory of him preserved. I am the only surviving individual who cares about the WACLAW KOLACZ remembrance. Considering that almost all of his linocuts (the negatives and the prints) were destroyed and vast number of his oil paintings also shared the same fate (they were all stored in the basement that during the 90's got flooded and the water damage was so severe that everything after being immersed in the water for a long period of time was deemed damaged beyond repair or reconstruction and was disposed (incinerated) at least this small memory token about him can live on. Alukotron (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alukotron, I understand you have a personal connection to the subject and that your intention is to preserve his memory. The issue isn’t about good faith, but about meeting Wikipedia’s sourcing and notability rules. Articles need to be based on independent, published, reliable sources rather than family documents or personal knowledge.

Even with the new citations, most are still primary or family-based, so the coverage doesn’t yet show independent notability under WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Because you’re related to the subject, this does fall under WP:COI, which just means edits should rely on outside, verifiable sources to keep things neutral. If more third-party coverage turns up later (newspaper pieces, exhibition reviews, academic mentions, etc.), the article could always be recreated with stronger sourcing. Acrom12 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, Zdzislaw Morawski's book is not independent source? The documents with ID numbers of his WWII awards is not reliable? The printed Cataloque of the Festival Sztuk Pieknych that took place in Warsaw's ZACHETA National Gallery in 1966 is not a good source? A book that referenced clearly Kolacz's donation of the Copernicus portrait to the XXXIII Liceum in Warsaw is not a good source? If that is not good what is? Alukotron (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to anything more that I could add since in 2015 ALL documentations and my entire library was destroyed by my landlord. I am helpless here... it looks like the memory of my dad - will be erased and forgotten Alukotron (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience and assistance. Goodbye. Alukotron (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to give up that easily... While I understand the importance of secondary sources, I would like to point out that the 1966 Zachęta exhibition catalog is an official publication of a national institution and therefore qualifies as a verifiable, independent record of Kołacz’s participation. The same applies to the “Księga Pamiątkowa XXXIII L.O. im. M. Kopernika w Warszawie” (2003), which documents his artistic donation — both are independently published, printed works. I am continuing to seek additional coverage in archived Polish newspapers and art periodicals. My intent is to build this article according to Wikipedia’s sourcing policies, not to promote a family member. Alukotron (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, if consensus is to delete, I kindly request userfication of the article to my user space for further development. Thank You kindly Alukotron (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alukotron, some questions for you:

- Only one citation has a link, can you provide other links, as this is how others can verify the content.

- Is it possible for you to provide links to any of the other citations, and give us more information about the publications where the documents were sourced from (other than you)?

- What do these mean... PRL, RP?

- Can you search to see if there is a Dictionary of Biography of Polish people or another reference book in Polish that has an entry for your father?

- Did he have a one person show at the Warszawa: Zachęta Narodowa Galeria Sztuki, and if so, do you know if the museum (or any other museum) acquired any of his work for their collection?

- What is the document from President Lech Wałęsa (or was it an award)?

Please give us as much information as possible about the sources listed in the article. Unfortunately, the article from your father to you, or the book you wrote about him are primary sources, so they don't count towards notability. Per Wikipedia notability criteria, artists do not have inherent notability just because they make art work, there needs to be multiple, fully independent, verifiable reliable sources to establish notability. Netherzone (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one citation has a link? hmm

I thought I provided

PRL means Polska Rzeczpospolita Ludowa (Peoples Polish Republic)

RP means Rzeczpospolita Polska (Republic of Poland)

Yes, there is a SLOWNIK POLSKICH ARTYSTOW PLASTYKOW (The Dictionary of Polish Artists) published by ZPAP 1973 in Warsaw, where under MALARSTWO SZTALUGOWE (Easel Painting) there is an entry WACLAW KOLACZ.

in Zacheta he only participated in a group exhibit in 1966.

The document signed by Lech Walesa is the certificate of a World War II medal awarded to KOLACZ. Alukotron (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 04:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a way to find secondary sources via contacting organisations. Do not delete this page yet, I will try to find sources. Zxilef (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this... I wish I knew how to do that. You see, Waclaw Kolacz creativity and participation in public life was not only during the Communist era but also during the time when there was no internet. Everything then was documented by physical Newspapers and magazines, catalogues and other non-digitalized means. Most of those documents were not well cared for by the communist establishment, especially that artists were being considered as dissidents and enemies of the system. I have been living in the US since 1990 and was able to bring a small number of documents, catalogues pertaining to his activity only to lose everything in 2015. Great loss! Alukotron (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to work on this article and maybe get in contact with the prestigious family he worked in. Zxilef (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestion - There is a list of online newspaper archives for Poland here: Wikipedia:List_of_online_newspaper_archives#Poland; I would suggest searching these resources. Also, can you find a link to the entry in The Dictionary of Polish Artists? What is helpful is if you can find the actual website link (meaning the URL) not just the name of these various sources. A key aspect of WP is verifiability WP:V, so that would really help if you can do online searches to find the actual website address where the information on him is contained, as often publications and official government sites and museums and such have archived information available or a link to a searchable database. Polish language websites, and Polish language newspapers are fine, but please do provide a clickable link if at all possible. Netherzone (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have searched high and low for significant coverage in verifiable reliable sources in both English and Polish, but all I'm finding are primary sources or unverifiable sources, or sources listed in the article which don't mention him. The catalog from the group show where he exhibited a print is not an independent source, and all it is does is verify that he had a work in the show. I've also looked into the WP library, and found nothing except a mention of his son (who is the article creator) who had a show in New Jersey to honor his father. None of this is enough to establish notability for an encyclopedia entry per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. If at least three solid, fully independent sources are brought to the table that provide WP:SIGCOV I may consider changing my !vote. The article was created by the son as a family memorial page. A word of advice, if the article is deleted consider setting up a memorial page on social media sites. Netherzone (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. A very poor article. Much of the content is unreferenced. Much of what is referenced is to unverifiable family archives (or documents in them). No cited source suggests WP:GNG is met - this is 99% WP:OR. Possible WP:COI gives us another dimension of this problem. WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. Since the author says they'll try to improve this, it can be moved to their userspace, and they can try to develop it there. But the author is well advised to read up on Wikipedia policies. "all based on documents and letters that are in my possession" - sigh. This is not acceptable, per WP:OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I am also concerned regarding the sources mentioned, such as "SLOWNIK POLSKICH ARTYSTOW PLASTYKOW" from 1973, by ZPAP. Setting aside the authors repeated error in not using diacritics and strange overcapitalization (the correct Polish title would be "Słownik polskich artystów plastyków", I cannot verify that such a book ever existed ([26]). In 1972, a book called "Słownik artystów plastyków" was published by ZPAP (there also seems to be a book with a similar title, a not-yet-published working project of some Polish scholars, that will however focus on Polish writers working abroad). So this source (and possibly the entire, very poory referenced article) is either AI hallucination or shoddy research; neither is acceptable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. GBooks query gives a few mentions in passing [27]. And yes, it is very true that many Polish sources remain undigitized and as such are not in GBooks. But it is the article's creator responsibility to locate them. I work with librarians and volunteers to locate such sources (in Poland), sometimes it takes us much time to locate and digitize microfilms, etc. If the author wants to reserch and document their father's life - a commendable goal - they need to carry out research, and publish the results not on Wikipedia, but in another avenue (such as a reliable dictionary of biograpies, magazine or journal, etc.). Only once such sources exist can a Wikipedia article be created. (To the author: the fact that anyone can edit and publish in Wikipedia does not mean that Wikipedia accepts all submissions; per cited policies - GNG, OR, NOTAMEMORIAL, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 30 October 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.

Jeanne Bender

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale: "Commons upload history (of Emilydaniel, the primary but not initial author) suggests undisclosed paid editing. Sources in this article may not meet Wikipedia's requirements, especially considering that entries on this author have already been deleted on Simple and Wikidata, the latter of which has a comically low and spam-prone notability criteria." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Wisconsin. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 17:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for authors (WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG). Jeanne Bender’s work has received significant independent coverage in multiple reliable publications, including *Language Magazine*, *Norway Today*, *Woman’s World*, and *Forbes México*. Several of her books have also been professionally reviewed by *Kirkus Reviews*, a respected source for literary critique.

Her recognition by the New Zealand Literacy Association and her involvement with Reading Is Fundamental further demonstrate her notability and contribution to children’s literacy and education.

The article has been written in a neutral, verifiable, and well-sourced manner, and I welcome further improvements from other editors to ensure it continues to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Emilydaniel (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three book reviews cited ([28] [29] [30]) are all from the Kirkus Indie program, which means that they are paid reviews and are not usable for establishing notability. The piece in Language Magazine has no byline and appears to be a promotional spot, and the piece in Norway Today is an interview. The piece in Woman's World is labelled as "contributor content" and is blatantly promotional. While the site claims that all contributor content is reviewed by the Woman's World editorial staff, I would regard this as a similar case to WP:FORBESCON. Nothing here qualifies towards WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About the byline-less piece, see the Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/FAQ:
Are reliable sources required to name the author?

No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement.

This article: https://www.proquest.com/openview/5ba419a44791100d0b90c03b98c7ffb1/1 is written by an editor at the publishing house and might make a good comparison for whether any sources have copied from a press release. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing I agree with you of course that the lack of a byline doesn't necessarily make a source non-independent, but I think from context it's pretty clear that this piece is not an independent source. The site in question publishes most of their other original stories with a byline, so it's not that this is an outlet that just doesn't use bylines in general. The site also has a contact address for press release submissions. Reading the source itself, I find it very, very difficult to imagine it being anything other than a press release (Jeanne Bender is passionate about providing interesting, forward-thinking books for everyone. Her priority is to cultivate stories with terminology that can be both challenging and familiar., It is available from all major distributors including Follett, Ingram, and Baker & Taylor., Bender’s intention is to provide education and excitement for readers. She aims to inspire children to pursue their passion for literature and a desire to “continue reading.”) MCE89 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't all news agencies have an e-mail address for press releases? I clicked on half a dozen "News" articles, and I didn't actually see any bylines. (But maybe that's because I'm running NoScript.)

We all have our ideas of what makes a credible source, and many of us want "serious" sources for Wikipedia. But leaving our personal preferences aside, there's a market for enthusiastic, even gushy content, and independent sources can't be identified by tone alone. See, e.g., any aspirational/luxury magazine. Consider travel guides, which have to ration their superlatives so they don't run out before the end of the book. Think about how many sports games are deemed "the most important game of the season". It's just part of the genre for some subjects, and I suggest that it may well be part of the genre for book reviews aimed at special education teachers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most news agencies accept press releases, but most don't prominently advertise that they welcome them. That "resources" section of the Language Magazine website also includes things that are unambiguously press releases, e.g. [31] is a republishing of this press release [32], and [33] is a republishing of this press release [34], and several that are just straightforwardly advertising [35] [36] [37] [38]. We might just have to agree to disagree here — it's not impossible that you're right and an independent journalist wrote the piece, but I find it very, very unlikely (especially given that we know this author has paid for other publicity, e.g. the Kirkus Indie reviews). MCE89 (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Jeanne Bender is named in the abstract of this EBSCOE journal article. I don't have access, but it is possible this might be WP:SIGCOV. The PROQUEST article from Texas Library Journal seems like it is independent and would count as one source. I agree that the other sources seem like press releases or puffery and should be excluded as evidence of notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the Texas Library Journal article. It's very heavily based on quotes from the author and her editor, and it says The Lindie Lou Adventure Series, from Pina Publishing in Seattle, was proud to be a Bronze sponsor at the [Texas Library Association] conference. The Texas Library Association is the publisher of the Texas Library Journal, and the piece is really mostly about reporting on their own conference while noting Bender's participation in it as their sponsor. Things like Educators learned all about the series and its educational connections... make me think the piece is really more about promoting their conference to authors who might be interested in being future sponsors. MCE89 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. I think being featured as a speaker at a state convention for educators lends some notability to the author, so I'm inclined to count this as one piece of independent significant coverage. However, this is just one piece of evidence, and I go by the rule of three. So as of yet, we are at one confirmed source, and one possible source which is not three. If nothing more comes forward, I do think deletion is the best choice. I did see in another google scholar article (which was an interview so not independent) that she was a speaker at a convention in New Zealand. I get the impression that she has had some success, and this is someone approaching notability who isn't yet quite there.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:52, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably TOOSOON. I tried a search on Common Sense Media as she is a kids writer [39], nothing comes up. We just don't have enough to show notability. The other Kirkus reviews are as explained, not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This [40] appears to be an interview, but it's still only one source. I just don't think we have enough for AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an accessible PDF version on Google of that EBSCO source ("The Joy of Words" by Callan Goodall) that you and 4meter4 have mentioned. I'm not going to link to it because I'm not certain the site has the rights to host it, but it should be the only result if you Google "callan goodall" "jeanne bender". Unfortunately I don't think it helps at all in establishing notability here. MCE89 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs to be stubified. Some sources are good, but some, like Forbes, are garbage. Bearian (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:16, 6 November 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. Views are split between keeping the article outright or merging with another, principally Trebor (composer). As these can be both be done by simple editing, without administrator assistance, there is no further need for a deletion debate, as there is definitely not any consensus to delete the article outright. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borlet

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

Single, non-publicly accessible source. Googling to find other sources only results in sites which link back to this same page. No WP:NMUSIC or WP:V Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Athanelar (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor but notable figure, with highly authoritative source. A web-only search will not produce acceptable results in this area. It should not have been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Artists which is for visual artists only. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a little more as to how it meets our notability standards? Is there really WP:SIGCOV? The very short stub essentially says "We know very little about him, including his name and identity. We can confirm he composed between 1 and 7 compositions." Is this really enough to support a stand-alone article? I'm struggling a bit to see the encyclopedic value of a short stub so devoid of substance. Sergecross73 msg me 13:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally apply exactly the same standards to medieval and earlier figures as to contemporary ones. The article probably contains everything that is known about him, which obviously is very little indeed. He was considered important enough to be included in the standard reference work, which in itself is probably enough for notability. There are thousands of comparable examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that its not likely to come across a 2025 New York Timess feature on a subject like this, but I'm also not convinced that mere mentions like that are enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. Are you alluding to some guideline I'm unfamiliar with or something? Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His own entry in the standard encyclopedia on the subject is not a "mere mention"; it's just that next to nothing is known, so the biographies there and here can't be any longer. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I'll reword my stance accordingly: I don't believe an entry in a standard encyclopedia is enough to establish any sort of notability standards, particularly when said entry is devoid of any real substance because nothing is known. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability is substantiated here. I checked GScholar just now and the mentions for Borlet are essentially all the same as the mentions for Trebor (composer) because they're believed to be the same person. Therefore at the very least I think a merge with Trebor is in order, but given that even the sources I can find for that article are essentially "some compositions exist which are attributed to someone called Trebor" I don't think we have notability in a Wikipedia sense here at all, so I think deleting both Borlet and Trebor (which I've also made an AfD for) makes sense. Athanelar (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is where I'm leaning too. I could technically see creating a redirect to Trebor, which pretty much already covers the (very little) verifiable information about Borlet, but the argument for Trebor's notability is pretty weak too. There's definitely not enough here for 2 standalone articles, though at least Trebor has verifiable information in it... Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against a merge, but you popular culture types need to understand that notability is not affected by whether there is information online or not. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast aspersions - no one has asserted sourcing needs to be online thus far in the discussion. That's not the reason you're getting pushback. You're getting pushback because you aren't actually citing or invoking anything. You just keep making WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:ITSNOTABLE WP:ATAs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is the entry in the references section; there are books mentioned in Further Reading. Google Scholar has a considerable number of books with significant coverage on him; they include https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/early-music-history/article/abs/an-episode-in-the-south-ars-subtilior-and-the-patronage-of-french-princes/4F5EA81CC0345A850C971836859832A6 ; https://search.proquest.com/openview/d9810dfdb21e258c9b6bc2f87da5f874/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y The polyphonic virelai "He tres doulz rossignol" attributed to him is one of the most notable pieces of the genre. Plenty of other sources exist; https://www.persee.fr/doc/caief_0571-5865_1979_num_31_1_1185 and so on. e.ux 20:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV necessitates that the sources in question address the subject 'directly and in detail.'

The first source is about how these Medieval French sources have been preserved, and the latter literally says its aim is only to transcribe the unpublished chansons of the Chantilly manuscript.

To my eyes, the only relevance of these sources to Borlet/Trebor are that he is passingly mentioned within them as composer of some of these pieces, which is pretty plainly trivial coverage. The third source you've linked is a French-language source which I'm not equipped to assess.

Could you be more specific about how you feel these sources demonstrate in-depth, specific coverage of the subject? Athanelar (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They analyse his work -stylistically-; some dwell on his possible identification with other musicians -various authors support more or less assertively and with different arguments the Trebor hypothesis. These are no passing mentions, nor trivial coverage, and plenty of other sources exist. But as creator of one of the most notable virelai of the time, he could, one could argue, meet the specific notability guidelines anyway -like Wikipedia:CREATIVE; it may remain a short article -but it is not that short-;- if everyone agrees a redirect and merge to Trebor is better, it might be an acceptable solution too, but things are clearer this way -and fairer- imv; outright deletion would be absolutely inappropriate, I think; coverage on him in various other languages abounds, fwiw- and please also check the information in https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/MMDB/composer/COM065.HTM e.ux 20:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also meets WP:COMPOSER..."Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music." e.ux 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trebor (composer). I came to this discussion via Trebor, who I strongly believe is notable: see my comments at that AfD. I think Eva's point on WP:NCOMPOSER carries some merit given the inclusion in Grove, so I'm somewhat opposed to outright deletion. However, from my literature review, Borlet clearly receives much less coverage than his doppelganger. There is also a lot of overlap – they may be the same person after all, and as such the vast majority of potential sources with more substantial coverage speak about Borlet in relation to Trebor. I do note the fairly imposing further reading section but, of the Chantilly scholars that speak of Borlet, Plumley, Brown, Goméz, and Reaney all treat him this way, while Earp and Apel (1 and 2) only give scarce passing mentions. So I end up here offering a middle ground with a merge: not on notability grounds or as an ATD, but per WP:OVERLAP. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quote from A Ballade for Mathieu de Foix: Style and Structure in a Composition by Trebor

"On Trebor/Robert/Trebol/Borlet, see especially Maria del Carmen Gomez Muntané, La Música en la casa real catalano-aragonesa durante los años 1336-1432, vol. 1 : "Historia y Documentos" (Barcelona, 1977), pp. 99-101.[41] The Chantilly manuscript attributes only a single realistic virelai to Borlet ("He tres doulz roussignol"), whereas Trebor is assigned six ballades and no virelais.

Since stylistic differences between genres are at least as great as stylistic differences between individual composers, it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that the composer of "He tres doulx roussignol" was or was not the same as the composer of the six ballades on stylistic grounds alone. No music is known to be attributed either to Robert or to Trebol."

So two scholars say Borlet and Trebor are different persons. A merge wouldn't be appropiate. 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~ — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As noted above, I took both the Brown and Goméz sources into consideration when drafting my !vote. The justification for my arguement is not identity, as you infer. Most scholarship on Borlet is related to the possibility they were the same person: this shows they are "related subjects that have a large overlap" (WP:OVERLAP), which is enough reason for a merge on its own. Also, you are misreading the sources. Brown claims it would be virtually impossible to make a convincing argument that [Borlet] was or was not the same as [Trebor] (emphasis added). His phrasing leaves open both the possibility that they are connected or are not, which your conclusion incorrectly parses. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 00:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't need hard confirmation on this to warrant a merge or mention there, just that reliable sources cover them together, which they clearly do. The complexity of the situation can be covered in the prose. It'd be pretty easy to cover at the forefront of the article too, considering the lack of content. Even the sloppiest of merges wouldn't escalate the resulting article out of stub status... Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just clearly a case of consulting Google over subject-matter expertise. Any merging that might arise can and should be handled separately from this discussion on the talk page, based on scholarly consensus. Chubbles (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Trebor (composer) - basically I agree with UpTheOctave!'s analysis of the sources, and think that readers will be best served by a single article that covers the composer(s) and the scholarship surrounding whether they are the same person or not. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jolielover♥talk 18:52, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor per previous discussion.

Athanelar (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Trebor (composer): Users UpTheOctave!, Eva UX, Sergecross73 and others have made good arguments about enough scholarly debate (although not enough historical evidence), so I think a deletion is not warranted. i agree that a merge with info on the identity controversy would be much better. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG as the composer is included in several music reference works as well as in scholarly books/journals. Because scholars do not agree that these two composers are the same person, editorially I think it is better to keep them separate. Lastly, any person covered with an entry in any published encyclopedia will pass our criterion for inclusion per WP:5P1. Our foundational goal is to cover the sum of all human knowledge and pillar one specifically grandfathers in content covered in encyclopedias and specialized encyclopedias. Its an anathema to our founding mission to exclude any content published in any encyclopedia (unless there is some reason to believe its unreliable) as principally our founding goal is to gather all topics covered in all reference works into a single location. In short, if a topic is covered in an encyclopedia we cover it too. Period.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 6 November 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.

Bobby Walker (political operative)

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

Mostly a WP:BLP1E related to the recent Young Republican group chat leaks. His other work as vice chair and (briefly) chair of the NYS Young Republicans, and social media manager for Rob Ortt, don't establish much in the way of separate notability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and New York. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue Bobby is notable due to his position at the time this scandal broke and for his involvement in it. A two-pronged notability, not to mention that he is a successful and (formerly) well-respected campaign manager in NY GOP circles. This page should stay, as Walker was the highest ranking member of the New York Young Republicans when the scandal broke, and frankly, was an avid participant in the group chat itself. This page is almost as important as the Peter Giunta page itself. Not to mention the page of Stephen Douglass. Stephen and Mr. Walker were the only two political officeholders involved in these vile messages. Therefore, the importance of this page staying is paramount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2014 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean Samuel Douglass (politician) (not Stephen). He was separately notable as a Vermont state senator. Giunta is more borderline IMO, but he has more substantial coverage predating the YR scandal from a longer political career, which is why I didn't also nominate it for AfD. Walker is not an officeholder, except insofar as he held chair/vice chair positions at the NYSYR, which does not automatically confer notability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/selectively merge to Young Republican group chat leaks per nomination. While BLP1E is somewhat applicable, the guideline clarifies that we should avoid having an article on a living person if the relevant "event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented" (see Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not). I don't think either of those qualifications hold true, so I think a better argument is WP:PAGEDECIDE which establishes that the subject of the article is obviously best understood within the broader context of the group chat leaks. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a permanent stub Pursuant to Wikipedia's PermStub page, Bobby falls under the following criteria: All or most aspects of the subject are already covered in other articles.

There is not much to say about the subject.

The article is about a subject that was briefly notable, but no longer receives any coverage.

The subject is about or is notable for a single event, after which there will never likely be any future coverage.

Bobby is young and was a central figure in this scandal, second to Giunta. His name was covered around the globe. And, he is young, so he has a future where this page could be expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KittyHawk2014 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: KittyHawk2014 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Keep - (1) there was significant coverage prior to the scandal and (2) it would encourage our critics, such as the Anti-Defamation League, to criticize us for "covering up" another incident of Antisemitism. At best, a merger would be acceptable to me, although it might not mollify the public. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What significant coverage is there of him prior to the scandal? All I could find were press releases about him becoming the vice chair of the NY Young Republicans. Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Interesting discussion but we need definitive arguments about desired outcomes (in BOLD).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ali Memon

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

I have looked at the sources currently in this BLP about a mountaineer, and don't see WP:THREE good sources to demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. I have a source assessment table which I will add below, but, in summary, most of the sources depend on Memon's social media. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found RS to add. I may be missing coverage in other languages. I acknowledge also that the draft was accepted through AFC and that an uninvolved editor on the article's Talk page says that the subject is notable. Tacyarg (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding source table. Tacyarg (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are mistaken on the independence requirement for the GNG. It is not that the information presented in the article has to be gathered in some arbitrary way, but that the work is not "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Because none of these articles were written by the subject of the article or anyone closely related to him, they are all independent of the subject. The point of the independence criterion is to exclude "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website". See also WP:IIS Katzrockso (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Katzrockso. I take your point that of course ultimately the information will come from the subject or someone close to him in some way - but in these cases the content of some of the news articles is literally Instagram or Twitter posts. Tacyarg (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Express Tribune 22 May 2023	Based on press release.	Discussed at RSN, no consensus	Mostly about an institution he attended (IoBM, see below).	✘ No
Dawn 2023	Based on an interview with Memon.			✘ No
Institute of Business Management	Memon is a former student	Commercial institution	Mostly about the institution	✘ No
Youlin Magazine		No editorial policy; another editor at RSN thought not reliable		✘ No
GeoNews	Based on information from Memon's team	Discussed at RSN, and it looks as if the consensus was generally reliable on uncontroversial topics		✘ No
Dawn 2024	Based on information from Memon's team		Two sentences about a flag Memon put up at a shop	✘ No
Arab News	Based on information from Memon's Twitter and the Pakistani Embassy	No consensus at RSN		✘ No
The Nation	Based on information from Memon's Twitter and the Pakistani Embassy			✘ No
The Express Tribune 23 May 2023	Based on information from Express News (TV channel)	No discussion of Express News at RSN; no reason to think it's not reliable		✔ Yes
ARY News	Based on information from Memon's Instagram	No byline, and the About at ARY News doesn't mention editorial oversight		✘ No
Hum News		No byline, and the About at Hum News doesn't mention editorial oversight	Full article, but only four sentences. Says "More to follow", but I can't see another article	? Unknown
Gulf News	Based on information from Memon's Instagram	Has a byline, but I can't find an editorial policy. Discussion at RSN, but I don't see a consensus		✘ No
Geo Super	Based on information from Memon	Has a byline, but the About at Geo Super doesn't mention editorial oversight		✘ No
The Express Tribune 2025	Looks like it's based on information from Memon: "Reflecting on his success, Memon ... "	Discussed at RSN, no consensus	Full article, but only six sentences	? Unknown
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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source analysis provided by Tacyarg. First off, the nominator mis-represents WP:THREE, an WP:ESSAY, as being a requirement of GNG. The 2023 Express Tribune reference is a clear GNG pass. Further, the 2025 Express Tribune, the Hym News, and the 2024 Dawn article are borderline/okay. Those three references provide an additional 12 sentences of coverage of the subject. Per WP:NBIO, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 19:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but significatly improve. There are quite enough sources to establish notability. Mag2k (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough sources and has garnered enough WP:SIGCOV particularly in Pakistan and South Asia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing this as No consensus but decided on one more Relist. Except for the argument by Frank Anchor, the Keeps are weak here and do a poor job of responding to this source assessment table with only vague comments about good sources. Can you be more specific why you don't find this analysis convincing? Saying that there are "enough sources" when a table says there are not is not a persuasive argument that you have done a good job evaluating sources. Point out where you disagree.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:15, 4 November 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 04:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdorrasul Zarrin

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

There are no 700 confirmed kills attributed to this individual, nor are there any reliable sources confirming this claim. This is similar to Juba (sniper) appearing in List of snipers — he claimed 700 kills, but in fact had “only” 63, but unlike Abdorrasul Zarrin, Juba had multiple reliable sources coverage. As such, this article does not meet WP:GNG. In addition, the OP is globally locked. IdanST (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IdanST (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I moved this nom (and updated most incoming links) to the correct title of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdorrasul Zarrin (away from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Abdorrasul Zarrin) and moved the AFD notice from the talk page to the article page. Think I fixed it correctly, if not please fix more or let me know. (Ping IdanST.) Skynxnex (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Iranian propaganda. ←Metallurgist (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of comment above, does not appear to have in depth WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Dumbo

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails the WP:GNG and the specific guideline for WP:BIO from what is see here. The subject is a Zambian comedian and radio presenter with only routine coverage in minor or entertainment-oriented outlets such as 247 Malawi News, Malawi24, and Zedscoop which are not reliable. The article consists largely of promotional material and an unsourced biography section, which i belive violates the WP:BLP. There is no evidence of national or international recognition beyond routine mentions or award announcements cause the current sourcing I think fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. In addition, this article was previously discussed and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dumbo in September 2021, where consensus found the subject failed notability and sourcing standards. The present recreation repeats the same deficiencies and adds no new significant, independent, or reliable coverage. — Icem4k (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Africa. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 21 October 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 14:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NENTERTAINER.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom. --Chise95 (talk) 11:25, 31 October 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.

Czeslaw Krysa

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

I can find no evidence that this person meets WP:BASIC. The best source I can find is from Michigan State University. Others are less helpful in a notability context. This obituary comes from a small publication where Krysa had a weekly column, so I don't think it's independent. There's also a local news Q&A, which is effectively a primary source. There are other scattered mentions of Krysa out there, but none focus on the man himself (nor can I find sources that support much of what's in the article right now). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note: be aware that the article as it exists now is likely AI-generated. The creator has used AI in many of their other edits, such as Draft:Michigan Alkali Company and White House State Ballroom. A valid alternative here could be WP:DRAFTREASON. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:19, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New York. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 00:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of passing WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his last church, St. Casimir Roman Catholic Church, is probably notable, but not him. Parish priests are rarely considered notable without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. He is notable as an artist. He has non-trivial coverage for his work as a pisanki artist in Kamuda, Alan (March 28, 1991). "Spectacular Shells: Priest Brings Craft to Orchard Lake". Detroit Free Press. p. 10F. and "Fr. Czeslaw Krysa". Lansing State Journal. August 2, 2003. p. 65. which covers his work as a featured artist at an Art Festival at the University of Muchigan. There's also coverage of his teaching of the Polish art of palm weaving in Kamuda, Alan (March 23, 1994). "Weaving of Palm Fronds Stems from Old Tradition". Detroit Free Press. p. 60A. There is also a lengthy article covering his work as a maker of krupnik in Galarneau, Andrew Z. (February 23, 2020). "King of Krupnik: Kaistertown Priest Has Become a Master at Making the Buckwheat Honey-Based Liqueur of Eastern Poland". The Buffalo News. pp. F7, F8. Altogether, he demonstrates notability as a practitioner of various Polish folk arts.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: I appreciate the diving into sources I don't seem to have access to! With the site you're using, is it possible to see snippets to evaluate SIGCOV? Also, it would be great to get these added to the article, perhaps after it's been TNT'd to remove unverifiable AI-written content. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are viewable in newspapers.com which is available through the Wikipedia Library. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Let me know if more sources are discovered. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I provided three sources with WP:SIGCOV. The sources are already sufficient to pass WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified by 4meter4 that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep squeaks by as a Polish craft practitioner. Problematic to say that there are no independent sources on the man himself as the nomination does when Newspapers.com hasn't been consulted. Jahaza (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tino Caspanello

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

This article is very clearly AI generated, and before being AI generated, was already a stub. It has likely also been solely updated due to COI reasons. I couldn't really find much coverage on this person either. If not deleted, this article seriously needs a full rewrite. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 23:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT or delete I haven't had time to look for sources myself and this isn't a field with which I'm familiar at all, but the most recent set of edits are clearly LLM (lots of evidence) and COI (admitted some coordination, denied that that makes it any shade of a COI situation), as well as somewhat promotionally written and somewhat unsourced, so at a minimum it needs to be taken back so some historical revision. But the article history has been plagued by other COI and lack of sourcing for many years, so it needs either a complete rewrite after someone finds actual sources and can make a claim of notability, or else kill it outright. DMacks (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Thank you for your comments. I'm trying to figure out what to do, but I could also use some help. I can certainly revise and rewrite the entire article, but obviously I'll need some time. There's no conflict of interest between me and the author; as I've already mentioned, I contacted the author to ask if I could expand an existing page. My interest is purely academic, as I studied the author's plays at the University of Salerno, as is done at several other Italian universities. As for the use of AI, I think it all depends on my knowledge of English, which isn't excellent, so I occasionally get help from a web translator. Valydibi (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I spot-checked four of the refs added by Valydibi recently, and all four failed verification of the statements, including one that I checked after they said they re-checked them. I am left with casting a WP:CIR (or at best WP:LLMCIR) over their entire work, and strongly oppose keeping its current form as a BLP disaster. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did some quick clean-up. The "Publications" section does not seem of encyclopedic importance, as it merely breaks down where his already-listed plays were published. I would delete it. Also, the EL section needs a lot of culling, although there may be some useful refs hidden in it. I have no opinion on whether this person is notable or not. Someone needs to analyze the refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. Rather than consider deleting the Publications section, which confirms the international reach of the author's playwright's work, could you please tell me how to improve it, what to add? Thank you! Valydibi (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, you could make it clear which ones have been produced -- as opposed to merely published -- and at what theatres? Full productions are of much greater importance than readings. If any of them had long runs, state how many performances (together with citations that state the facts being asserted). Same for the plays of other writers that he directed. If notable (bluelinked) people had starring roles in any of these plays, that might help (especially if many of the leading roles were played by blue-linked people. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He appears to be a very well known artist in Italy and many of the sources are in Italian but I thhink he's notable enough in his home country to warrant keeping the page in English. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Than you! To understand the importance of this author, we need to distinguish between theater and entertainment. This author has devoted himself much more to writing than to business, because he has always defended the literary dignity of writing, an aspect that is too often overlooked. For this reason, he defends the existence of theater on the page as well, as a reading and a re-creation of an intimately personal theater. Furthermore, in Italy, the theatrical world is complex and diverse. There are the large permanent theaters, tied to politics and money, whose programs are repetitive and insensitive to change. Beyond these, there exists a much more vibrant theatrical world, far removed from power, which welcomes new drama and deeper reflections on the relationship between theater and reality. This author belongs to this second world and is always highly critical of certain cultural policy choices made by large theaters and the government. His radical choices in writing have brought his work to universities, and several students have written theses on his plays. I don't know what else to add. I'm working hard to build this page, but I'm a little discouraged right now. My apologies for my poor English. Valydibi (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per above, BUT absolutely tag to expand using information from the Italian version of the article. 147.161.236.94 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Weak Delete or TNT per DMacks' spot-check noted above. I saw that the source given for the subject's main claim to fame, a playwriting prize mentioned in the Lead, did not even Verify that he won the prize. Other citations proposed last night (which I deleted), did not appear to be independent and violated WP:EL. I think the article should be deleted, and, if this person is notable, someone should start again using independent, sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Re:signing: -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A better cite was added. However, most of the sources given in this article are primary sources, which (assuming they even do that) verify only that something happened. It needs secondary sources that explain the importance of the event, production or work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures of a Revolution in Prishtine was not directed by Caspanello, but by a director from Kosovo, as can be seen from note 15. Valydibi (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Tino Caspanello—I would suggest Agatino (Tino) Caspanello or Tino (Agatino) Caspanello, because Tino is the name the author is known by—is one of the most famous Italian playwrights, with his written and performed works also being distributed abroad. This is a very important aspect, because in Italy it is very difficult to establish relationships with theaters, theater companies, and publishing houses in other countries. I checked the sources cited, and they are all valid. I checked the website of the Academy of Fine Arts of Perugia, which does not have digital archives, but maintains the paper documents of its students in the office. Anyone can write and learn about the author's studies, but I don't believe it's possible to post paper documents on the page. I understand the concern about the presence of institutional websites, but it's important to understand the relationship between Italian newspapers and theater: for many years, newspapers have no longer been interested in theater; they no longer publish theater news and reviews, unless they refer to famous television personalities. Material available online is often lost because archives are not built to preserve information. How, then, can we attest to an author's career? Online magazines, such as Sipario.it and Dramma.it, Altrevelocità.it, and Teatroecritica.it, remain the only ones that still pay close attention to Italian theatre, and their websites attest to the veracity of information about the author. Tessy43 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NAME, the correct title is Tino Caspanello, if that is how he is generally known. His full name is Agatino Caspanello -- the nickname is not needed in the full/birth name because it is "a common hypocorism of one of their names" -- that is, Tino is a common and obvious nickname for Agatino. See MOS:NICKNAME. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the highly respected theater criticism and news site Ateatro.it, which reports the author's news of the 2003 Riccione Prize.

https://www.ateatro.it/2003/09/28/i-vincitori-del-premio-riccione/

Can someone add it to the page? I don't know how. Thanks. Tessy43 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll try to publish this link and others I found. Valydibi (talk) 14:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found other very interesting links that confirm the author's work in Italy and abroad. I repeat, I don't agree with deleting the page about him. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is precisely to welcome not only those who already have a clear reputation or greater visibility (this aspect is sometimes often linked to press offices, politics, etc., especially in the theater field), but also those who contribute to changing our perspective on the world, to perceiving a metaphysics in our daily actions, even in those that seem small and banal, because metaphysics, especially in the arts, is the most vital aspect for deeper knowledge. This aspect is recognized in the author's writing, and not only in his country. What is the encyclopedic interest? The quantity of his work? The quality of his work? The coherent project of a writing that transcends regional and national boundaries and is received from East to West with great interest and enthusiasm? Here are the links:

Tessy43 (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I checked the links, and they're all working. Interesting links are those on the website of the Piccolo Teatro in Milan, where Mari opened the Tramedautore festival in 2018; the website of the national newspaper La Repubblica; and the Italieaparis website, which reports on a study day on the author at the Italian Cultural Institute in Paris, in collaboration with the Paris-Sorbonne. Also very interesting is the article in the Openedition magazine on the myths and the crossing of the Mediterranean Sea. I'll try to publish them, along with the related news. Valydibi (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts about "the purpose of an encyclopedia" (emphasis mine) do not correspond to notability guideline (specific to Wikipedia as a particular encyclopedia). DMacks (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article cites multiple indipendent and reliable sources, including theatrical reviews and international publications. The author is a recognized Italian playwright and theater director, whose theatrical writing has been awarded and also translated and published in several countries (France, USA, Belgium, Kosovo, Turkey). The topic clearly meets WP Artist and WP Author notability criteria.
Keep buuut heavily edit: I agree that the current state of the article is messy but the subject is definitely notable and there are bones underneath that preclude the use of high explosives, in my opinion. Moritoriko (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- A reivew

- a much older review (2008)

- a review which also collaborates winning the prize

I think that is enough to pass WP:NENTERTAINER Moritoriko (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! And thanks for the second and third links. Valydibi (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with many of the things you've deleted. I kindly ask you to restore the Novels section with accurate information about the books, and to restore all publications of Caspanello's works abroad, which confirm the widespread diffusion of his writing. I see that on many other entries similar to this one, the section contains similarly worded information. Caspanello has been published not only in France and Turkey, but also in Belgium, Kosovo, and the United States. The ISBN codes also serve to demonstrate this. I ask you to restore the Directions section because it confirms his activity as a director, with all the references from independent newspapers and specialized websites. If you'd like to summarize the Style and Poetics section, you can do so, but please don't delete it; the section contains important references related to the Italian, French, and Canadian academic and university worlds. Valydibi (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion of the Novels heading and streamlining of the text about the two novels. I also agree with deletion of the section about the publication of plays in translation. That is not encyclopedic material. If there is an article discussing these publications as a whole, a mention of that, together with a cite to that article would be appropriate. As for the plays he directed, they can be mentioned, in chronological order, in the career section of they were important to his career. It would be better to find a source that states *why* his work as a director was important, and that talks about his directing career in the aggregate. As for the the style and poetics section, I have not read the sources. Is there a WP:Reliable source that discusses the themes and techniques he has focused on throughout his career? If so, what the source says can be summarized and cited. No one is likely to do these things for you, User:Valydibi -- if you want to restore important material about his career from these sections, you need to present this information much more succinctly, focusing on what is most important to understanding Caspanello's career. I'm happy to proofread what you write, but the more succinct you make it, the more likely Moritoriko and others will accept it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article Is interesting for understanding the development of contemporary Italian drama, especially in the Mediterranea area and for the references in various languages that confirm the encyclopedic nature of the author's theatrical work. The various sections can cettainly be expanded over time with additional informations and references. Elisamast
Keep Though I would expect for an Italian person to have an article in Italian wikipedia first, there are enough sources to establish his notability. The fact that AI was probaly used in writing does not make the person not notable. Mag2k (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some more input by experienced editors as to whether the notability concerns have been addressed. An article being generated with the help of AI is not in and of itself a reason for deletion, as long as the article is correctly sourced and does not contain substantial defects such as hallucinations. If any such defects are present, they should be identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some unsigned Keep arguments here that correspond to IP account edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the sources in the article, three provide some sort of biography, two as an appendix to a text mainly devoted to his work,[42][43] and one as a standalone article.[44] I believe an easier case can be made that he passes WP:NAUTHOR. Santa, la guerra[45][46], Orli[47], Quadri di una rivoluzione[48], Mari[49][50][51] The lack of an article in Italian Wikipedia is explained by far stricter notability standards compared to English Wikipedia.[52] Kelob2678 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 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 00:12, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was recreated after 2 prior deletions due to lack of independent sources. I did a search and found no new or independent sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is limited coverage of him in English media and press. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been brought to AFD twice before so it not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- lack of SIGCOV on the citations and additional searching so far, though I suspect that there maybe more sources in the subject's native language. Wiling to reconsider votes if any can be presented. Lorraine Crane (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sands

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation previously deleted article. The only new sources are [53][54][55][56][57], none of which constitute independent, significant coverage in my opinion. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Medicine. Toadspike [Talk] 11:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets the general notability guideline, supported by multiple independent, reliable, and in-depth sources providing significant coverage of his professional work and media presence. Several major outlets have published original reporting about Kevin Sands and his influence in cosmetic dentistry, not merely passing mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.111.97.107 (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He gets quoted a lot in articles about actors getting ready for the Oscars and things like that, or in pieces on cosmetic dentistry/veneers. The pieces aren't really about him though, but more about Hollywood culture and beauty expectations. He isn't the primary subject, and when mentioned is generally briefly quoted as a subject matter expert. That's not enough to count as WP:SIGCOV. We need a piece directly about him or his dental practice, and that doesn't seem to exist.4meter4 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "cosmetic dentist to the Stars" isn't much of an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user:Bearian and 4meter4 as failing of WP:SIGCOV. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:28, 30 October 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 16:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoje Jovović

AfDs for this article:

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

Was already nominated for deletion, with success, in 2009. The article was later recreated. Besides his own claims about himself made in the year of his death, there appear to be no primary sources about 1) Blagoje Jovović's record in the Second World War 2) Him assassinating Pavelić. All the sources in this article take his word for face value. On the Croatian Wikipedia page, there are Montenegrin historians cited who point this out.

The person who shot Pavelić fled the scene, and all of a sudden, over four decades later in 1999, Mr. Jovović shows up and claims it was him who did it. In the troubled conflictual atmosphere of the 90s, Serbian media were, perhaps, eager to welcome another Gavrilo Princip. If anyone can show primary sources about his record or him assassinating Pavelić it would be welcome, otherwise this article should be removed because of lack of primary sources and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, Croatia, Serbia, and Argentina. Shoshin000 (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you removed the references to various low-quality tabloid portals so there's no illusion of verifiability.

As there's been some coverage of this story in mainstream national sources like Radio Television of Serbia, even if everything is fabricated, the name is now a plausible search term at least. Maybe this can be a redirect to Assassination of Ante Pavelić? As it happens, a new user started that article in September. Maybe the two can be combined into a reasonable article? --Joy (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep. Demanding primary sources take precedence over secondary ones is contrary to guidelines. It's not up to wikipedia editors to do original research, scouring for primary documents to confirm what secondary sources say.. deletion would only make sense if the person was not notable or if it was generally agreed upon that the story is false. There are many reliably published academic works on WWII/Yugoslavia that if not outright name Jovovic as the assassin, at least treat it as a possibility: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] --2605:8D80:13B7:4114:F002:47BB:568:EF49 (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is WP:GNG level coverage in the academic books provided above. Presumably the historians writing above had access to primary materials and other literature to inform their writing. Regardless, there is enough content published in WP:SECONDARY sources to have an article. AFD is not the place to adjudicate what is essentially a content dispute.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether he assassinated Pavelic is irrelevant, the only issue whether he was covered by sources. There are articles about him by Radio Television of Serbia [65] and by Blic[66] Kelob2678 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 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 2024 Israeli secret document leak scandal. ✗plicit 00:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Rosenfeld

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:NBIO violations. Non-notable figure, who hasn't been convicted of a crime, and about whom coverage revolves only around the 2024 Israeli secret document leak scandal. Opposed to a redirect over WP:BLPCRIME issues. Longhornsg (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as long as his name is mentioned in that other article. Having a redirect is, if anything, much less bad than naming him there. If it is removed and stays removed, then delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. A smerge is also possible. I'm concerned about WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME issues. While it has some reliable sources, do we really need a separate article about this? Bearian (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Participants are arguing for a Redirect but that is opposed by the nominator. So we need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Israeli secret document leak scandal per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Israeli secret document leak scandal as per viable WP:ATD. Fade258 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above is fine. The Charlie Kirk suspect and the Iryna Zarutska suspect both have redirects. I dont think BLPCRIME prevents that. Also, there are a few other BLPs that need AFDs related to this case for similar reasons.←Metallurgist (talk) 01:22, 30 October 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.

By the numbers, we have 6 delete including the nominator, 4 redirect, and 6 keep, plus a further IP editor supporting keep. The arguments on each side are similar in strength and no !vote falls to be ignored or down-weighted for lacking in policy-based arguments. Even if I was to treat the redirect !votes as delete, I would still not be able to consider that a consensus. Spinning the wheel for another week with a relist does not seem to me to be likely to bring consensus out.

This does not prevent further discussion on the article talk page aimed at redirecting (or merging) if that is the best outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klavdiya Gadyuchkina

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

Another run of the mill supercentenarian page entirely consisting of longevity trivia and mind-numbingly mundane life details. Non-notable to the point of failing WP:HOLE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Russia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Blade says it all, nothing of ~~academic~~ encyclopedic interest here apart from her age. --Randykitty (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The other !votes provide no deletion rationale under WP:DEL-REASON. Biographies of those who have received WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources are completely standard on Wikipedia. There is ample WP:SIGCOV from numerous media reports already linked in the article - this article in particular ([67]) is extremely detailed, moreso than many of the articles we have for people. She was also profiled in a book on the factory she worked at Red Path published in 1976. As noted in a recent AfD by Bearian, "It's not our responsibility to parse out why significant coverage exists, or what drives editorial decisions. In fact, that's one of the unfair and untrue assumptions about Wikipedia." That the significant coverage she received does not meet individual users' personal interests has no bearing on whether she is notable.

Collecting biographical information on people covered in the media for all sorts of unique reasons has a long history on Wikipedia - there are articles on the tallest trees in the world (Hyperion (tree), Menara (tree)), the oldest trees (Olive tree of Vouves), the tallest people (Väinö Myllyrinne), the shortest people, etc. These are topics that become notable in virtue of their coverage in secondary sources, and secondary sources cover them become of what is perceived to be interesting or noteworthy. We don't have to agree with the media to understand that these articles meet the criterion of the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all tallest trees have an article. Not all oldest trees have an article. And not every tallest/shortest person alive or dead, has an article. MattSucci (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely - you are correct that not every single tall/old tree or tall/short person has an article, but the ones that receive significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources do! And that's the relevant criterion that unifies whether or not these individual people/trees/etc (see also tortoises Adwaita!) have articles. Katzrockso (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, standard longevity fancruft. Clearly fails WP:NOPAGE. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you concede the topic is notable (as WP:PAGEDECIDE is about notable topics - as the very first sentence of the guideline describes), then the question is about how to present the information in a Wikipedia article. WP:NOPAGE provides no rationale for deletion, but rather a rationale for redirection or merging. Where would you propose we merge this information? Katzrockso (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of the oldest people by country is the only option, this article being otherwise an orphan. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you propose that a mini-bio be created for this topic at List of the oldest people by country?

If not, can you explain where/how WP:PAGEDECIDE provides a rationale for the wholesale removal of encyclopedic material, rather than its coverage at another page? Katzrockso (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can understand the deletion of some supercentenarian articles, but Gadyuchkina is clearly notable. She is the oldest Russian ever (meaning that this isn’t passing notability, it will last), and she’s reported on in multiple large Russian media outlets (passing WP:SIGCOV). I’ve also added two extra secondary sources for even more notability. The nominator is infamous for hating the creation and existence of longevity related articles, so I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. PrezDough (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what, she's a non-notable person who happens to be the oldest in an arbitrarily defined geographical area. When she's dead, what will be the rationale, she used to be the oldest person in an arbitrarily defined geographical area? Lots of people have children and grandchildren, that doesn't make them notable, and as is well established living to an arbitrary age doesn't either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the part that said “oldest ever”. She is the oldest ever validated Russian person, a very significant title which, even years after her passing, will still be remembered, both in Russia and around the world. Also, you know what does make someone notable? Having sources in a plethora of national and local news sources. And “Arbitrarily geographical area”? I didn’t know that a country that has established itself in a large area in the world for hundreds of years is arbitrary. PrezDough (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is established is that receiving WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent secondary sources is a reason for notability, under the WP:GNG. Katzrockso (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the oldest Russian women ever is notable enough for an article. Reaching her age is when an article could be considered already, but being the oldest Russian makes her meet the criteria for an article. User:Sneakysasquatchfan(talk) 00:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator! As with all of the unnecessary supercentenarian pages that have been created and then deleted, she is nothing other than "notable" for having breathed for an arbitrarily longer amount of time than other elderly people. And, per Blade of the Northern Lights, this particular one has breathed a few years longer in a certain geographical region. Bio is nothing other than the typically mundane place of birth, unnecessary names of parents, mother died early, worked 12-hour shifts, wow!, married, had children, some died, husband died, reads books, and the highlight of the page: "she has a hearing aid". Seriously!? Everything encyclopedic you could possibly need to know about her, namely: DOB & DOD, is contained in List of supercentenarians by continent MattSucci (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list entry at List of the oldest people by country. PamD 10:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD. 2806:107E:1E:1B8E:BA7C:4BA6:A931:4CE5 (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recant my previous statement per PrezDough. 2806:107E:1E:1B8E:BA7C:4BA6:A931:4CE5 (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC) — 2806:107E:1E:1B8E:BA7C:4BA6:A931:4CE5 (talk) has made no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. If possible, I like to evaluate each article on its merits, looking for significant coverage, and assuming good faith for translations of sources. That's true, even if I might have biases. That being said, this article passes notability. Lastly, if there is any contention about specific guidelines, then I look to see if there are other precedents or common outcomes regarding sources (say, WP:PROF or WP:RS). In this case, I recall recent examples of otherwise non-notable individuals who have received significant coverage for achieving something similarly mundane: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Raffa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inah Canabarro Lucas. It's not our job to second-guess journalists or researchers who decide to publish a human interest story, qualitative study, or lived experience. Bearian (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I had a conversation at Wikimedia NA about this phenomenon with an editor originally from Africa, who expressed exasperation with sourcing sports BLPs from Africa. In certain cultures, sports and human interest stories almost always end every news broadcast or newspaper: after the hard news comes the soft news. "Tell me the bad news first, then the good news will make it better," goes the joke. This is the culture in Russia and the United States, but might not be true elsewhere. It's not our purpose to parse whether that's appropriate culturally. We are a mirror. The previously mentioned conversation I had at WNA was a fortuitous happenstance that only occurred because of a notorious incident. That's human interest. Bearian (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if a subject is notable, that means that we can have an article. It does not mean that we must have an article. If there's nothing interesting to tell, a subject may be better merged into an appropriate list. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the oldest people by country. This is WP:BLP1E, specifically living long enough. I searched for AfDs that contained phrase "the result was keep" and "supercentenarian" in them and got 53 entries. Among them, only 20 articles have not been redirected or deleted as of now. In contrast, for "delete" result there were 103 pages, for redirect 27 and for merge 20. The consensus is usually to delete such article even though local/national press usually provides enough coverage for such people. Kelob2678 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOPAGE says that we should present this information otherwise. This person's entire notability stems from being old, and apart from incredibly minor and mind-numbing details about her life, the information is best presented as a list entry, which gives the only details of this person's life that anyone actually cares about: her date of birth, her date of death (when she dies), her age, and her country. Anything further is cruft. This person is already in three lists which give these details. First delete, then redirect to one of those pages so as to stop sockpuppets from restoring the old text. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need more WP:SIGCOV and not routine coverage here. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the oldest people by country per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the oldest people by country Not enough for a separate article, but a redirect to the page I stated would be a good idea. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the significant coverage in multiple Russian sources over a period of ~10 years. I know there can be an aversion for sources that are more human interest stories (sometimes called "fancruft", "puff pieces", etc) but the details in these sources appear more than routine or trivial but rather tell of a subject who lived from the time of the czars, through wars and famine, living at least 45 years past the life expectancy of the average person in her region. However, if there's a consensus that all supercentenarians who aren't notable for something other than living to 110 or older should be redirected to a list supercentenarians I'd open to considering that down the road. Nnev66 (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a minibio at List of European supercentenarians possibly working in this case. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to the encyclopedic content that is present in the article being retained in some fashion somewhere. The issue is that there is no plain reading of WP:NOPAGE (the only sound argument presented so far) that supports content deletion rather than content preservation. Katzrockso (talk) 08:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What encyclopedic content would that be exactly? Maybe "Gadyuchkina married Sergey Petrovich Gadyuchkin, a naval officer, and at first, they lived with his sister's family in a single room." or "She lived with her son Oleg, but moved in with her granddaughter Olga in 2021." perhaps "In January 2022, she visited the Yasnye Zori sanitorium in Yaroslavl." or possibly, as I have already mentioned, and the highlight of the page: "In June 2023, her hearing was tested by hearing center "Rainbow of Sounds" and she was fitted with a hearing aid." Apart from her DOB, current age and future DOD, there is nothing "encyclopedic" here. Wikipedia isn't a supercentenarian fansite! MattSucci (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical information is widely considered to be encyclopedic content, as a biography is included on nearly every single Wikipedia article on a person. That you do not find her life WP:INTERESTING has no relevance on whether or not the content is encyclopedic. For what it's worth, reliable sources take interest in the lives of supercentenarians in virtue of their longevity - news articles regularly include biographical information because people speculate on why/how a centenarian lived longer, what historical events they endured/witnessed, while researchers study their lives because they can provide insights into why centenarians live longer (see [68] for one example from 1979!). The point is that this individual has received significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Katzrockso (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no real reason for deletion, notability in the sense of worldwide importance is not a requirement and she has enough source. 79.101.225.106 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2025 (UTC) — 79.101.225.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unsure what is "mind-numbingly mundane" about being not only the oldest living person in Russia, but the oldest person in Russia in history.

Once again, reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as do all your other supercentenarian AfDs (though some of them have been valid!) Aesurias (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I do not like it, but not in the sense of WP:IDLI. Her bio IS truly "mind-numbingly mundane". The fact that she is the oldest living and oldest ever Russian, is reasonably interesting to know, but an entry in a list is more than sufficient to convey those two encyclopedic facts. And as for "all the other" supercentenarian AfDs, well, consensus as to whether they had adequate encyclopedic value to merit a standalone page has been decided by fairly well attended discussions, and not the fact that the articles were simply disliked. Also, make of it what you will, and I'm definitely not claiming that it is significant, but the nine editors for delete/redirect have a combined edit count of 690,000+, whereas the eight who are for keeping, including two IP addresses with 9 edits between them and the article's creator, have a total of just over 125,000. MattSucci (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, 115,000 of those 125,000 edits are from a single editor. MattSucci (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment I have seen 3 rationales for deletion posited in this AfD. There is an allusion to the subject being non-notable, but scarcely an argument has been presented to show that the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" already present in the article does not satisfy WP:BASIC. One editor suggested that the coverage was "routine", but provides no such justification for why the coverage is routine - the articles are not exemplified in WP:ROUTINE and it is not guaranteed that any supercentenarian gets coverage in the media (there are many non-notable supercentenarians who receive no public attention whatsoever). To that effect I have reproduced a source assessment table below. Another editor proposed that this is an example of WP:BLP1E, which makes little sense both because there is no "single event" that the subject is covered for (is this "single event" supposed to be longevity, old age? This doesn't mesh with any existing interpretations or definitions of the term "event" - see WP:WI1E and this discussion), and that the subject is not a "low-profile person" given that she has repeatedly given interviews, so the second-prong of the required three is not met. The final argument proposed is WP:NOPAGE, which concedes that the topic is notable (as the very first sentence states "When creating new content about a notable topic"), but argues that the subject is better covered at another article. These editors suggest a redirect to a relevant list of supercentenarians. There are two problems here: the first is that WP:NOPAGE provides no rationale for wholesale deletion of encyclopedic biographical content derived from WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources that violates WP:PRESERVE, rather than a merge. As far as I can tell, there are no examples of an entire class of notable people whose coverage on Wikipedia consists merely of an entry on a list. At a bare minimum, notable people are mentioned in prose at some article (insofar as content has been added about them). The second problem is that no good justification has been offered to support the invocation of WP:NOPAGE, which resolve around "Does other information provide needed context?", "Do related topics provide needed context". Redirecting the article to a list does not aid readers by giving them any additional context - the list articles contain virtually no context or additional information on related topics.

Some editors have described the encyclopedic biographical information contained in the article as "incredibly minor and mind-numbing details", "cruft", "mundane". These are not rationales for deleting biographical information, they are personal opinions on the importance of a given sentence, statement or fact (WP:IDL). Biographical information including "names of parents", information about work-life, marriage, children, etc are included in just about every biography on Wikipedia for which there is sufficient coverage to source it to. Some editors have also pointed to past deletion discussions (WP:OUTCOMES), but provide no justification for why all supercentenarians must be understood as having equivalent notability - many of these past supercentenarians had little to no coverage (or these discussions were participated in largely/exclusively by editors who vote to delete every longevity-related article).

This source assessment table addresses only 3 sources, there are many more that provide WP:SIGCOV, but I chose 3 more in-detail sources that give more than sufficient information to produce an encyclopedic biography. One good English-language source is [69].

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://rg.ru/2017/12/28/reg-cfo/kakie-knigi-chitaet-108-letniaia-zhitelnica-iaroslavlia.html	The publication and author have no personal connection to the subject and there is little reason to believe that the coverage was garnered in exchange for payment.	Rossiyskaya Gazeta is probably not reliable for political matters in Russia, but in context there is little reason to suggest that the organization is unreliable on other topics. The article is bylined and the author is a dedicated journalist.	This provides an extensive biography of the subject, from her early life to the present, with about 20 paragraphs focusing on the subject herself.	✔ Yes
https://86.ru/text/world/2023/12/19/73034369/	The publication and author have no personal connection to the subject and there is little reason to believe that the coverage was garnered in exchange for payment.	The publication is owned by Hearst Shkulev Media, which is owned in part by a US-based corporation. The article is bylined and the organization has a clear editorial stance [70].	Provided in the article is detailed coverage (~8 paragraphs), only one of which is a quote.	✔ Yes
https://www.yar.kp.ru/daily/27695/5084683/	The publication and author have no personal connection to the subject and there is little reason to believe that the coverage was garnered in exchange for payment.	Organization has a clear editorial structure, article is bylined, no indication of unreliability for biographical information.	About 7-8 paragraphs specifically about the subject, with additional sentences consisting of quotations. This is more than sufficient to qualify as SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Katzrockso (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the WP:BIO1E discussion, 4 support the interpretation that 1E applies, 2 oppose it, with one opposer arguing that merge/redirect is a suitable alternative in such cases. Another opposer was a drive-by editor, I have seen in the 2 or 3 days since I bumped into this topic again after an absence of about ten years. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote count, given that the project was created by editors who obsessively focus on deleting longevity-related articles ([71] [72]). The arguments presented made it very clear that BIO1E cannot reasonably be interpreted in such a way, more than welcome to bring this to the talk page of WP:Notability (people), but it is clear by any plain reading of the policy that an attribute is not an event and some editors have mistakenly conflated the two (refer to my discussion above about old/tall trees/people). Katzrockso (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand 1E as a situation where only one type of story can be told about an individual. For example, if all coverage of a person is of the type 'Meet John. He is tall', then this is 1E. If I tell you there is an article about Trump, you wouldn't be able to tell what it's exactly about because Trump is notable for many events. In contrast, all articles about Gadyuchkina are essentially the same in terms of content. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly an interesting opinion, but I'm not sure what basis in policy it has - how does this match the actual text of the policy or its application? The policy specifically uses the word event and no such "event" can be found here (indeed, it even links to the essay WP:WI1E). Many articles on sports people consist simply of "Meet John. He plays soccer". Many articles on artists consist of "Meet John. He made a painting". That people are notable in virtue of one aspect of their life has never been disqualifying for having a Wikipedia article!

As I noted above, we have articles on trees notable only for the reasonable that they are tall, as well as articles on people who are notable only insofar as they are tall (e.g. John F. Carroll). We even have several articles on the women with the longest nails; Ayanna Williams. I don't think that the "one attribute" (or your "one story") interpretation of BIO1E makes any sense here. Katzrockso (talk) 08:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS --Randykitty (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To dismiss my thoughtful and carefully crafted response as OSE is reflective of the poor basis in policy this nomination possesses. "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

Parity of reasoning applies here, and logic that implies that a class of hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles ought to be deleted without substantial basis in policy need better justification, or simply outright reflect a lack of basis in policy. I have been making the point that BIO1E does not apply here for plainly reading the policy; any reasoning contrary strains credulity and risks the appearance of not understanding the plain meaning of words, for attributes and stories are not events. Katzrockso (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that the policy must be interpreted that way. I am saying that it could. 1E also links to an essay WP:NOTBLP1E, which claims: Subjects who have created many works, of which the majority have little attention and one has a sizable (or cult) fandom. The implication here is that a work with a sizable fandom is 1E.
Not all bios of old people should be redirected. For instance, if there was coverage of Gadyuchkina of the type 'G received an award from President Putin', 'International Commission is to investigate the cause of G’s longevity', or 'G is hospitalized, what is known about her medical condition?' then an argument could be made for a standalone article. In the current article, only this gets close, but it is promotional. Kelob2678 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm saying that such an interpretation has no basis in policy and is effect reading tea leaves into a statement. The essay you linked is about BLP1E and explicitly contradicts your interpretation, as the listed "Subjects who have created many works, of which the majority have little attention and one has a sizable (or cult) fandom" is an example of something to which BLP1E does not apply. Read the entire section in full and this becomes evident. You are more than welcome to promote the implementation of a guideline that deems biographies that are notable for only one story or one attribute should generally be deleted or merged, but until the day that guideline is implemented it cannot be divined from above.

It's promotional of the medical center, not of Gadyuchkina. And once again, there is absolutely no policy basis for redirecting a biography of a notable subject whose notability is the result of "one story", this is just another form of WP:IDL. Moreover, as I detailed in length above, at best BIO1E provides no rationale for deleting content, but merging it to the topic of the notable event that takes priority. The guideline (WP:1E) talks about whether to write an article about a person whose participation or involvement in an event is significant or the event itself, which if we are applying your tortured analogy, would be writing an article about longevity (? which one) and discussing Gadyuchkina's role in it, which obviously makes no sense. Katzrockso (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subsection is titled 'One dominant event'. In the quote I provided, that dominant event is a work with a sizable fandom. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the section specifically states "An exceptionally common misinterpretation of BLP1E is that subjects notable primarily for one event are notable only for one event. If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing, even if the rest of it is far overshadowed by the primary event, BLP1E does not apply". This is still about events ("works" here factors into events insofar the release of a work is an event) and establishes that BIO1E is not applicable in the case of a subject who has a sizeable fandom for one of their works. This essay is specifically countering misinterpretations of BLP1E that try to use it to delete lots of articles, which is why it states "BLP1E permits articles that would give even the most die-hard inclusionist pause".

"For instance, BLP1E theoretically permits an article on a low-profile individual notable for only a single event in which he had a substantial and well-documented role"

If we are to provisionally accept your analogy of "one story" here to "one event" (which once again has precisely no policy basis), there is no rational basis on which to conclude that this essay is anything but an indictment of a delete !vote. The analogous statement is to say that "BLP1E permits an article on a low-profile individual notable only for one story in which she had a substantial and well-documented role". Applied to this case, it would mean that BLP1E permits an article on a low-profile individual notable only for her story of being old in which she had a substantial and well-documented role - obviously she had a substantial and well-documented role in her own story of being old! But the contrived grammar of these statements made it abundantly obvious that these policies refer specifically to "events" rather than some other broad concept that is specified nowhere. Katzrockso (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we are running in circles. In that case, BLP1E doesn't apply because of many works, not because of fandom. Table for illustration:

If the article's subject has done more than one notable thing
Quote	one notable thing (One dominant event)	done more
Subjects who were first notable for one event, and rode that fame into attention on their other endeavours	first notable for one event	other endeavours
Subjects who have created many works, of which the majority have little attention and one has a sizable (or cult) fandom	one has a sizable (or cult) fandom	created many works
Subjects who were involved in significant events, but with a pattern of involvement in smaller (but still worth mentioning) events outside of them	involved in significant events	involvement in smaller (but still worth mentioning) events

Application of policy is determined via consensus, including at AfD. That my interpretation is not baseless is evidenced by WP:OUTCOMES. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the relevance of this table, then. It merely states that subjects who have more significant events, despite having one predominant event for which they are known, are notable. This is just clarifying that "one event" means "one event", not anything more or less. These don't have anything to do with the application of the BLP1E ("Subjects notable only for one event") guideline to non-events. As for WP:OUTCOMES, that merely reflects the fact that there used to be a large number of non-notable supercentenarians on Wikipedia and they were typically deleted. Nothing more, nothing less. Katzrockso (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To quote from the closer of the Afd earlier this year for Lucia Laura Sangenito, with a similar level participation to this one, but with only one editor also contributing here, "Discarding socks and others without policy behind them, we're left with a valid discussion about whether the information about her is worth retaining (yes) and as a standalone article (no)." Her mini-bio contains the same level of encyclopedic information as Gadyuchkina's (i.e. none). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Over the past couple of days, I’ve added additional reliable secondary sources which are in depth about her life, extra signifying that this person is notable for an article on Wikipedia. Perhaps if she was solely the oldest living Russian (and not oldest Russian ever), maybe I could understand arguments against keeping, but here I completely disagree. PrezDough (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that the article states that the sources are contradictory on the year her mother died. If this is not verifiable, the article is virtually a primary source of person's life retelling as it is written. I am also unsure if a promotional government source provides notability here. Leaning Delete IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Dunkel

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

I PRODed this article, it was deprodded by AndreJustAndre. This author does not meet any WP:NACADEMIC criteria and has only passing mentions or routine coverage in a few media articles. Katzrockso (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Psychology, and Social science. Katzrockso (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning weak keep. Katzrockso and I have been working on a protracted dispute that has still led to some constructive article improvements, but Katzrockso has opined that this guy should be stricken from the article and Wikipedia now apparently. I deprodded because I thought this had at least a 50% chance of surviving an AFD under GNG. This is evidently a fringe author, has published in fringe publications, and he seems to have some association with hereditarian/race realists/scientific racists/racist scientists/whatever you want to call them, or is one, but being a bad person or an unsavory personality isn't a reason to prod. We have lots of articles on notable white supremacists. He definitely doesn't meet NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR, but under GNG, I am leaning weak keep. There is the Guardian source already in the article, which gives him a couple paragraphs that I'd probably consider more than just a passing mention: The other co-author, Curtis S Dunkel, is a psychologist who was affiliated with Western Illinois University (WIU) on the paper but is billed as an independent researcher on recent publications and on the ResearchGate website. The Guardian contacted WIU for clarification. A spokesperson said: “Curtis Dunkel is no longer an employee at WIU”, adding: “I cannot comment on the reason for his departure.” Dunkel, along with Kirkegaard and Woodley, spoke at the London Conference on Intelligence (LCI) in 2016, according to leaked conference schedules. Dunkel’s paper was entitled Sex Differences in Brain Size Do Translate into Difference in General Intelligence, and the abstract suggests that Dunkel claimed that women were less intelligent than men by an equivalent of 4 IQ points on average. Here is coverage of him in Psypost, which I think is an RS right?, and which seems to be fairly significant coverage as it focuses on him and his study: [73] He is cited for debunking purposes by the Chad and Brym 2020 article[74], and by the Panofsky article (already in the article). Those cites are pretty cursory, but taken as a whole, he appears to have a footprint. I also got a bunch of hits in Google Books, about 2 pages, unless there is another Curtis Dunkel, citing a book "Possible Selves Theory, Research and Applications" and some for "Terrorism: An Identity Theory Perspective."[75] ResearchGate, which may not be correct or reliable but as a rough indicator, claims he is cited 2814 times and has 126 publications. Another small cite in a cognitive development book, "Children′s Thinking" [76]. The Panofsky thing is covered in a book [77] which devotes most of the preview page to Dunkel that I can see. Another small cite in "Confronting the “Weaponization” of Genetics by Racists Online and Elsewhere" [78]. My standard for keep is not dependent on how much I disagree with or find distasteful the person, and I have argued to keep less notable individuals, so I have a tough time coming down on the delete side here. Andre🚐 07:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly notable fringe researchers like Emil Kirkegaard have had their articles deleted/redirected multiple times despite mentions in exposes of race science. Having a small number of citations or even one example of routine coverage of a specific adademic paper in PsyPost doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. I don't think that the passing mentions of Dunkel in The Guardian article constitute WP:SIGCOV, since they don't have any analysis of him but consist of small factoids about his academic career.

I agree this is borderline notability, because his prior work on identity in relation to social psychology is much more significant than his recent work on fringe theories, but without a good analysis of the actual prominence of his work within that literature, I believe there is no real justification for notability. Katzrockso (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:38, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sourcing. We have a similar problem at Russell T. Warne. Some of these far-right "race" pseudoscience people are not notable for Wikipedia articles. There simply isn't enough good WP:FRIND sourcing on them to establish an article. Veg Historian (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Katzrockso, and an assessment of the sources included on the article below. The primary issue is the lack of significant coverage throughout all of the sources used in this article. I can't really find much sourcing that would establish notability that's not included in the article because he simply isn't discussed much outside of fringe science. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:SmittenGalaxy
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Reference 1: The Register-Mail. Note that this is paywalled.			Run-of-the-mill coverage of tuition change, trivial mention of article subject amongst a large list of other people.	✘ No
Reference 2: Time		WP:TIMEMAGAZINE	The article is not about him, and the single time he appears is plainly a trivial mention.	✘ No
Reference 3: PsyPost	Concerns from other editors over the WP:SELFPUBLISHED and WP:PRIMARY status of PsyPost leads me to say that it is not an independent (third-party) source.	PsyPost does claim, on their about page, to have editorial standards. However, my research on here has shown that there are editors with concerns over PsyPost's reliability, as it does not appear to be anything more than a pop-news blog.	~ As per Katzrockso, this source is probably not significant coverage. Having a single paper reported on would not normally contribute to notability, although it would be a helpful source to support someone already notable.	✘ No
Reference 4: The Guardian		WP:THEGUARDIAN	Article not primarily about subject and his mention is trivial. Just about his co-authorship on a paper and another trivial mention of one of his papers.	✘ No
Reference 5: 'How White nationalists mobilize genetics: From genetic ancestry and human biodiversity to counterscience and metapolitics			He was cited once, and is briefly mentioned as the author of a single paper in an analysis that is many pages long.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete- per nom and the good criticisms of SmittenGalaxy. I want to add too that PsyPost does not at all check the reliability of their sources, as several times I removed links which cited retracted studies. It is a (non-primary source) blog, and therefore not a good source. Plasticwonder (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Chan

AfDs for this article:

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

While the company he founded (Enlight Software) may pass WP:GNG, this person doesn't seem to pass WP:N. The coverage from reliable secondary sources is either interviews (primary sources/coverage is about the games/Enlight and not about the person) or press releases. There is no in-depth discussion/SIGCOV about this person's life. OceanHok (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I also do not think Enlight Software is notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Enlight Software is well known in the business simulation game community. I believe that you are not a business simulation fan, so it is understandable why you don’t think Enlight Software is notable

Correct me if I am wrong -- I believe Wikipedia requires articles to demonstrate notability within their specific fields, rather than general notability to the broader public. Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:NOTE) emphasize that subjects must be notable within their own field or context (in this case, business simulation game community), not necessarily to the general public at large. This is a core principle to allow coverage of specialized topics, from niche software developers to cultural institutions, as long as there's significant reliable, independent secondary coverage.

For example, does the following article look notable to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Folk_and_Duet_Song_Academy_Nepal

If all articles that are not notable to the general public should be deleted, then I believe a significant portion of articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. Fact2Hound (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is quite probable that a large portion of Wikipedia articles are non-notable if we stopped all editing today and only went through assessing the notability of articles, but there isn't going to be some sort of mass deletion as that would easily throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyway, this discussion is not about the studio, but WP:FAME is not a viable argument either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to argue why this article should be kept/deleted , not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. FYI National Folk and Duet Song Academy Nepal was created and submitted through WP:AFC which was approved by Afc reviewer and later reviewed by another New Page Reviewer . which means organization is Notable enough to pass WP:GNG and most importantly this discussion is about Trevor not others .Khagendra (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you said. Fact2Hound (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your saying that "I also do not think Enlight Software is notable either", which should be classified as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also.

Don't you think that it is strange that with so many old biography articles needing to be deleted, the on-going AfD list includes none of the old ones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_(Biographical) This list entirely consists of newly created articles in Sep/Oct 2025 except this one we are debating which was created 20 years ago in 2005.

I wasn't aware of this until I just checked out the list. For Wikipedia's transparency, I think at least this deserves some observations. Fact2Hound (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) and specific notability criteria for people (WP:BIO) do not explicitly require in-depth discussion or significant coverage (SIGCOV) specifically about a person's life to warrant a standalone article. Instead, notability for individuals is established through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources that address the person directly and in detail (beyond trivial mentions), which can focus on their achievements, contributions, works, or roles in events rather than a comprehensive biographical overview. For creative professionals like video game designers, this could include coverage of their role in creating or co-creating significant works that have themselves received independent reviews from notable sources or critical attention.

The article includes references to the following reviews of Chan's games from GameSpot and IGN:

https://www.ign.com/games/trevor-chans-capitalism-ii/reviews

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/seven-kingdoms-review/1900-2532953/

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/seven-kingdoms-ii-review/1900-2532952/

Both of GameSpot and IGN are recognized as reliable sources for video game coverage in Wikipedia's perennial sources guidelines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources Fact2Hound (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OceanHok According to your standard, many persons in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_designers list have the same issue. I believe fewer than half of the persons in the list have in-depth discussion/SIGCOV about their person's lives or are very famous. Should we delete all of their wikipages that do not pass this highly demanding threshold? If you think so, I will go ahead and create "articles for deletion" for them and see how the community reacts to the deletion proposals, so that we don't hold a double standard.

Here are a few examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Ancel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Annunziata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnab_Basu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Beatrice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Barlog

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A9phane_Boudon Fact2Hound (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fact2Hound: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, some of the articles you mention should actually be nominated for deletion, especially Chris Beatrice. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 21:10, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are SIGCOV for his games and NOT for himself. We need RS about the person, not RS about the studios/games. While it is true that some of the other articles probably won't survive AfD, mass nominating them for deletion is a WP:POINTY behaviour. OceanHok (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is not true. The links I originally added are not only about his games but also include this one about himself:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/trevor-chan-qanda/1100-2833574/

You could verify this the article's history of my edits. Fact2Hound (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources are mainly interviews, user has no edits(or minimum) outside of this article , Sections of the article (mainly "Capitalism series") looks AI generated. Not !voting only because i had reverted user's edit to redirect (which i felt was perfectly fine) assuming good faith and had this encounter with the user in his talk page and left decisions to experienced editors . please ping me if i am eligible to vote . Khagendra (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: Per Wikipedia's policy, the concensus is actually not affected by the numbers of positive and negative votes .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Fact2Hound (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Yoon, Suh-kyung (2002-09-26). "Gaming -- Game Boy: A Hong Kong game developer proves that learning is half the fun". Far Eastern Economic Review. Vol. 165, no. 38. p. 40. Factiva feer000020020919dy9q0000r. ProQuest 2869126904.
  The article notes: "Trevor Chan spends most of his days flipping through recipe books and finding out how much fresh produce like artichokes and steak would cost in Paris. He also has a map of properties in Paris and calculates their rental fees. But 29-year-old Chan knows nothing about cooking and has no plans to open a restaurant -- at least not a real one. He's a game developer and he's working on his latest creation, a simulation game called Restaurant Empire. ... In another game, Virtual U, which Chan developed with funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation in New York, gamers must manage a university. But none of these games come close to the success of Chan's first creation, Capitalism, which he designed when he was just 19. The business-simulation game has sold more than 150,000 copies around the world. Building on its success, Chan launched a sequel, Capitalism II, earlier this year. "He's the most successful game developer in Greater China," says Gino Yu, head of the Multi-Media Innovation Centre at Hong Kong's Polytechnic University. "Almost every other computer game made in the region is a "me too" game that was modelled after something made before in the U.S. or Japan. Trevor's games are unique. He's one of the few Asian developers who can get their games distributed in the U.S. and Europe." One reason Chan succeeded in the global games business is that simulation games are easier and cheaper to create than shoot-em-up, graphics-heavy strategy games. ... Ironically, Chan never went to university and doesn't know how to do many of the things his games teach others to do. The unlikely entrepreneur learned how to build a business when he was developing Capitalism. ... Today, as founder of a profitable company with a staff of 27, that research has paid off."
2. Davis, Chris (2004-05-04). "Writing your own rules in the business of computer games". South China Morning Post. Factiva scmp000020030505dz540005w. ProQuest 265647330. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
  The article notes: "By combining his love for computer games and business, Trevor Chan Ming-yuk created his own entrepreneurial vision as founder and chief executive officer of Enlight Software Limited. ... It wasn't long before he had created a game based on building a business empire. In 1995, he launched "Capitalist", a simulated stock market game that allows players to experience running their own multi-billion dollar business. Leading US publisher Interactive Magic distributed Capitalist, which has been hailed as one of the best economic games. Harvard and Stanford University incorporated the award-winning game into their business management courses shortly after its release. ... It took more than three years to develop and launch Capitalist, during which time he was working seven days a week as a consultant providing computer-generated business solutions to trading companies. He spent his evenings and weekends writing computer code and reading business manuals. The phenomenal success of Capitalist spurred the creation of other business games, such as Virtual U, which simulates operating a university, Seven Kingdoms, Capitalist ll, Hotel Great and the latest offering, Restaurant Empire."
3. Saltzman, Marc, ed. (2000). Game Design: Secrets of the Sages. Indianapolis: Macmillan Publishing. pp. 395–396. ISBN 1-56686-987-0. Retrieved 2025-10-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Trevor Chan founded Enlight Software in 1993. Under his leadership, the company has received numerous accolades from the industry and become one of the world's leading developers of strategy and simulation games. ... Trevor's first game, Capitalism, published by Interactive Magic in 1995, has won industry awards and been widely regarded as the best business-simulation game ever created. "Capitalism is the most realistic, detailed business sim on the market today, and one of the best economic games of all time," says PC Gamer. ... Trevor then went on to produce Capitalism Plus, the eagerly anticipated follow-up to the original. Together with the original, over 150,000 copies of the Capitalism series have been sold worldwide. ... Trevor Chan is now directing his teams at Enlight to produce Capitalism II and Virtual U. Capitalism II will take the award-winning business-simulation game to the next level with breathtaking graphics and increased realism."
4. Krich, John (2004-05-20). "Virtual Feasts: Restaurant Computer Game Turns Chefs Into Action Heroes". The Wall Street Journal. ProQuest 315568313. Archived from the original on 2021-01-23. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
  The article notes: "The game, developed by Hong Kong programming whiz-kid Trevor Chan, comes in the wake of "The Sims," a massively popular series of games that allow players to create characters, make decisions for them and control their environments -- from casinos to cruise ships and nightclubs. ... Mr. Chan may be right when he claims his creation "shows the emotional attachment needed to succeed at a restaurant." Surprisingly, however, he wasn't moved to invent Restaurant Empire by a love of gourmet dining, but because "a lot of simulation games can measure management results or tell a story, but this game does both." Mr. Chan founded game-development company Enlight Inc. in 1993, when he was 20. His first release was the 1995 "Capitalism," a management game that became a cult favorite at Harvard and Stanford business schools. In 2002 came "Hotel Giant," a hospitality-industry mock-up. Restaurant Empire, released last year, has sold 150,000 copies."
5. Feldman, Curt (2000-04-28). "Trevor Chan: On the Record". GameSpot. Archived from the original on 2025-10-18. Retrieved 2025-10-18.
  The article notes: "Trevor Chan, the game designer behind Intaractive Magic's Seven Kingdoms, doesn't make it to Atlanta very often. Chan is based in Hong Kong, In fact, as GameSpot News pursued Chan in the weeks preceding E3, all efforts to connect failed - and failed again. Actually, IMagic staffers started to worry a little that Chan had decided to leave the business of computer game development behind. Our worries were quickly routed when Chan walked into the E3News booth on the show floor and introduced himself. He was, to be expected, quickly engulfed by a small sea of curious GameSpot reporters and editors. ... Seven Kingdoms' sequel, Seven Kingdoms II, is currently in development at Chan's Hong Kong-based design company Enlight Software."
6. "Seven Kingdoms 2". GameStar (in German). October 1999. p. 138. Retrieved 2025-10-18 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Trevor Chan, Spieleent-wickler aus Hongkong, verfügt über ein ganz besonderes Talent: Er tüftelt gern komplexe Spiel-ideen aus, die er dann in armselige Grafik verpackt und mit einer umständlichen Steuerung versieht. Damit hat er es schon zweimal geschafft, sehr interessante Spiele zu Kultobjekten für ein Häuflein Hardcore-Profis zu machen. Besonders schade war es um Seven Kingdoms, einen originellen Mix aus Echtzeit-Strategie und Civiliza-tion-Elementen. Der Nachfolger präsentiert sich mit hübscher Grafik und entrümpelter Steuerung. Damit ist es auch für Normalspieler interessant, in das stimmungsvolle Szenario abzutauchen und als König eines Menschen- oder Mon-sterreiches die Weltherrschaft an sich zu reißen."
  From Google Translate: "Trevor Chan, a game developer from Hong Kong, has a very special talent: He enjoys devising complex game ideas, which he then packages with poor graphics and cumbersome controls. This has enabled him to twice turn very interesting games into cult classics for a handful of hardcore pros. It was a particular shame with Seven Kingdoms, an original mix of real-time strategy and Civilization elements. The sequel presents itself with attractive graphics and streamlined controls. This makes it interesting for even casual gamers to immerse themselves in the atmospheric setting and seize world domination as the king of a human or monster kingdom."
7. Less significant coverage:
  1. Huang, Shih-yuan 黃士原 (2003-08-13). "奇蹟餐廳挑戰經營玩家上麻布 76折買遊戲" [Miracle Restaurant: Management Challenge. Players Go on Linen to Get the Game at 24% Off]. Star News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 18.
    The article notes: "製作「金錢帝國」經典策略遊戲系的華裔設計師Trevor Chan，繼「模擬飯店」後再創結合模擬經營與角色扮演的遊戲「奇蹟餐廳」，遊戲最大特色將著眼在經營模擬的細度及廣度，並忠實呈現出建造與營運一家餐廳可能面臨的所有挑戰，這款遊戲預計在16日上市。"
    From Google Translate: "Trevor Chan, the Chinese-American designer behind the classic strategy game "Money Empire," has created "Miracle Restaurant," a follow-up to "Restaurant Simulator," a game that combines business simulation and role-playing. The game's defining feature is its focus on the intricacies and breadth of business simulation, faithfully capturing all the challenges of building and operating a restaurant. The game is expected to release on the 16th."
  2. Huang, Shih-yuan 黃士原 (2004-05-21). "聖女傳戰鬥感逼真玩家扮貞德講求殺得好" [Legend of the Saint: Intense Combat Experience. Play as Joan of Arc and Master the Art of Killing]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B1.
    The article notes: "繼「金錢帝國」、「模擬飯店」、「奇蹟餐廳」等遊戲後，光譜資訊將再為玩家代理由名製作人Trevor Chan領導ENLIGHTSOFTWARE所製作的「萬夫莫敵－聖女傳」，遊戲結合了角色扮演、即時戰略，以及第3人稱動作冒險等遊戲元素，遊戲預計在5月底推出。"
    From Google Translate: "Following games like "Empire of Money," "Hotel Simulator," and "Miracle Restaurant," Spectrum Information will represent players with "Invincible - The Legend of the Saints," developed by renowned producer Trevor Chan and ENLIGHTSOFTWARE. The game combines role-playing, real-time strategy, and third-person action-adventure elements and is expected to launch at the end of May."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trevor Chan Ming-yuk to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the sources. I've added them to the article's wiki page. Fact2Hound (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fact2Hound (talk · contribs), thank you for adding these sources to the article! Cunard (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Fact2Hound has canvassed me, and User:Edward321 to this discussion based on our "keep" opinions from the first AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fact2Hound: You appear to be linked directly to the subject due to being a WP:SPA, therefore, you are required to disclose this relationship. Not doing so is grounds for a potential block on WP:COI grounds. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. I appreciate the heads-up on policy, but I believe there may be a misunderstanding here. To clarify:

1) I am not a WP:SPA, as I've made contributions to a variety of articles across Wikipedia unrelated to this topic. My editing history is available on my user page for review.

2) I also have no direct link to the subject of this AfD. My interest stems from general knowledge of the topic and a desire to contribute to Wikipedia. Fact2Hound (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, Whpq, and for bringing this to my attention. I was completely unaware of such a canvassing guideline. There are so many rules in Wikipedia that are not common by real-world standards. I actually found it very weird that sending a friendly message to you notifying about the 2nd AfD would violate the rule, as I didn't persuade you to vote to keep or delete. Having said that a rule is a rule, I'll make sure to review WP:CANVASS and apply it carefully going forward.

I certainly didn't intend to violate it or sway the discussion in any direction. That said, would it be possible to modify or replace the message I posted on your talk page to bring it into line with Wikipedia's standards? I'd be happy to do so if that would help resolve this. Fact2Hound (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it's hard to see the need to contact anyone from the previous AfD at all, unless it has been relisted multiple times without participation. Theoretically if an article is notable that should be obvious regardless of who is participating in the discussion. If you aren't associated with the subject at all, nor are the article creator, then you shouldn't take issue with just letting things play out and the chips fall as they may. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm, I appreciate your perspective on letting the discussion unfold naturally. My intent in notifying a couple of editors from the previous AfD—who had already expressed informed opinions on the notability of this article—was not to sway the outcome but to ensure that those who had previously engaged with the topic could choose whether to participate again, especially now that the discussion has been relisted for broader input. You're right that notability should ideally stand on its own merits, but I see a structural flaw in the AfD process that can sometimes undermine that ideal: only the nominator is explicitly permitted to notify potentially interested parties (e.g., via talk pages or project notices), while others risk accusations of canvassing if they do the same. This can lead to discussions that attract participation unevenly—often skewed toward those who happen to stumble upon it or who are motivated by the nomination itself—rather than drawing from a fuller cross-section of editors familiar with the subject. In the first AfD for this article, a range of views emerged from editors who'd reviewed the sources and context; notifying them here (neutrally, without urging a specific vote) simply aimed to recapture that balance. I'd welcome any thoughts on how we might address this asymmetry in the process to better approximate a "real-world" consensus, where all relevant voices have a fair shot at being heard. Thanks for engaging thoughtfully. Fact2Hound (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm, to address the second point in your message "If you aren't associated with the subject at all, nor are the article creator, then you shouldn't take issue with just letting things play out and the chips fall as they may": while I am not the original creator of the article, I have made substantial expansions to it since taking an interest in the topic. The previous version was very brief and lacked details. For a clear comparison, I invite you to review the revision history diff between the versions. This demonstrates my good-faith investment in improving the article per Wikipedia's content policies, rather than mere creation. Regarding your suggestion that those not associated with the subject or its creation "shouldn't take issue with just letting things play out," I appreciate the intent behind encouraging impartiality, but I must respectfully note that no Wikipedia policy restricts participation or concern in AfD discussions to original creators alone. Policies like WP:OWNERSHIP affirm that "no one owns" articles and all editors are welcome to collaborate and defend content based on merit (WP:OWN: "No one, no matter what, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article "). Your comment seems to imply a rule against non-creators engaging meaningfully, I'd be grateful if you could point me to the specific policy text and link—I've reviewed WP:AFD, WP:CANVASS, and WP:OWN, but found no such provision. Absent that, could you consider withdrawing that framing to keep our discussion focused on the article's notability? I'm genuinely invested in building a stronger Wikipedia, and collaborative input from all sides is what makes that possible. Looking forward to your thoughts. Fact2Hound (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What would be the nominator's preferred AFD outcome? Enlight Software is an obvious merge target, but I am not sure if it isn't better to merge Enlight into Trevor Chan? This article is better sourced at least. IgelRM (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX: As a relatively new Wikipedia editor, I'm still in the process of learning Wikipedia's numerous guidelines, which understandably takes time. With that in mind, I'd like to ask whether my comments today (28 October) violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS—my intent was simply to respond to a framing raised by Zxcvbnm. If they do, I'll gladly withdraw them. At the same time, could you also review Zxcvbnm's comment from 27 October for the same guideline? My goal here isn't to escalate any tension but to ensure we're all adhering to the rules collaboratively. Thank you for your guidance. Fact2Hound (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fact2Hound: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a policy you can "violate". It's an essay about which arguments are considered weak in deletion discussions. Nothing prohibits you from using such arguments, but be aware they'll receive little if any weight from the closing admin.

That said, your excessive participation in this discussion is verging on WP:BLUDGEONING - a form of disruptive editing that can be seen as a policy violation, not to mention supporting the impression that you are related to the article's subject. You have stated your opinion and presented your sources. There is absolutely no need for you to respond to every single comment here, including this one. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 08:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To bring the discussion back on track - after reviewing the article again, I do believe that Chan is in fact passing WP:NARTIST #3 as he is a prolific game designer who designed multiple notable titles. I will have to strike out my opinion above. I do think a far smaller argument could have accomplished the same thing, though... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 29 October 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.

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhante Vimalaramsi

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose Bhante Vimalaramsi's article should be deleted. The reasons are fundamentally unaltered from the 2012 AfD, which decided to remove the page on grounds of lack of notability and independent sources.

Many sources could not be properly verified at the time of this writing, while some either do not qualify as independent, are not trustworthy secondary sources or cannot have their editorial integrity checked.

1. Sources that do, but only partially, are the Pluralism Project from Harvard University. It's cited at first as depicting the subject ("Vimalaramsi") on a biographical tone. However, upon closer examination his name could not be found in the referenced article. The second link to the pluralism project was found broken and inaccessible, compromising the article's integrity.

2. Other sources are significantly biased. Kraft - for example - is a self-published author that does not meet the criteria for notoriety as a secondary source. Kraft was a student of Bhante, and while that alone may not be able to confirm the presence of bias, Wikipedia excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. David Johnson has published a book through an unknown publisher whose editorial integrity cannot be verified, as well as Vimalaramsi; the article is littered with his (Vimalaramsi's) own self-published work that violates the General Notability Guideline for sources that are "Independent of the Subject".

3. There are violations of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy, as well as unsupported claims of literary fame. I will present one of such examples below.

"In 1995 Bhante began to study the Sutta texts more thoroughly and he practiced meditation according to the Suttas." (Said who?). After a three-month self-retreat in a cave in Thailand, he wrote a book on the Mindfulness of Breathing called "The Ānāpānasati Sutta: A Practical Guide to Mindfulness of Breathing and Tranquil Wisdom Meditation". Today it is estimated that more than a million copies of this book are circulated worldwide in 12 languages."

Very well; however, the link to Daily Mirror LK is inaccessible. This source would be the only one supporting a significant claim to fame that cannot be found anywhere else. Bear in mind Daily Mirror LK is not the same paper as the British tabloid Daily Mirror.

4. Some sources may be misleading, effectively resorting to trickery.

Some sources may quote inaccessible or nonexistent phrases. Marvel Logan/Vimalaramsi could not be located in the Institute of Buddhist Studies, nor in Harvard's Pluralism Project or Daily Mirror LK. I have marked the phrase below as possibly resorting to such trickery:

"I really got it! Whenever you try to focus your attention only on breathing and exclude other things—sound, delusive ideas etc., you will get stuffiness and tension in your body and mind, even if you are not aware of it."; this quotation could not be located in the Institute of Buddhist Studies. The subject (Vimalaramsi) could not be found as well. And even if he has been mentioned, that fact alone does not guarantee notoriety.

The article is too compromised to be kept separate. The few trustworthy sources that could be found are inaccessible or don't mention this person at all upon closer examination. The article should be deleted for its multiple violations of Wikipedia's editorial guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathnotekll2 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Buddhism, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the discussion to add new arguments and expose additional violations. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I have updated the proposal so my stance is clear. I originally recommended two possible courses of action, however since then other users have voted for merge. Leaving both on the text is unnecessary and may cause confusion on where I stand. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC) (your nomination is considered your vote so I'm striking your duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. All cited sources are connected to Vimalaramsi in some way. Looked for reliable, secondary, independent sources but could not find any. Could only find more primary and connected sources, social media, forum/Reddit posts, etc. The previous AfD resulted in delete and it appears that no new reputable sources have been published since then. Woodroar (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Pluralism Project from Harvard University is there. What you said is not accurate. Also the Link for Daily Mirror LK is there.https://www.dailymirror.lk/news-features/Dhamma-Teaching-for-Daily-Life/131-140058https://pluralism.org/news/american-monk-named-first-us-representative-world-buddhist-supreme-conferenceI would say you are being too critical. This does not deserve to be deleted. If any links are broken it can be googled and correct link could be added. Dhammagavesi1 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pluralism Project source is a press release from BuddhistChannel.tv, placed by Vimalaramsi's Dhammasukha.org. The Daily Mirror LK source is another press release, for one of Vimalaramsi's talks. The language there is entirely promotional, not journalism. It's also published by the Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka), not the Daily Mirror. Not that it really matters, as it's a press release.

If you can supply WP:THREE reliable, secondary, independent sources, I'd be happy to review them. Keep in mind that our notability policy requires that subjects receive significant coverage in those reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a press release, to the letter. Woodroar has recovered the two articles I couldn't find. Journalism is defined as an objective, third-party reporting process that collects, researches, verifies, and presents information to the public. A press release is, opposing that, a subjective, promotional document created by an organization to generate favorable media coverage and create public awareness for a company, event, or product. I have added this comment so the difference is clear to participants who aren't aware of what these terms mean. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article represents the Representative of the United States to the World Buddhist Conference in Japan. https://www.dhammasukha.org/world-buddist Bhante Vimalaramsi is a famous noted teacher of Sutta based Buddhism. His channel has 885 videos - his method of TWIM has worldwide presence https://www.dhammasukha.org/dhamma-sukha-world-wide

The Path to Nibbana has attained a huge following and the teachings there have been verified by Meditators who practice it. Notably Matthew Immergut a coauthor of Mind Illumninated is an avid follower of TWIM. There are many research papers available about Bhante Vimalaramsi's students https://www.dhammasukha.org/twimarticlesandresearch

On the other hand there are people who don't like TWIM who are trying their best to discredit him but even the Buddha had his haters. Please do not take this down. David Johnson https://www.dhammasukha.org/david-johnson David Johnson Dhammasukha (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD will decide the matter based on Wikipedia's internal policies. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that all of the sources you have listed above are from dhammasukha.org, a website directly affiliated with Vimalaramsi. Furthermore, the "many research papers available about Bhante Vimalaramsi's students" listed on dhammasukha's page are deceptive. Psyche.co tricks the reader into believing Delson Armstrong was a participant of a paper published on Progress in Brain Research, and yet his name cannot be located in Ruben E. Laukkonen's Cessation of Consciousness in Meditation (Harvard University, Southern Cross, 2023). Next, the page relies on two more articles from Scientific American, of which only one is accessible, to offer an apparent credible claim to its legitimacy. And yet none of the alleged sources acknowledge TWIM, Vimalaramsi, Armstrong or anyone whatsoever from the aforementioned organization, anywhere. The page hosted on dhammasukha.org uses general scientific articles published on meditation in an attempt to support its specific method of practice when that support doesn't exist. Deathnotekll2 (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I searched for his name that couldn't find any solid secondary sources to bolster the page with however it does appear that he was well known in certain circles of the Buddist community--I am wondering if there is another page his info can be merged with. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if we can determine which is the best target for the merge. Please ping me if consensus can be determined for that, otherwise, sadly I think a delete is our other course of action. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:

Comment: surprisingly long
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 04:08, 24 October 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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Light

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

after doing BEFORE, I don't see any reliable sources about this person, thus failing notability. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG the Arabic refs are secondary sources and have editorial integrity. Jiaminglimjm (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Bull Middle East article is an international source, so it appears the nominator has not really checked. Weak Keep IgelRM (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Go D. Usopp (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep-, though some of the citations are passing mentions, given the subjects awards, after some spot checks on the current citations, I am seeing some of the sources being more towards SIGCOV like here. But a few more additions would help lean towards a more solid keep. Tried looking though google news and a brief search already shows the subjects potential notability like this one.Lorraine Crane (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
gamingonphone.com does not look like an established source, so I would be wary for notability here. IgelRM (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Independent significant coverage across years, plus confirmation of the 2025 CRL World Finals win (Nov 2, 2025). Sources: Esports Insider (Nov 3, 2025) https://esportsinsider.com/2025/11/clash-royale-world-finals-clash-of-clans-winners ; YallaKora (Arabic, Nov 3, 2025) https://www.yallakora.com/news/529013/%D9%84%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AB%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B7%D9%84-%D9%83%D8%A3%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%84%D9%83%D8%AA%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-clash-royale-league-2025 ; Esports.net recap of 2024 title (Nov 4, 2024) https://www.esports.net/news/mobile-games/crl-world-finals-2024-mohamed-light-champion/ ; YallaKora on 2024 title and $200k prize (Nov 11, 2024) https://www.yallakora.com/news/489433/ ; Esports Awards winners page (2023, Esports Mobile Player of the Year) https://esportsawards.com/previous-winners/esports-awards-2023/ . WP:NONENG. — 98.169.166.250 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no cosensus. Without a source analysis, this is very difficult to judge. I don't feel confident in reviewing/judging the Arabic language sources, and those who do are claiming they contain WP:SIGCOV without elaborating further. Ultimately, the nominator has not sufficiently engaged with the sources to make their case, and has not attempted to rebut the keep arguments. Given this has been relisted twice, I think a no consensus close is appropriate at this time.4meter4 (talk) 06:47, 4 November 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.

Luísa Barosa Oliveira

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

Pretty much a WP:ROTM model. Social media personalities are ten a penny, too. Forbes 30 Under 30 is a list designed to sell copies of Forbes and has no significance for notability. WP:NOTINHERITED from her relationships. Publication of a journal does not confer notability, nor does being a cover picture for a magazine. Fails WP:BIO. Is a fan piece, WP:ADMASQ 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Internet, and Portugal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: she meets the requirements for notability with coverage about her as a celebrity, through various aspects of her life and career, in sources such as Correio da Manhã (Portugal), SAPO (website) [pt], Flash! [pt] , Caras (magazine), and so on. The coverage is sustained, it is significant and independent. One can find it less interesting than discussing German philosophy or politics but then, no one is forcing anyone to read it. As for "social media personalities" being "ten a penny", maybe, but that's totally irrelevant; and the essay about "run-of-the-mill" coverage is a highly debatable one and I don't think it is relevant here either. e.ux 13:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

12:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of the subject, just a few lines here and there in all this article's references and I'm not seeing much content in the article. What are the three strongest references in case I've missed something? Nnev66 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Z E T A³ 16:03, 2 November 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. I've decided to close this discussion and encourage a new, sock-free AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armando de Sequeira Romeu

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

Many of the references are at the Discogs/Facebook level, much of the text is LLM-written, and the main editor has a declared COI, but he may be notable. Is this worth keeping? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Cuba, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3 SOCKSTRIKE ditto the next one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep — Armando de Sequeira Romeu appears to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians. He was a Cuban-American composer and bandleader documented in multiple independent sources, including university archives and music foundations. He composed for the Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna, Chucho Valdés and Paquito D’Rivera, and worked in Tropicana for many years as composer and drummer. The composer is clearly a notable figure in the history of Cuban jazz and popular music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanGaryFreed (talk • contribs) 11:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources mentioning this musician beyond a couple of passing mentions. Someone more adept with Spanish language or Cuban sources may be able to find something but the names Armando de Sequeira Romeu and Armando Sequeira (which I think may have be another name he was known under) don't give any hits in the Spanish language stuff I looked in. There appears to be a different Cuban musician/composer called Armando Romeu Jr./Armando Romeu González (1911-2002) who may have some notability and the current article seems to confuse them (eg Romeu Jr recorded with Nat King Cole). Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find this obituary in a publication called CiberCuba. It doesn't seem reliable and is the only source I can find to say he performed with Nat King Cole. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

§ 3 instead/addition to § 2 for ease of reading the other stuff. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you very much for your comment, Vladimir.
I would like to kindly clarify that I was still in the process of developing and help sourcing the article when the deletion discussion began. I am new to editing and was still learning how to format references and properly cite institutional sources. The article is not yet complete.
Armando de Sequeira Romeu (1937–2023) was a different musician from his uncle, Armando Romeu Jr. (1911–2002). Armando de Sequeira Romeu was a composer, bandleader, and drummer for the Tropicana Orchestra during the Cuban modern-jazz era, while his uncle, Armando Romeu Jr., was a saxophonist, arranger, composer, and conductor for the Tropicana Orchestra for 25 years. In 1956, he directed the orchestra of the world-famous Tropicana Cabaret and conducted the music for Nat En Español with Nat King Cole at the Tropicana.
Several independent and institutional sources confirm Armando de Sequeira Romeu’s authorship and recordings:
**Fundación Gladys Palmera (Spain)** — documents that Paquito D’Rivera’s first professional recording was the theme Invitación a una locura, composed by Armandito Sequeira Romeu.

**Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Music Collection (Florida International University)** — lists Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna – EGREM EP-6040 (Invitación a una locura) and Areito LDA-3308 (Te vas a casar – Sequeira, Armando) under his authorship.

**Orquesta Aragón – Areito/EGREM (Release 3608085)** — includes his composition Un Final Inesperado with the printed credit “A. Sequeira.”

**Deezer (France)** — features Armando de Sequeira Romeu’s original composition as credited composer and performer. View composition

These sources establish Armando de Sequeira Romeu as an independent composer within the Romeu dynasty and an early figure of modern jazz in Cuba, distinct from his uncle’s legacy. I appreciate your consideration and understanding.
Sincerely,
— GalaxyGirlMusic (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Armando de Sequeira Romeu meets WP:MUSICBIO notability standards. He was a Cuban-American composer, arranger, and bandleader documented by independent media including *El Nuevo Herald*, *CiberCuba*, *CubitaNOW*, and *TopHoy*. His work is archived at the FIU Latin Pop Music Collection and recognized by the Gladys Palmera Music Foundation (Spain). He collaborated with Paquito D’Rivera, Chucho Valdés, and Bobby Carcassés, composed for the Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna and Aragón, and worked with the Tropicana Latin-Jazz Orchestra under his uncle’s direction, Armando Romeu Jr. (not De Sequeira Romeu). His career is verifiable and forms part of Cuba’s documented jazz history.
For reference, *El Nuevo Herald* covered Armando de Sequeira Romeu in two independent features: Lena Hansen, “Jeannette Romeu se presenta en Steinway,” 11 June 2004 (p. 2C); and Arturo Arias-Polo, “Los Romeu, concierto de jazz en La Playa,” 29 January 2009 (Revista Aplausos section). Both articles confirm his identity and career as a Cuban-American composer and bandleader. LewisMFederMD (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HATGPT, also socking

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

Keep — As a new editor still learning how Wikipedia works, my solemn intention is to help preserve verified information about Cuba’s rich musical heritage. The following summary highlights the independent institutional sources that confirm Armando de Sequeira Romeu’s notability for his historical and cultural importance as a legendary musician within the illustrious Romeu musical family.

Armando de Sequeira Romeu (1937–2023) was a Cuban-born composer, arranger, bandleader, and multi-instrumentalist — nephew of Armando Romeu Jr. and great-nephew of Antonio María Romeu. His career embodies the bridge between classical tradition and modern Cuban jazz, marking him as a distinguished voice of the century-old Romeu musical dynasty.

A Musical Dynasty of Over 100 Years The Romeu family has been described as "más que una familia… una tradición en la cultura cubana" — "more than a family… a tradition in Cuban culture." Their multi-generational contribution has defined Cuban musical identity across classical, popular, and jazz forms. Members of the dynasty shaped Havana’s golden age of music at the world-famous Tropicana Cabaret, where Armando Romeu Jr. directed the orchestra for over two decades alongside leading performers such as Delia Bravo, one of Cuba’s pioneering female jazz singers.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Nat King Cole at Tropicana (Havana, 1958) During the 1958 Havana sessions for Cole Español (Capitol Records), Armando de Sequeira Romeu performed as drummer, while his uncle Armando Romeu Jr. — founder and longtime musical director of the Tropicana Orchestra — conducted the ensemble. Armando Romeu Jr. continued leading the orchestra for over twenty-five years, transforming it into a symbol of Cuban modernism and one of the most dynamic cultural and musical exchanges between Cuba and the United States.

Nat King Cole and Zenaida’s Recollection During the recording sessions of Cole Español at the Tropicana Club in Havana, Nat King Cole worked under the musical direction of Armando Romeu Jr., who had conducted the Tropicana Orchestra for more than 25 years. Among the orchestra members was his nephew, Armando de Sequeira Romeu, performing as drummer. In later interviews, De Sequeira’s sister, Zenaida Romeu — founder of Camerata Romeu, who has performed for King Charles III, Queen Camilla, and Queen Letizia of Spain, and collaborated as conductor with Michel Legrand — fondly recalled that Nat King Cole once turned to her uncle and asked, “Who’s that drummer?” When told it was his nephew, Cole smiled and said, “He’s a diamond.” Source: CiberCuba – Zenaida Romeu’s recollection of her brother’s collaboration with Nat King Cole

De Sequeira's sister, in her later interviews, Zenaida Romeu — founder of Camerata Romeu, who has performed for King Charles III, Queen Camilla, and Queen Letizia of Spain, and collaborated with Michel Legrand — recalled that Nat King Cole once turned to her uncle Romeu Jr. during the recording and asked who the drummer was. When told it was his nephew, Cole smiled and said, “He’s a diamond.”

Although documentation of the complete session personnel remains incomplete, ongoing research continues to honor these musicians, whose artistry defined a golden era of collaboration between Cuba and the United States.

“Invitación a una locura” — Paquito D’Rivera’s Debut in Latin Jazz Armando de Sequeira Romeu composed Invitación a una locura, the first professional recording of Paquito D’Rivera’s career, performed with the Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna (EGREM EP-6040, 1964). The Gladys Palmera Foundation, Radio Station and Record Label (Spain) identifies this work as a milestone in Cuban modern jazz: “El primer disco de Paquito D’Rivera con su saxo, aquí haciendo una maravillosa versión del tema compuesto por Armando de Sequeira Romeu.” See: Gladys Palmera article • Gladys Palmera podcast • FIU Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Collection

“Pero Tú Vendrás” — Official Areíto Recording and Modern Reissue with Chucho Valdés On the original Areíto LP Piano y Ritmo (LPA 1038, 1964), Armando de Sequeira Romeu is credited as composer of the opening track “Pero Tú Vendrás,” performed by Chucho Valdés. The album’s printed credit reads: “PERO TÚ VENDRÁS / Bossa-Jazz / A. Sequeira – ‘CHUCHO’ VALDÉS,” confirming his authorship on this early Cuban jazz fusion. Produced by Areíto (CUBARTIMPEX) in Havana, it remains one of the first documented collaborations between De Sequeira Romeu and Valdés. The same recording was later reissued on Valdés’s album Jazz Nocturno (Descarga! Records), preserving the piece as part of Cuba’s early modern-jazz canon. See: Discogs – Piano y Ritmo • Discogs – Jazz Nocturno

“Te vas a casar” — Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna His composition Te vas a casar (“You Are Going to Get Married”) is listed in the Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Music Collection (FIU, Sección 05 R), credited to the Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna (Areíto LDA-3308). The piece is also featured on Deezer (France), confirming De Sequeira Romeu as the credited composer and performer. See: View on Deezer

“Un Final Inesperado” — Orquesta Aragón Another significant work, Un Final Inesperado, was recorded by Orquesta Aragón and archived under Areíto/EGREM, with the composer credited as “A. Sequeira.” This composition is also available via Deezer (France), confirming its international preservation. See: View album

Irakere — The Vanguard of Afro-Cuban Jazz In 1972, Armando de Sequeira Romeu collaborated with Chucho Valdés in the early formation of the ensemble that evolved into Irakere, serving as musical director for the pre-Irakere group of musicians. His mentorship helped shape the generation that would redefine Afro-Cuban jazz. According to the Berklee College of Music, Valdés “cofounded Irakere, known for its explosive mixture of jazz, rock, classical, and traditional Cuban music, alongside music director Armando de Sequeira Romeu.” See: Berklee College of Music • FamousFix – Cuban Conductors (Music)

Collaborations and Legacy Armando de Sequeira Romeu collaborated with Paquito D’Rivera, Chucho Valdés, Bobby Carcassés, Orquesta Aragón, Orquesta Cubana de Música Moderna, Maggie Carlés, Luisa María Güell, and Georgia Gálvez, among others — bridging classical training, jazz innovation, and Cuban cultural history. His work is recognized by the Gladys Palmera Foundation (radio station and record label in Spain), Florida International University (FIU), and El Nuevo Herald (Lena Hansen, 2004; Arturo Arias-Polo, 2013), as well as in official discographies documenting the evolution of Cuban Latin jazz. See: El Nuevo Herald • Discogs – Armando Sequeira

Summary Independent institutional sources — including the Gladys Palmera Foundation (Spain), EcuRed (Cuba), FIU Díaz-Ayala Latin Pop Collection (U.S.), Areíto/EGREM (Cuba), Berklee College of Music, and Deezer (France) — establish Armando de Sequeira Romeu as a distinct and historically verifiable composer, arranger, and music director born into the renowned Romeu musical dynasty.

In conclusion, Armando de Sequeira Romeu's career unites tradition and innovation, preserving more than a century of Cuban danzón, classical, and jazz — a living heritage that continues through his own generation. His lifetime of creative mastery and authorship makes him an essential link in the Romeu musical dynasty.

Given this extensive body of work, documentation, and cultural recognition, deletion would be an unnecessarily radical action against a musician whose contributions helped place Cuban jazz and Latin modernism on the world stage.

Keeping this article ensures that Cuba’s musical history and cultural legacy remain represented, preserved, and accessible to future generations.

Thank you very much for your consideration. — GalaxyGirlMusic (talk) 23 October 2025 (UTC)

^ "Familia Romeu". EcuRed (in Spanish). Retrieved 24 October 2025.
^ "La dinastía Romeu en la música cubana". Gladys Palmera (in Spanish). Retrieved 24 October 2025.
^ "Delia Bravo". Desmemoriados (in Spanish). Retrieved 24 October 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I tried to decide between a No consensus closure or a relisting as this discussion is difficult to follow with all of the struck comments. I still believe it might be best to close this and start off again, especially as there was so little legitimate participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am seeing minor coverage in scholarly books like [79], [80]. Saxophonist Paquito D'Rivera (who is notable) was his student and talks about him in his book. He does have recordings in Discogs. Note that searching for sources is challenging because of the different ways of giving his name. He sometimes goes by Armando Sequeira for example. I am seeing some snippet views in google books in Spanish language materials from mid 20th century that might contain WP:SIGCOV. I strongly suspect that there is coverage in Spanish language materials available off-line. I can't prove notability with these, but I strongly suspect that WP:NEXIST could be proven.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 31 October 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) 14:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narin Ammara

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

Fails WP:BIO. Wholly WP:ROTM youtuber and influencer.. WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, batant WP:ADMASQ. Note that in this diff, now removed, the creating editor suggested that I had accepted this as an AFC review. While they removed that with their next edit this is unacceptable behaviour. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Syria, and Sweden. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ::@Timtrent:, It was not intentional. It was a mistake while copying and pasting the template from Talk: Dejzi, and this page was reviewed by you. Apologies for this. But showing this page as reviewed, was not my intention. I was just adding templates of Project Biography and Project Fashion. Lord Johnson24 (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Johnson24 This is not the place to discuss this matter. We are in conversation at your user talk page. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't the place, then it ought not be mentioned in the deletion rationale, either. pburka (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:RS - many of the Southeast Asian franchisees of American media are pay-for-play; two of the sources are YouTube. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references available in this article support the subject's notability on their own. She have 16.5 M subscribers. Filmyy (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - most of the sources are terrible, but the Cosmopolitan and Harper's are reliable, so she just barely makes it. If kept, copy editing is needed. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject satisfies Wikipedia's General Notability requirements for an individual, according to the accessible references (as mentioned by Bearian). Meets the criteria for notability as outlined in WP:GNG.Lord Johnson24 (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 31 October 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ower

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

The subject of this article seems to be relatively unnotable, with the only mentions outside of this article being a short biography from an art organization he was a part of here, part of a table listing members of his organization here, and a passing mention in a short article about his organization here. Apart from those three, I couldn't find any sources about him, and two of those arn't really what I'd call in depth covrage Pyrrhic victor (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Pyrrhic victor (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has a brief biographical entry in Glendinning, Miles; MacInnes, Ranald; McKechnie, Aonghus (2019). "Ower, Charles, senior (1813-76)". History of Scottish Architecture. Edinburgh University Press. p. 587. ISBN 9781474468503. His son also has an entry on the same page. He appears to have been the elected head of the Dundee Institute of Architects as he as listed as the presiding officer in this coverage. Earlier he served in the position of secretary see here. Here is coverage of his work building up library resources in architecture as part of the Free Library Committee. There is also coverage of him in Walker, David Maxwell (1977). Architects & Architecture in Dundee, 1770-1914. Abertay Historical Society. pp. 24–32. There is a biographical entry on his son in Who's Who in Architecture, 1914. There are several mentions in architecture publications to the father to a lesser extant like these: [81], [82], [83], etc. This source covers the son's election as a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland which might mean he passes WP:NACADEMIC criteria 3. Google books has promising snippet views of articles in The Inland Architect and News Record. The son has an in Directory of British Architects, 1834-1914: Vol. 2 (L-Z) - Page 300. I didn't take the time to search newspapers.com but I would imagine some coverage could be found there as well. The sources I have presented i think collectively pass WP:GNG. Note that having father and son on the same page makes since given it was the same firm they both worked for in a family business. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. jolielover♥talk 17:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's hard to judge notability when we have one article which is about two different people. They need to be either split or change it to be talking about their firm or something like Ower family. Yeshivish613 (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Both father and son were known by the same name so I don't see the need; particularly since it was a family business. Anything else wouldn't reflect the published literature and wouldn't be a likely search term.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existence of these two as architects is not in doubt, however, it does seem to me that their notability is doubtful so its a delete from me. The current references do not establish notability sufficiently and there does not appear to be significant coverage. If additional references can support notability, at least for a few of their buildings/projects, then maybe notability could be established Coldupnorth (talk) 08:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio giuliano

15:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe there is a comment above already that mentions this but it's really odd that this page is about two different people and therefore it makes it hard to judge notability. Agnieszka653 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 23 October 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. While there is a heavy numerical tilt toward keeping, the argument that this person meets GNG has not been evidenced, and the argument that the post inherently confers notability has not incurred enough support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gadyaces S. Serralta

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

Very few, if any, reliable sources that could be used to prove notability or significance. I considered creating this article when Serralta was nominated, but I abandoned it because there were very few sources that would prove notability. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and United States of America. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 00:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete- finding some additional sources like 51 and 52, but seems to be mostly about his placement to the position only and not much else, so agreeing with noms point mostly.Lorraine Crane (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - I note that the past incumbents of the same office have articles, indicating notability. I've placed criminal justice students at the Marshall's Office, so I'm hesitant to !vote for fear of being called out for a conflict of interest. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option. Let's get some more participants to review this article and its sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment past incumbents were indeed notable because of the US Marshals being the enforcement and security arm of the US federal judiciary including for the Supreme Court. However in the US post-constitutional era the position has no significance because the postholder reports to the US attorney general and serves at the AG's and the president's pleasure. Thincat (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the current US Marshals Service Director which is a federal post--I think the person serving in this role should have a page as a public official. Agnieszka653 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep US Marshals Service Director is definetely passes notability criteria. Mag2k (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A top US Federal law enforcement post is notable imo. team6and7 (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This, along with the two comments above it, fail to get at what the point here is. The position doesn't automatically confer to its holder. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Director of the United States Marshals Service per WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG and there is no relevant WP:SNG for this particular job. The keep votes aren't basing their opinions on policy.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The nominator is correct. Participants can't put forward their own opinions on what is or isn't notable, please provide policy-based reasons or arguments based in reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The office itself is the notability. See Director of the United States Marshals Service for proof. It would appear that not all of them have articles, but the position itself was created by our first president George Washington in 1786. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if we were discussing that article, that would be an applicable argument there. This is about whether or not Serralta is notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mag2k. Meets WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per team6and7. Meets WP:GNG. Nixleovel (He/They) (Talk • Contribs) 07:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How does this meet WP:GNG? Nobody has shown it has by providing WP:SIGCOV. Where are the multiple independent sources with significant coverage?4meter4 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with this. I don't see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject and of each other, as the Notability rule requires. There are only 3 sources and none of them meet this standard. SilverhairedHarry (talk) 15:47, 5 November 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) 17:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Rubin

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

All sourcing is about purported sex and financial crimes of which the subject has not been convicted. WP:BLPCRIME... and even if he was convicted, he does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL. All sourcing is from his recent charge and one local routine news piece about him getting married (he lived in NY, so "local couple weds" is local routine news, even if from the NYT) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rubin is a notorious trader who satisfied the GNG before the 2017 accusations.[84][85][86] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You linked one article multiple times, FWIW. The material of that source is about a single crime of which he was not convicted. Still does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL, still a WP:BLPCRIME issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate link was meant to be this [87]. His 80s trading notoriety with merrill lynch did not involve criminal accusations or prosecution so of course he wasn't convicted then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It did, because link 3 says he settled the scandal without any admission of guilt. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a administrative civil matter. There is a difference. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am misreading it, but doesn't this policy say a person normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is another article that can incorporate the encyclopedic material - i.e. suggesting a merge. There is no other existing Wikipedia article that could house the encyclopedic material as it stands. @PARAKANYAA

Thanks in advance Katzrockso (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso NCRIMINAL says "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." It also specifies we should usually only have an article on a criminal BLP if they have been convicted. My bigger issue is he hasn't been convicted of anything and is covered only for his alleged crimes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you are right on that. I think the question is over the second point. There was sustained coverage of this crime over a long period of time - there are news articles from 2017 to 2025 that specifically identify Howard Rubin as the alleged culprit; [88] [89] [90] [91]. I have a hard time understanding this coverage as anything other than "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

Some of the media coverage I already read specifically mentions his infamy for the Merrill Lynch [92]. I found extensive coverage of him in the New York Times regarding this incident as well, as @NatGertler points out. Katzrockso (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso This fails "unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event". There are a lot of sex crime cases, and I wouldn't say that "persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage" given that all appears to me to be just the case breaking and the immediate developments. Any time there is a development in a case it gets a blurb in the news but that is not "persisting beyond contemporaneous news coverage".

But the bigger issue here is that he has never been convicted of any crime, so we can't even include any of it. He is only covered for things that we cannot say he did! The NYT coverage is the same, as the Merill Lynch losses are related to alleged crimes on his part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA The Deadspin article I linked is specifically when there is no immediate development in the case - it asks the question "Whatever Happened To The Other Wall Street Millionaire Accused Of Sexual Assault" in the title.

As explained below, there was no crime in the 1980s/1990s reporting - a SEC recordkeeping violation is not a crime. Is there any prior discussion on Wikipedia whether BLPCRIME covers civil offenses? This actually seems like a major oversight in the wording of BLPCRIME if it is intended to include civil and administrative violations as well. Katzrockso (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deadspin's article does not give me hope on its reliability, given it is owned by the same people as Gawker, and the only mention in a reliability discussions do not show great confidence [93]. Especially for a topic like sexual assault... but that aside, I always assumed it did, e.g. when we were writing about OJ Simpson's civil case while he was still alive I belief we had to operate by BLPCRIME rules. I do agree this is not very clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have linked the article here without considering its reliability prior to this. Most commenters on the RS Noticeboard expressed that the reliability of G/O Media-owned sources declined after 2021 and that like usual, reliability should be considered in context. The source here is based on information that was reported in prior reliable sources.

Moreover, it seems puzzling to me to say that the sustained coverage here can be dismissed by saying it is a "development" that qualifies as "contemporaneous media coverage". The media reports on things when there is new things to report -

The allegations in the OJ Simpson civil case are the same allegations of fact as in the criminal case. There is no comparable allegation of criminal conduct to parallel the allegations of administrative misconduct. Katzrockso (talk) 00:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:BLPCRIME as it currently stands (I've never tracked any changes on that), it should protected Rubin much more than Simpson. OJ was undeniably a "public figure", in that he had given plenty of interviews, starred as himself on advertisements, and so forth. As far as I've seen so far, Rubin qualifies as WP:LOWPROFILE -- I don't see any interviews or personally-sought publicity for him. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't think Rubin is a notable person. Perhaps if a conviction is secured a page can be restablished, but the article significantly over-exaggerates his importance regarding financial work and Wall Street ... Aesurias (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the article currently lacks sourcing, newspapers.com search finds a lot of coverage of the bad trades at Marrill Lynch on April 30, 1987, and a few days after. Often it's this Boston Globe piece, which is talking about a broker but only names him several paragraphs in. Not finding earlier coverage of him (doing separate searches of his name with "Merrill Lynch". Name in 1989 for SEC hearing, in 1990 for his settling without admission of guilt, and some follow up as Merrill dealt with the larger matter and Rubin received pay they'd been withholding. After that (and only looking through to 2000), I'm finding only passing mentions in articles on similar cases or lists of financial disasters. Searching for his name and "Salomon" to find pre-Merrill mentions brings up nothing of use. (I should note, however, that neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are in the newspapers.com database.) So... there are sources to be had even if they are not currently in use in the article; I will refrain judgment for now on whether they are enough to conquer notability concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Rubin's financial crimes seems to (rightfully) overshadow his background I think a new page should be created focusing solely on his financial indiscretions rather than being about him as a person specifically. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Financial crimes of Howard Rubin" is even worse than providing a neutral biography on Howard Rubin. Katzrockso (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be a hard title to claim, as what he was charged with was not (at least it seems from a simple description) a financial crime (a la, say, embezzlement or tax avoision), but a record-keeping violation. If there were to be an article that would cover this, it would likely survive not by being about "crime" per se, but about Merrill's big loss, with Rubin's perceived involvement being an aspect of that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are exactly correct in that the coverage from the 1990s is not about a crime, but about his perceived role in the losses that Merrill Lynch incurred. There is a lot of coverage from the New York Times on this; [94] [95] [96] [97], as well as the coverage that you have linked to. It's even mentioned in the original article on him that he was mentioned as a key player in the book Liar's Poker (I downloaded the book - "Rubin" the surname is used 66 times).

I think even if we struck the entire section about the allegations of him with regards to sex offenses, there is still plenty of significant coverage to create an article. Consequently I am !voting to Keep this article. Katzrockso (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rubin seems to be the recipient of passing coverage and coverage which if we were to make the whole article about it, would be a clear BLP violation. I think this could be deleted unless WP:SIGCOV can be provided, but then the article still would need a rewrite, but I don't think we will get there as I think it will be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do the articles from the NY Times from the 80s and 90s not qualify as significant coverage? Katzrockso (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm surprised to hear about the sex trafficking charges but I knew about Howard Rubin from his Wall Street career and how it was portrayed in popular media and I do not make it a habit of following financial news. I mean, he was notorious in the past. I have no new sources to add to this discussion, unfortunately, I'm just surprised to see this article even nominated, much less getting so much support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage linked here is of his (alleged) misconduct, which is not enough to base a BLP on. Until we have evidence that he meets the GNG entirely independently of these legal issues, the article should be deleted. The comment above mine amounts to "but he's famous" and does not address the BLPCRIME issue. Toadspike [Talk] 08:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, how does BLPCrime apply to someone accused of civil misconduct? If there is an internal dispute in a company that garners significant coverage, is Wikipedia not supposed to cover it? He garnered notoriety because of a controversy within the company where he supposedly caused significant loss to the company. I don't see this as significantly different than people who gain notoriety for other contentious actions. Moreover, despite there being coverage about him alleged misconduct (which again is not a criminal charge and no such allegations of criminal wrongdoing have been made with regards to his financial activities), he received significant coverage in media for his role in Wall Street. I mentioned the book Liar's Poker above, which is most definitely significant coverage above and beyond any of the financial misconduct allegations, but he was also covered in "Rouge Traders". This is why the media coverage on him with respect to his most recent allegations almost unanimously refers to him with terms like "known on Wall Street" to the point that he is very commonly mentioned in popular history books about Wall Street or the Financial Crisis. Most of the earlier coverage surrounding Rubin relates to allegations by his firm against him, none of which rose to criminal activity - his firing, his trades, etc.

WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NCRIME and WP:CRIME all explicitly refer to criminal acts or crimes, which is explicit language because not every allegation of misconduct arises to criminality. Katzrockso (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For three examples of coverage that cover Rubin in significant ways that are not exhausted by his financial or sexual misconduct;

1. His marriage announcement [98] (this is not routine, as someone who has researched family history in New York City, marriages are not commonly announced in the New York Times, its contribution to SIGCOV is marginal, but it all adds up per WP:BASIC)

2. His career at Salomon Brothers was covered in Liar's Poker. Here is one example of a quote from the book

A young Salomon Brothers trader named Howie Rubin began to calculate the probability of homeowners' prepaying their mortgages. He discovered that the probability varied according to where they lived, the length of time their loans had been outstanding, and the sizes of their loans. He used historical data collected by Lew Ranieri's research department. The researchers were meant to be used like scientific advisers at an arms talk. More often, however, they were treated like the water boys on the football team. But the best traders knew how to use the researchers well. The American homeowner became, to Rubin and the research department, a sort of laboratory rat.

3. His career at Bear, Stearns & Co. [99] (this mentions the allegations of financial misconduct, but this is limited to 3 sentences, and the other ~23 are about his background and career at Bear, Stearns & Co.) [some other passing mentions of his career there [100]) Katzrockso (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times does paid wedding announcements. If this is one of those, a wedding announcement is just a sign of willingness to spend money than of notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nat, good point - appreciate your comment. I didn't think about that when looking at it.

I still think there we have multiple sources demonstrating significant coverage of the subject that don't focus on his alleged indiscretions and I think that the Merrill Lynch coverage is fair game too, so there is more than enough for the subject to be notable under WP:BASIC. Katzrockso (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I find interesting is that the Merrill situation, which may deserve its own article (and there might be at least a case for a BLP1E deletion if there was one), isn't even mentioned at Merrill (company). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article seems to have a vastly underdeveloped history of the firm before 2007 - only random events and factoids are included, bar some information about the founding of the company. Katzrockso (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: unclear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not meet any notability criteria. In terms of NCRIMINAL, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Nothing historic about this crime. It also adds "reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." None of the sources devote significant attention to his role - they all repeat the same brief description. There is also no analysis of his activities, just a statement that they happened. This makes this a "run of the mill" sex crime, sad to say. Lamona (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Outside of crime, he is notable for his work in the financial sector. Rogue Trader for example has an entire chapter devoted to his work. Note none of these sources cover his connection to sex crime and are all focused to his work on Wall Street. Sources with WP:SIGCOV include:

Franks, Sandy; Nunnally, Sara (2010). Barbarians of Wealth: Protecting Yourself from Today's Financial Attilas. Wiley. p. 196. ISBN 9780470946589.
Skyrm, Scott E.D. (2014). Rogue Traders (HC). J. Boylston, Publishers. ISBN 9781590190012.
Partnoy, Frank (2014). Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 9781466872707.
Fligstein, Neil (2021). The Banks Did It: An Anatomy of the Financial Crisis. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674249356.
Mayer, Martin (1993). Nightmare on Wall Street: Salomon Brothers and the Corruption of the Marketplace. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780671781873.
Sterngold, James (April 30, 1987). "MERRILL LYNCH PUTS BOND LOSS AT $250 MILLION". The New York Times. p. A1.
Henriques, Diana B. (August 28, 1990). "Merrill Lynch Settles Claims From $250 Million '87 Loss". The New York Times. p. D1.

Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BLPCRIME is about content not notability. Coverage of his career is mostly focused on his financial activities, not alleged misconduct. Infectious Greed contains at least two pages about him and only one sentence stating that he was temporarily suspended by the SEC. Rogue Traders contains sigcov for his activities pre-Merrill Lynch. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:59, 1 November 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!} 06:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Denman

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

Bass player that does not seem to be notable outside of membership of Sade. Prod declined due to many incoming links from Sade related articles. I think the Bass Player source is strong, but I cannot find additional sourcing that contributes notability to push the subject past WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 02:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I partially stubified this article, and it has so many incoming links. He's had a notable career both before and after being part of Sade's band. The article needs a lot of work, but it's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of those links are from Template:Sade. This article needs sources, not just cleanup. Mbdfar (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I count 19 direct (non-template) links to this article from other mainspace articles. This should not be dismissed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found four of which that are outside of the umbrella of Sade. Three where the subject has been simply placed on a list, typically unsourced, and one trivial mention in prose. Mbdfar (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll leave it at delete. Article feels too 'soapboxy' for me. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 23:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
@CREditzWiki, "Soapboxy" sounds like a fixable issue. Do you have a specific WP:DEL-REASON. ~Kvng (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck it through since I do not. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 02:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC):[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 03:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist meets borderline notability in my opinion per significant coverage in several sources. Article needs removing excessive material, yes, but this is not a reason for deletion. Silvymaro (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete He has worked with Sade among other notable acts and was apparently an integral part of creating her sound, so I want to keep the article but I can't find enough reliable secondary sources in searches to add to the page. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sade (band). I can find no significant and reliable media coverage of his early band Pride, his childhood inspirations are non-noatble, and his other band Sweetback is a Sade side project that has some coverage but not enough to separate it from the main band. Therefore he has not achieved his own independent notability outside of Sade, nor does he need to because he has had a robust career with them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough notability in my opinion. Mag2k (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus but lots of opinions so let's make one more try to see if we can come to a rough agreement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is a good argument here that Sweetback is its own separate band. It has its own news coverage away from Sade (such as [101], [102], ); although it is often lumped in scholarly works like here. Some of the newspaper sources I added had lengthy focus on Paul Denman. Overall I think there's enough here for a stand alone article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4meter4 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2025
- Is that not the same situation as with Sade and the current AFD? Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and those sources are not significant coverage of the subject being discussed. If Sweetback is found to be independently notable, WP:MUSICBIO may apply, but that is not evident or established.Mbdfar (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 this is at least enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:30, 29 October 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.

People proposed deletions

Hume Peabody (via WP:PROD on 12 May 2025)

[1] "Familia Romeu". EcuRed (in Spanish). Retrieved 24 October 2025.

[2] "La dinastía Romeu en la música cubana". Gladys Palmera (in Spanish). Retrieved 24 October 2025.

[3] "Delia Bravo". Desmemoriados (in Spanish). Retrieved 24 October 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]