Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IAWI (talk | contribs) at 13:32, 26 May 2018 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akkai_Padmashali (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch

Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.

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

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page
not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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 speedy keep. Non Admin Closure NACR #4, Proceedural Closure. SKCRIT# 1 and 3. Clearly obviously fails GNG isn;t going to work. With 7 sources somemore in the page. This is clear abuse of process and disruption. Hindu Times / Times of India / clearly covered the subject in depth and they are reliable, independent sources. I don't see why it "obviously" doesn't meet GNG, WP:ANYBIO clearly met. (non-admin closure) Quek157 (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Akkai Padmashali

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

Obviously fails WP GNG. IAWI (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy Delete. by Bbb23 per G5. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P4R4G0N (hacktivist)

P4R4G0N (hacktivist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced statements and not a shred of actual notability. Sounds like a scriptkiddie bragging. Kleuske (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This has already been denied of deletion through PROD. I heard of this hacker in IRC that's why it's created. Thus I can't find any major source on him. --IAWI (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @IAWI: Correction: you created the article and removed the prod. AfD is the obvious next step. The fact that you heard of this person is not a reason to create an article. We're an encyclopedia, not facebook. Kleuske (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Someone  ;) would have just come along and said "Claiming to hack NASA" = a WP:CCS, and we'd still be here... —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural keep, nom is sock with history fo disruptive processes. (non-admin closure) cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad al-Hazimi

Ahmad al-Hazimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP GNG. (I had to bring it here since authors refuses to deal with a PROD). IAWI (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IAWI (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 14:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Faraz Ahmad

Qazi Faraz Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 00:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Meher Baba. SOFTDELETE per no input from other users. North America1000 07:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheriar Irani

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

I fail to see an iota of notability of the subject and any non-trivial significant coverage about him, except in his connection as the father of Meher Baba, in biographies and hagiographies of Meher Baba.Notability isn't inherited.

Deletion/Redirection sought, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mani Irani, which dealt with Meher Baba's mother's article.

This t/p thread may provide some backgound aspects on the issue. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Winged BladesGodric 05:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Locco

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

This person has certainly been around, as evidenced by the large number of citations in this article. Nevertheless, only one of those sources discusses this man in a nontrivial manner, and I have not found any further sources on the web. Fails the plural part of "sources" in WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – At this time. Poorly written article, horrible sources and though, supposedly a multitude of references, I question 99.9% of the cites. In that this involves a WP:BLP I fall back to policy which states; “…Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step.” As such delete.. ShoesssS Talk 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mayor of a minor place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Locco is not just a Mayor he the founder of the Brighton Icebergers, the man who ran for council to prevent the Brighton Baths closure he is someone who stands up for what he believes in and wants his voice heard such as in this video in link shows https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVXE22-6aS0 --Gulfzero Charlie (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)Gulfzero Charlie.[reply]

--Gulfzero Charlie (talk)Gulfzero Charlie~ —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the article is source-bombed, none of the references make any showing of notability, apart from possibly The Age feature article, which is about the swimming club as much as it is about him. Doesn't get across the line as a mayor, either, since he seems primarily notable for the swim club. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 21:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a rule about reference bombing, wherein a person is made to seem as notable as possible by augmenting the number of sources without regard to the quality of them — but that's exactly bass ackward, because the quality of the references, not their number, is what determines whether a person passes GNG or not. The sources here are not solid or notability-supporting ones on the whole — there are far too many primary sources and far too few reliable ones — and none of what Gulfzero Charlie pointed out about Locco above constitutes notability at all. Founding a local swimming group is not a notability claim in and of itself, fighting the closure of a local recreational facility is not a notability claim in and of itself, standing up for what you believe in is not a notability claim in and of itself, and being mayor of an Australian suburb is not a notability claim in and of itself, if the sourcing available to actually support an article on any of those grounds is this poor. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Johnson (writer)

Troy Johnson (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He fails WPGNG. --IAWI (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had just speedy close another of the nomination from this user, but this don't have good sources. So it's still valid nomination IMO. --Quek157 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to edit that Troy Johnson article, feel free to do so. I think there were some errors on the references part (and that's the only reason I can think that this page was, I guess, flagged?) I don't think the page should be deleted because the guy is a judge on a long running show, he's been on Food Network several times, and a few other 'Guy's Grocery Games' judges have their own wikipedia page which is even shorter and less detailed than the one I made (so if you delete Troy Johnson, consider also deleting Madison Cowan).

He has a twitter. Maybe someone could ask him if he's worth having a wiki page about him. I don't have a twitter so I cannot ask. I don't even know if anyone is reading this or if I'm posting in the correct spot. I don't really make full blown pages on wikipedia but since no one else was going to, I did it. SunnieSkye (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SunnieSkye: You don't ask someone if they think they are worth having an article. That's not how Wikipedia works. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was being a bit tongue in cheek with that comment, I guess. But seriously, I tried to source as best as I could and there's not much about him online (believe me, I looked) so the only thing I can think of is to ask him directly on twitter for details and "first-hand sources" but I guess Twitter doesn't count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunnieSkye (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: The original rationale that the nominator put was "not relevant to Wikipedia." It was changed to what it is now. But that doesn't make it any better. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 14:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Majid Rafizadeh

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Whitbeck

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

Runs afoul of both WP:GNG and WP:V. Of the sources cited:

  1. Trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV. The subject is mentioned twice in a 240 page book, and in both instances occupies no more than a passing mention.
  2. Can't tell what this. Possibly some sort of Who's Who.
  3. Published by the subject
  4. Published by the subject
  5. Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
  6. Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
  7. Published by the subject
  8. Doesn't exist? A google search returns only this article
  9. Published by the subject
  10. Dead link to some sort of case law page, not a real source as anyone with legal issues would have public court documents
  11. Amazon link
  12. Dead link to a domain that doesn't exist
  13. Dead link to a domain that doesn't exist

So, in summary, the subject does not appear to be notable and the statements made in this article are not verifiable. AlexEng(TALK) 18:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stylianos Atteshlis

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

Tagged as being unsourced for six years, and still unsourced. My own searching only turned up non-WP:RS sources. Not included in this nomination, but linked for reference, is Draft:Researchers of Truth. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per R Roy Smith's comment on Thursday24 May 2018 regarding the researchers of truth sandbox submission and suggested edits on I have added WP:RS cites and links on the Stylianos Atteshlis page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylianos_Atteshlis for your consideration as requested. These are references to Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis (aka Daskalos) on the Oprah.com web site and in Oprah Winfrey's O Magazine and the Common Ground Magazine included below

Spiritual Energy article about Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) by Mark Matousek in the July 2003 issue of Oprah Winfrey's O magazine. This past issue is not online but is on http://www.researchersoftruth.org/daskalos_researchers_of_truth_system-htm/written-accounts in its entirety including the magazine's cover showing the name of the article (Spiritual Energy) on the cover.

How to Radiate Positive Energy: Spiritual Energy article Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) on Oprah.com see http://www.oprah.com/spirit/how-to-radiate-positive-energy-spiritual-energy

The Teaching Common Ground Magazine article about Daskalos (Dr. Stylianos Atteshlis) by Mark Matousek see http://www.commongroundmag.com/back-issues.html This artice is also located at http://www.researchersoftruth.org/the-teaching

A Cyprus newspaper article on his obituary OBITUARY The Cyprus Weekly, September 1 – 7, 1995 is reproduced here * OBITUARY The Cyprus Weekly, September 1 – 7, 1995


Are these 3rd party source citations, Please do not delete this article

Let me know if you need anything else

thank you for your consideration

Daniel Anukpaba (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC) — Anukpaba (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Lee Evans

Vernon Lee Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An obvious case of BLP1E for this individual who is known solely for his role in a double-murder. News coverage was sporadic, routine, and...well, news. Perhaps the murder itself is notable, but a comprehensive article cannot be created simply by making a few adjustments to this unnotable individual's bio. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Also, there are few reliable third-party references showing notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I disagree with the nomination (BLP1E not relevant - it is more of a 2E just for the crimes/legal proceedings, and subsequent coverage (and commutation of death sentence) would be additional Es - and in any even we could've renamed o the ctime), and murder does not fall under NOTNEWS. What is relevant is NCRIME - and in this regard - it seems this individual mainly has Maryland coverage (around death row issues and the death penalty in the state (at some point he was slated to be "first to be executed" on reinstatement) as well as some coverage of the crime), there is some coverage of a legal aspect of the case (but not very wide), and looking at books and scholar hits, which there are some (various aspects - including a blog by the BLP from prison) - the whole assemblage does not, in my mind, cross GNG/NCRIME. I am amenable to changing my !vote if INDEPTH sources do show up.Icewhiz (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC) I overlooked the journal coverage of the case, so striking my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I will have to choose another day to convince you that crime (yes, even murder) is a daily occurrence, and the news routinely reports on it. Unless there is an exception to NOTNEWS I have missed after reading it dozens of times, murder can/does indeed fall under it when you take the time to analyze the nature of the news coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the murder, a drug gang-related contract killing, was "ordinary," the political activism was not. It included undercover surveillance of anti-death penalty activists and drew not only regional coverage in the Washington Post, and intense coverage in the Baltimore Sun over many years, but some national and international coverage, including a story in The Guardian about Evans' death-row blogging. Much more can be added, but I WP:HEY, I have done a modest expand/source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • also this article [1] in the Baltimore Law Review, covering the legal impact of an appeal of the Evans case. p. 92. vol. 37, issue 1, 2007, The Crime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual , Punishment Matthew E. FeinbergUniversity of Baltimore School of Law.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Qasemi

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

Non-notable hacker/programmer. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or GNG. Vermont (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blair St. Clair

Blair St. Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is lots of coverage of St. Clair in RS however it all relates to their participation on RuPaul's Drag Race. Article makes claims to notability for WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Miss Gay Indiana does not seem to qualify for ANYBIO. Seems to clearly not meet MUSICBIO. Think the best case can be made for WP:ENT but given overlap of coverage with Drag Race, is currently WP:1E and so should redirect to season 10 of the show. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Please do not delete and just redirect this article back to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10) if there is consensus that Blair St. Clair does not yet qualify for a standalone article. The redirect page clearly serves a purpose. 19:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 10). As always, people do not qualify for articles just for competing in reality shows they didn't win — while a non-winner can still go on to build notability for other reasons after the show, such as by clearing WP:NMUSIC as a musician or by touring her kitty off afterward and getting GNG-worthy coverage for that, the winner of the season is the only person who gets to have "was on a reality show" be the grounds for inclusion in and of itself. And the WP:BLP1E coverage that the person gets in the context of being on the reality show does not constitute an instant WP:GNG pass either, because every contestant always gets that so there would no longer be any such thing as a non-notable reality show contestant anymore. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when Blair St. Clair (I do declare!) has a stronger notability claim, but just being on a reality show for a few weeks and then sashaying away does not constitute permanent encyclopedic notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Schemers

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a paid-programming television personality, whose claims of notability are referenced entirely to his own primary source content about himself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media. As always, radio and television personalities do not get an automatic free pass over WP:CREATIVE just because their own web presence nominally verifies that they exist -- the notability test is whether media other than himself have given him coverage, not his own self-promotional publicity materials. There's simply nothing here that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Borderline as it stands; I see hardly any reliable references. I was going to suggest redirecting but I see nothing notable that it could be redirected to. Deb (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most marked references have been removed since many citations are no longer readily available on the Internet. And, the remaining references were updated with citations to keep this page from being deleted. Thank you for your input, and please let me know if improvement are still needed. Carvideo (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)Carvideo[reply]
The citations that are still present still don't represent reliable source coverage about him in media independent of his own PR. Every piece of web content that exists at all is not automatically a valid or notability-supporting source — notability is contingent on the degree to which the person can be referenced to reliable source coverage about him in media, not just on being able to use his own self-published web presence to nominally verify that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The two citations given are not own PR. 1) is the public schedule by the syndication group, independent of Kurt Schemers and his media company, 2) references a sample of the actual broadcast media player they built. All other material that Deb request clarifying was removed because the citations were no longer available on the internet. Carvideo (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Carvideo[reply]
Those are not media coverage about him in media outlets unaffiliated with him. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not all citations will be media coverage of a person. The citations remaining are entities not directly managed or in control of him. For instance, TV Guide[1], would be another example of that - just like the company that syndicates him/show as the citation demonstrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvideo (talk • contribs) 15:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A source does not just have to be "not directly managed or in control of him" to fail to be independent of him. If it has any form of direct affiliation with him at all, then it is not independent of him regardless of who does or doesn't have "control" over what or whom else. And a TV Guide listing which just provides the broadcast time of his show, but fails to contain any content about him as a person, does not establish his notability — it is not about him. You are simply not showing the kind of sources it takes to make a person notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And given your username and your almost complete lack of any history ever contributing to Wikipedia on any other topic, I don't believe that you don't have a direct conflict of interest yourself. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Believe what you may. I don't have a relationship with Schemers. I install camera systems in vehicles and don't have a lot of time to spend on Wiki or the internet for that matter. His show helped me during a difficult time in my life, and adding to this profile is the least I could do. It's gratitude - some snobbish bores may or may not understand that. If it's taken down, my gratitude goes with it. All the language/citations that were originally in question by Deb have been removed and the way it sits now meets criteria to keep it/not delete.Carvideo (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our inclusion standards are based on whether or not a person is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG, not on individual editors' gratitude or lack thereof. Every person who exists at all probably has somebody who's grateful to them for something, but that's not a reason in and of itself why every person who exists would belong in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Sapp

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

US political consultant. Notability not really apparent from the article, a few mentions here and there as can be expected from anybody involved in US national politics. The article was created by an SPA in 2013 likely as an exercise in self-promotion. The article about his company was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eleison Group. Sandstein 08:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 10:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 19:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Andaryas

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

Some decent coverage, please........ ~ Winged BladesGodric 14:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Klein

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill financier, zero indications of notability. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on them. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:BASIC. HighKing++ 16:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Dalle

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

Delete Run-of-the-mill financier, zero indications of notability. Notability isn't inherited and therefore the companies they invested in do not confer notability on them. Wikipedia is not a directory or yellow pages. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:BASIC. HighKing++ 16:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Binesh Balan

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. I have the feeling this repeatedly recreated article, which also went under another title, was designed as part of a PR campaign by dalit activists, perhaps even the subject himself. The sources are hopelessly contradictory, the claim to notability is effectively disputed by the state officials etc (it was just a bureaucratic delay, according to them) and the ongoing coverage seems to be slim because, well, it really was one event. Sitush (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:BLP1E. The sources all cover the subject in the context of a controversy where he didn't receive funds to study in the UK, allegedly because of his background. Other than that he's an unremarkable student and there's no indication he won't stay that way. He started studying in the UK in summer of 2017, since then coverage has essentially disappeared. Hut 8.5 17:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear failure of one event notability guidelines for inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 19:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Misra

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲水 09:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevens Berry

John Stevens Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is well written. It makes several different claims at notability (author, entertainer, lawyer) all of which I ultimately feel come up short. The best sourcing I can find is coverage in local newspapers about clients he's represented but not about him more generally. The sourcing on this page is all basically autobiographical so that's no help either. Feels borderline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't care for this page as written and sourced, but looking at newspapers.com, there is more than enough material to create a better article than currently exists.[2] I think the current article fails WP:NOR, and maybe WP:PROMO, but here are a few profiles of Berry that could be used .[3][4][5][6] If someone wants to do this and doesn't have access to newspapers.com, let me know and I'll make clippings of the articles that are open access. If no one wants to take the project on, I do not have a strong opinion that it should definitely be kept. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although it's close numerically, the "delete" side has put forth arguments as to why the cited sources are insufficient to which the "keep" side has not responded. Sandstein 10:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunal Kamra

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

Non-notable individual. Has received minor coverage in news sourcesblogs, zines and tabloids—and even less in literature. This is far from the depth or persistence of coverage demanded by even basic compliance with WP:ANYBIO. Possibly WP:TOOSOON on the assumption his career takes a suitable trajectory...and coverage in WP:RS with it  :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 15:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. [7] - is about his show a specific event in Chennai not directly about the subject.
  2. [8] another review about his show
  3. [9] First-ever stand-up clip landed on YouTube a year ago in March 2018 shows he is upcoming
  4. [10] about the show states the Three episodes of Shut Up Ya Kunal went online between July 20 and July 25. 2017
  5. [11] about an interview with Ravish Kumar
Comment. Both the Mint and the Indian Express features are largely about the individual, not only about the show. Shobhit102 | talk  16:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-We should be looking for independent significant coverage from secondary sources (which should obviously be reliable). Among the sources brought up are:
    • [14]- This source doesn't qualify as it is an interview and thus is not independent of the subject.(Whatever is said by the subject is written)
    • [15]-Parts of this article do qualify as a independent reliable source.
    • [16]-Most of this article is based off an an interview and partially from various social Media posts made by him...Thus this article also cannot be called an independent source.
    • [17]- This article is almost entirely reliant on a social media post made by the subject and thus is not independent.
Thus from the above analysis we can conclude that there is only one independent, mostly-reliable source to support the claims of notability of the article subject. This is however not enough and thus I would support deletion of the article based on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON taking into consideration the state of the current coverage. — FR + 07:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • [18] is surely not an interview. The article has bits of excerts from the subject but it won't be justice to call it an interview. Also based on the length of the article (Indian sources generally don't have such long articles on comics and actors (WP:INDAFD)), the subject passes WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Accesscrawl:, it has already been mentioned above. Pratyush (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Accesscrawl, making comments without declaring a vote is allowed. Natureium (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's quick for a one day old account to participate in AFD discussions and cite notability guidelines. BTW, according to this source, he started in 2013. Pratyush (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He started in 2013 but only after 2017 that did his videos even get uploaded to Youtube as per thisand his career really began and the show shut Up Ya Kunal start.Normsynge (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Salyer

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

Insufficient coverage to establish general notability. The coverage that I can find appears to be incidental, or covering the Salzburg Global Seminar. References and sources lacking overall. It does appear that the article may have been created by someone with a close relationship with the subject. Shritwod (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Non-trivial biographical article in NYT. [19] Cited for quotes in non-trivial number of NYT articles. [20] [21] and so on. [22] mentioned in book on Islamic Law, crediting Salyer and SGS. Testified before Congress (multiple sources). in short, sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enigmamsg 02:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerson Sapida

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

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Why do you say such a ugly comment about the guy who made NBA 2K great? He has many reliable sources, you need to research some more.
Here are the reliable and independent sources:[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] This is evidence that he is notable! Maude~Duggel (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is nothing ugly about the comment. It is a statement of fact in regards to Wikipedia based notability. Unfortunately the "references" you provided are single line mentions or 404s and do little to add to notability. reddogsix (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This editor has been creating a string of non-notable articles. [35] Natureium (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, I think the creator is doing good work, but still needs to learn what notability means in the context of Wikipedia. It doesn't mean fame, an it doesn't mean exposure by virtue of a name being mentioned in multiple places. We need significant coverage, and that's what's been lacking in the creator's contributions, for the most part. This is an encyclopedia, so articles we have should be a record of human knowledge. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The creator should have left this in draft space and worked on it there. This isn't a mainspace-ready article. I just removed about 15 redundant citations that were nothing more than trivial mentions, quotes, interviews, or otherwise primary sources. What's left seems to be more of the same. I am not seeing evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep because he is notable just for 2K Sports! Maude~Duggel (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Wikipedia based notability is defined in WP:N and WP:GNC. Please show us how the article subject meets the criteria needed to establish Wikipedia based notability needed for inclusion into Wikipedia.reddogsix (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maude~Duggel: No, he isn't notable for 2K Sports. Please be aware that notability is not inherited.
    You're new here, you created this and several other articles that have been deleted for similar problems, I've moved one or two of yours to draft space for you to prevent their deletion while you work on improving them. You started this article in draft space and moved it into main space before it was ready, apparently before you have learned the English Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A main space article must meet WP:GNG at a minimum. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for a brief overview of what is expected for main-space articles. Your articles haven't met the basic requirement of having significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You included a bunch of sources. Not all reliable sources are independent (like interviews), and not all independent sources are reliable (like blogs and some niche publications). None of your sources meet all three requirements of being reliable, independent, and having significant coverage of the subject. Passing mentions don't work. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy keep but he is one of the greatest Filipinos ever lived! Please take the deletion tag off and his article will be more expanded with other information about him! Thank you. Maude~Duggel (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maude~Duggel: You don't get to vote more than once, so your 'speedy keep' has been struck. You are also ignoring the advice given. You have 6 days, plenty of time, to make improvements before this discussion is closed. And, you haven't offered any 'keep' arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Unsubstantiated assertions about the subject's fame or greatness, and begging to stop the debate, aren't arguments for keeping the article. We need evidence, not WP:ILIKEIT statements. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources were not notable Thegooduser Let's Chat 01:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable video game producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. The creator really needs to stop creating new pages here until they learn wikipedia policy. I've dealt with at least two other hopeless pages in AfC they made. Legacypac (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet notability requirements. Bradv 04:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel

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

This page was deleted in December due to WP:NPOL not being met and there being no non-political notability. That is still the case; the "new references" (likely sufficient to prevent WP:G4 deletion) are about political fundraising or various scandals, and do not make him notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject by any objective measure. HPLeu (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — a person has to win the election and thereby hold the seat, not just run in it, to clear WP:NPOL as a politician. And that goes double for people who, as of right now, are still only as yet non-winning candidates in party primaries — being a primary challenger to an incumbent congressperson is very definitely not a notability criterion in its own right. There is no evidence of preexisting notability here for any other reason independent of his candidacy, and no evidence that anything has happened to change the notability equation since the first discussion — as near as I can tell, HPLeu's grounds for claiming that the equation had changed was that Patel outraised Maloney in April, but that's not a notability criterion for a candidate either. He'll be eligible to have this article recreated on or after November 6 if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOL doesn't say that elected officials are notable and candidates for office are not notable. It says elected officials may not be notable and unelected candidates may be notable (so long as they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", which this subject has.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HPLeu (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no candidate in any election anywhere who ever doesn't have some "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" — so if "some coverage exists" were all it took to distinguish a notable candidate from a non-notable one, then every candidate in every election would always be notable and Wikipedia would be nothing more than a repository of campaign brochures anymore. So the test for making a candidate notable just for being a candidate is not just "some coverage exists" — it is "so much coverage exists that there's a credible reason to believe people will still be looking for an article about him ten years from now even if he loses the race", which is not what this is showing. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲水 09:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Jessica Evans

Karen Jessica Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician / motorcyclist. I could not find many RS about her. Her article has many minor snippets of refs, but nothing seems to be substantial. Natg 19 (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is felt that the subject of this article meets the guidelines for notability. There is no original source material. There are multiple secondary source links. There is only one "snippet" inserted as a place holder until the proper citation has been found. The fact that the subject appeared in a movie (Motorcycle Women) as the lead, documented in IMDB, would seem to validate notability. The fact that the subject co-founded the first all-female outlaw motorcycle club (Devil Dolls) in the country in modern (or any other) times, and the citations to confirm this, would seem to meet the guidelines for notability. While part of the content may appear to be "puffery" (older Lady Gaga and an outlier), this can be cured by removing it if this is what should be done. An article regarding Devil Dolls Motorcycle Club is being prepared as is a shorter article for Motorcycle Women. Any help to improve this article is greatly appreciated. However, this article does not meet the criteria for deletion.Weathervane13 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Article for Motorcycle Women created. Movie added to List of Biker Films/2000s. Puffery removed.Weathervane13 23:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
While I do agree that there is no original source material and multiple secondary sources, I do not feel that Evans meets the criteria for notability found at WP:BASIC. I did not find "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". Just being in a movie in IMDB or founding a motorcycle club does not signify notablility, though those could be used to prove notability. Natg 19 (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a secondary note, I do not believe that the film Motorcycle Women is notable either, though that should be discussed at a separate AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article --

From WP:Basic 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 may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7]

It seems that under this criterion that multiple independent sources have been provided with respect to four different aspect of Evans' life (recording artist, film and publications, first female outlaw motorcycle club in the U.S. and environmental activist). Combined, these 4 different aspects are more than enough for Evans to meet notability guidelines.Weathervane13 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

hi Weathervane13, if you add 4 tildes to the end of your words, your username (that will be bluelinked), and date/time of your edits is automatically added. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certainly not a notable motorcyclist by any standard ever used for a bio known at WP:WikiProject Motorcycling. Her name moniker "Goth Girl" appears once in "The 1%er Encyclopedia" and maybe she was in a documentary (we aren't sure about this even) ... no go. So, since it is also clearly failing WP:NCREATIVE, this is a delete. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, is her founding of the Devil Dolls Motorcycle Club notable? or is the motorcycle club notable at all? Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, and I expressed doubts about the documentary, too. ☆ Bri (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is the link to the documentary, also listed in IMDB, a reliable and acceptable citation under Wiki criteria. COPYLINK redacted
Evans also appears in The Biker Code, citation is in articleDevilishdoll (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, IMDB is considered non-reliable source per WP:UGC. It is not a reliable/acceptable whatever. Second, mere existence in a directory like IMDB does not confer notability. Critical commentary on a recording is what's important here. Is there any? I haven't seen it. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Evans1982: can you explain what sources or references you found about her as an pianist / entertainer? I didn't find anything in my searches about those. Natg 19 (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 07:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newell W. Spicer

Newell W. Spicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the General Notability Guideline, the subject-specific notability guideline and WP:ANYBIO. The article is a collection of passing mentions and WP:COATRACK stuff. A biography article needs in-depth coverage and there's none. 8 or 800 trivial mentions do not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources and there's nothing that can be done about that. This article should be deleted & then redirected to his unit. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky to see what content could be used for a merge - it's all run-of-the-mill stuff ("Spicer was a captain before his promotions" for example - the reference for that actually says he's a Lieutenant, but never mind) so at best, all it does is prove that he existed. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And 1st Regiment Kansas Volunteer Infantry is filled with run of the mill detail. We could definitely expand coverage there to a paragraph - and it definitely makes sense to leave a redirect to there.Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the Redirect, and I suggested it in my nomination as it's the sensible target. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newell W. Spicer came to Kansas from Pennsylvania in 1856 with an emigrant party from Chicago. He arrived in Topeka August 13, and immediately joined with the attack on Fort Saunders. During the remainder of the struggle he was continually in the field, rising from the rank of first lieutenant of the Chicago company to the office of adjutant. He became a member of the Stubbs company, and was elected third lieutenant in 1859. He entered the Civil War as first lieutenant of Company D, First regiment Kansas Volunteer infantry in 1861, and was promoted to captain in 1862. In June, 1863, he rose to the rank of colonel."
  • "It is doubtful whether any similar organization had a sterner record of service in the Civil War than did the Stubbs. When President Lincoln called for troops in May, 1861, they responded immediately. After filling their ranks they proceeded to Fort Leavenworth, where they were mustered into the First regiment of Kansas Volunteer infantry. In completing the organization of the regiment, lots were drawn for rank and that of "D" fell to the Stubbs. The company's officers were F. B. Swift, [10] captain, N. W. Spicer, [11] first lieutenant, and Caleb S. Pratt, [12] second lieutenant. On June 12 orders were issued for six companies of the First regiment to proceed to Wyandotte. Much to the disgust of the Stubbs they were left behind, due to the illness of Captain Swift and the absence of Lieutenant Spicer. [13] But the delay was only for a few days and soon the whole force was under orders to march."
  • "Within two months after organization the First regiment engaged in its first major battle at Wilson creek, one of the most important battles in the West. In this engagement hard fighting fell to the First Kansas and the First Missouri infantry, both of which suffered terrible losses. It is recorded that the Stubbs here displayed the greatest bravery, being one of six companies of the First Kansas ordered by Col. George W. Deitzler to engage a rebel force four times their number. [14] Lieutenant Spicer, who took command after Captain Swift was wounded, wrote of the battle: "At one stroke the officers of our company all fell but myself. After Captain Swift was wounded and disabled, I took command . . . . We were exposed to a galling fire from two directions for over three hours. The men fell around me in every direction. There was a perfect storm of iron and lead. But our men never flinched or moved until ordered. Thirty of our company were killed and wounded, although I only reported 24." He also quoted Maj. S. D. Sturgis as saying, "The Kansas boys are doing the best fighting I ever saw before." [16] In his official report."
I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before. A bunch of passing mentions do not add up to Significant Coverage and every example you just provided meets the definition of "passing mention". An in-depth biography of the person is what is required for a Wikipedia biography article. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are playing pretty fast and loose with the words "brief" and "mentions". FloridaArmy (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the sources I could not access are now readable. Thanks to whoever improved the source links! It seems to me that the article now passes WP:GNG. Sitush, you've posted before--I don't understand your reference to a "suicide pact" at all. It's just AFD, no one should get hurt here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:PACT. We should not let AGF take precedence over the integrity of the project. And, no, I do not believe those sources are now suddenly readable. They're almost certainly different sources to those that you were referring to (and, yes, I am aware that this is assuming bad faith - that is because you're making similar comments elsewhere & thus there is a pattern of sorts). As for GNG, I think you need to read that, too, because you're not explaining why this complies with it. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read WP:PACT three times... don't understand how it applies here (or anywhere actually). It's clear that you don't understand my statements and on top of that you admit to assuming bad faith with me. Therefore I choose to be done with discussing this matter. Let the closer choose the best result, I'm happy whatever it is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per others above. A bunch of passing mentions does not meet WP:GNG and I'm not even convinced that those mentions have been correctly paraphrased. That said, I'd be interested to know what the offline sources are to which Paulmcdonald refers. Do those go into any depth or is it basically more of the same? We've got a real problem with the WP:HISTRS essay as things stand - if reliable modern sources do not really mention him then that in itself would suggest that he isn't particularly notable. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to know which specific sources are referred to. You can't just assume sources exist at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Has a short biography in the Kansas Historical Quarterly in the notes on page 130 ([36]). This isn't a clear ANYBIO, but provides enough material that, combined with more passing mentions, I think an article on him can pass WP:V/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. A couple of points not in the article: He was a marshall in Lawrence after the war and a candidate before.[37][38][39][40] He, apparently, disappeared in 1871.[41] Smmurphy(Talk) 19:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was a marshall, you mean like a sheriff? Your voice-translation software wrote "martial". --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed. Smmurphy(Talk) 09:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Smmurphy, assuming good faith on their sources (which are behind Newspapers.com paywall for me). And in general this seemed marginally notable to me already, when I commented above (after nomination and a Delete vote which was changed later to Redirect). --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my links above were unclear, I want to point out that the newspaper.com links are all passing (with the possible exception of the 1910 article). I've added them and their information to the main article, so you can see them as clippings there. I've also reorganized the article a bit. Finally, I want to invited people to check out WP:TWL for gratis accounts with various resources including newspapers.com! Smmurphy(Talk) 20:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They're mostly tripe, though, aren't they? People are scraping the barrel here, eg: we seem to be saying that he left the army, became a marshall and then left the police all in the space of 6 months in 1869 yet - woo-hoo - it is very important to note that he was involved with chasing someone during that time. It's trivia at the extreme, an assemblage of passing mentions etc. Another example is the mention to whom he reported while in the army. And he was one of those who was going to transport William Quantrill except the person in question wasn't in fact Quantrill. Who gives a crap? He doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOLDIER, except perhaps #5 if a company is considered to be suitably large, which I think is dubious. This inclusionism gone mad. - Sitush (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify #5 of WP:NSOLDIER - He would have had to command a division at least for that to apply - a company is 3 levels below that. I agree with you about the trivia - since when do we create an article about a random name we've read somewhere & then throw sources at it until something sticks? It's mind-boggling. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect-Per Sitush.A bunch of trivial mentions do not maketh a standalone article.~ Winged BladesGodric 09:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Not seeing any special notability per WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after deletion, sources are too weak to show that he meets GNG. One of the sources Wind across the prairie is fiction and should not be used as a source in an encyclopedia IMHO. As it says in WP:NSOLDIER if there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. this information is missing from the sources. As a side note this editor has created rather a lot of articles about minor figures from the civil war that might need a bit of scrutiny after this Afd. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've been looking into this a bit more and my reading on Spicer is that he is more famous for his hand in and account of Bleeding Kansas than his role in the Civil War. His account is cited as "Hyatt Collection" or "Thaddeus Hyatt Collection" and as “Experiences of N. W. Spicer in Kansas” and is a significant part of the primary sources used in research on that period. On one hand, I still think the article is encyclopedic and have struck "weak" from my !vote. On the other hand, if redirected, I think a better redirect destination would be Thaddeus Hyatt. I will add a sentence to that article about the Hyatt Collection either way. Smmurphy(Talk) 12:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It struck me that my previous comment may be seen as an argument that he is encyclopedic because of NSOLDIER #8, "as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." I did not mean this, I think he is encyclopedic because the article cites RS, is V/NPOV/NOR, and because Spicer receives borderline significant coverage in Caldwell 1937 and Cova 2016, is found to be worth mentioning in a variety of other sources, was a highly ranked although not a flag officer in the civil war, and was a martialmarshal (a minor elected public office) in a time an era where that position was very public and a position that place an outsized role in modern memory. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of writers of historic primary documents are not notable in their own right, even if cited by others. In fact, probably most fall into that category and if they are notable in their own right then the citers usually provide significant background/life detail (and we would use that as the source for the bio). Merely citing deposited papers does not make for notability. I'm also curious about your addition including the words "are an important reference in research on ..." - does the source actually say that they are "important" or is that just your conclusion? A quote would be handy. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Thanks for your question and pointing out my OR. Regarding whether the importance of the Hyatt papers and Newells contribution to them, I've added a citation to the discussion of the papers in the Kansas Historical Quarterly (1881) with Newell's included as an example states that, "Examples ... here given ... indicate their character and value as materials of Kansas history". As you can see, this is quite an old citation, but the continued use of the papers and of this set of selections from the papers indicates to me that it remains true today. I don't think the Hyatt Collection or any manuscript in it is itself notable, sorry to have been unclear.
I should note that I agree with the idea the two sources that cover the individual in any depth do not cover him in very much depth. I also agree that beyond that he has held a number of positions and done a number of things that don't quite satisfy a number of SNGs. To reiterate, for me, an article that nearly satisfies a number of guidelines for being a suitable subject of an article and satisfies WP:N on only a very broad reading but clearly does or can satisfy our core content policies and which is written in an encyclopedic tone, contains more than trivial information about a subject, and does not fail COATRACK/NOT/PROMO can often be a suitable subject for the encyclopedic. The point isn't that we should allow for article writers to skirt as close as they can to our guidelines and policies as they wish. Rather, I feel that this article seems encyclopedic enough (he played many minor roles, we have RS on much of his life, etc). Smmurphy(Talk) 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that this is yet more of the HISTRS stuff I mentioned above. The source that is cited for the "important" phrase is itself from 1932. I'm presuming these state history societies have some merit but it would be good to know whether the writers of the various sources had any relevant academic pedigree or were just enthusiastic amateurs etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Malin, the source of the 1932 article, was a professor at the University of Kansas[42]. Martha B. Caldwell, the source of the 1937 article, was librarian for the Kansas Historical Association.(https://www.newspapers.com/image/14829562/?terms=%22Martha%2BB.%2BCaldwell%22) I could not find who was the editor of the Kansas Historical Society Papers in 1881, but guess it was then secretary, Franklin G. Adams - who was also a frontier teacher, lawyer, judge, and state legislator.[43] Smmurphy(Talk) 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I'm afraid that this sort of thing confuses me, eg: why a US judge and legislator at state level qualifies as a historian. For example, as I understand it, such people in the US are elected officials and thus instantly have significant bias. That would be ok if they were also accepted in the academic community as historians ... but they're usually not. This sort of thing strikes me as "professionalism" via the back door. But what do I know? The workings of the US never cease to confuse me, as I am sure applies in the opposite direction! - Sitush (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Adams would qualify as a reliable historian. His stature, expertise, and experience is more that of a respected antiquarian living in the same period in the Eastern US or the UK. Officers of a historical society of that period would generally not be automatically considered to have great expertise, and should be used with caution. The nature of the material we are using in this article is such that I am not overly concerned. But if we added great detail about the events in Kansas in 1856, we shouldn't use such old sources as their were conflicting accounts and I wouldn't trust a 1881 source to pick one that fits with our contemporary beliefs. Caldwell was a well published librarian/archivist and I think her respectability as a historian are fairly good given her era. Malin's qualifications are clearer, although any source could have problems and I am not familiar with his work generally and don't know if there are any red flags. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unusually well documented for a lieutenant colonel, was clearly of some prominence in frontier Kansas. That he has been mentioned in RS articles years after his disappearance attests to secondary notability, fulfilling WP:GNG. I do not see these as trivial considering that the articles in question have several sentences on Spicer. Kges1901 (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you dig around local newspapers where I live, you will find ongoing coverage about me. It includes photos from when I was a child, some stories from schooldays, a large feature when I got through to Cambridge, sports achievements since then etc. Despite all of which, and mentions in a couple of local interest books, I am most definitely not notable. Let's get a sense of proportion, folks. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for the confusion. My point was not that the sources are from newspapers, merely that scattered short mentions do not notability make and, indeed, I appear to have better coverage than Spicer due to a double-page spread as well as mentions in a couple of books. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Where was he born? When was he born? What are the dates of the important events in his life? Where did he go to school? There's no real depth here, it's just a collection of trivialities. As to his rank - was it a confirmed rank? Acting? Did he actually hold a confirmed commission at all? The information isn't out there. This isn't the Kansas Wikipedia, it's the English-language version of the world's Wikipedia. Let's not start indiscriminately including people that local historical societies don't even have basic birthplace information about. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like all volunteer (non-regular) Union officers in the American Civil War, Spicer held a commission from the governor of his state, for the duration of the regiment's enlistment. Additionally, many volunteer officers have poorly documented early lives, especially those who emigrated or moved like Spicer, see Colton Greene for a Confederate example. Kges1901 (talk) 09:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to census records, he was born in Pennsylvania in about 1830. His own account published in "Selections of the Hyatt Collection" in Collections of the Kansas State Historical Society says he was a "native of Susquahenna County". I'm hesitant to include information from his own account and while I have occasionally used census information in articles, I currently prefer not to. Our information about his disappearance is not really of good quality, as it is hearsay in old newspapers. Information about his rank is pretty standard and is as Kges1901 describes and is in the article. It is true that this article contains more information than any one source and that other than a footnote by Caldwell, there is no other biography-style source about him in the references. I agree that these questions are important and usually feel that the ability to answer them is a good sign of suitability (per NSOLDIER: "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article."). Smmurphy(Talk) 09:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh? Even Smmurphy is saying that the sources are not great etc. If this were an article about someone from India, everyone would be clamouring to delete it due to poor sourcing, lack of information etc but because it is about a Yank, rose-tinted spectacles are donned. - Sitush (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know you aren't suggesting I, myself, am inconsistent - as we've discussed this before - But I want to point out that I happen to have !voted similarly on a similarly borderline Indian case recently. I would say that leadership in Bleeding Kansas and the Civil War are slightly better cases for suitability than non-elected leadership in district politics (admittedly, apples and oranges - but so too was your comparison). Smmurphy(Talk) 09:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote the same for American and non-American subjects, though the aversion (with some justification) to Raj era sourcing in India does make sourcing there a bit more difficult there at times for this era. I was previously at merge to the regiment - when what we had was a civil war officer of some note, but not sufficient for standalone. Now we have sourcing relating to the Bleeding Kansas period as well as the subject's accounts themselves being cited as "Hyatt Collection"/"Experiences of N. W. Spicer in Kansas". Merge/Redirect to the regiment no longer fits the bill (as it seems the Bleeding Kansas bit is possibly more significant). SOLDIER just creates a presumption of notability - it does not preclude notability (and is more geared to modern figures - and is particularly not suited for frontier wars - e.g. the more notable William B. Travis - a Lt. Col - A hundred and eighty were challenged by Travis to die / By a line that he drew with his sword as the battle drew nigh Cash (in this version he replaces sword with gun)). The 2E/3E amalgamation here passes GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use a primary source (the Census) for his date of birth and another primary source for the place? Doesn't that just sum up the problems with this article's subject... Exemplo347 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. You aren't using the primary sources to establish notability, just source important life events. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a way of incorporating a birthdate into this article without using original research or a synthesis of sources, then go ahead. As a side note, nobody has actually said that there's a set 1830 birth date except you. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Smmurphy. I'm more of an inclusionist, generally, provided something of encyclopedic value is produced. In this case I think something of that sort has been made, and we achieve nothing by deleting it. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant historical figure that had a signifanct role in Bleeding Kansas events, commanding a company and then a regiment in important American Civil War campaigns over several years, as well as involvement in notable raids and battles. We know this because of primary and secondary sources such as the Kansas Historical Society. That there are parts of his life that we don't yet know much does not make coverage of him and the notable parts we do know excludable. Article has been greatly expanded and improved through the work of several editors and can be expanded and improved more. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A company is not a significant unit. His actions in Bleeding Kansas were slight. The mentions of him are old and mostly parochial. If it can be expanded more, why didn't you do it? This is a mess of your making, as with some many other creations. -
I have been. Many company commanders have articles. He also commanded a regiment later in his career as I noted immediately above your comment. And he had a sinificant role in various battles and raids. If something is "messy" feel free to fix it. That's not grounds for deletion. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Glendenning

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

Borderline A7 article, but taking here out of a supreme abundance of caution. Utterly non-notable: has a total of three Google News hits, and the majority of Google hits are social media. She got some minor coverage by the BBC in a local program on what people are doing as they are aging. Trivial coverage at best, and being citizen of the year somewhere is nowhere near a notable award. All the rest of the coverage is local. This is nowhere near what we expect from a BLP. She seems like a nice person who is involved with noble NGOs, but that doesn't make Wikipedia articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some background, this article was created as part of Amnesty International's BRAVE:Edit event worldwide. Amnesty had put together a list of articles to create/improve on women human rights defenders. Flycatchr 20:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Her husband, Frank Glendenning, died in 2002 and had an obituary in the Guardian.[44] The sentence in his obituary mentioning Angela reads: "These included the highly successful national seminars for detached youth workers run with his second wife, Angela, with whom he shared many enthusiasms and activities..." Not enough to write an article from but evidence that there might be something more. I also note that both Frank and Angela's careers stretch back into the 1960s, so it may be that there is newspaper and magazine material about her that isn't digitized and online. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲水 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sosna

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

WP:BLP of a local television meteorologist. As always, television personalities at the local station level are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they exist -- they must be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. But apart from primary sources, the only other reference here is his paid-inclusion wedding notice in The New York Times -- which is not notability-assisting coverage, because anybody can get one of those by placing it themselves. Wedding coverage only counts as notability if The New York Times assigns one of its staff journalists to write about the wedding as a news story, and not if it's the couple's own submission to the paid-inclusion wedding announcements column. And the article was created by a user named Jdlovitz, making it a conflict of interest when you compare that to the name of the article subject's husband — and even if Steve Sosna had an article-clinching notability claim (which he doesn't), he and/or his husband still wouldn't get to create the article themselves. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD was blanked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working in large media markets is not a notability freebie that exempts a television news personality from having to clear WP:GNG on the sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 01:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Khan (journalist)

Muhammad Khan (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winner of National ICT Award is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As National ICT Award is being discussed, the outcome of that AFD might be influential here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Raju

Mahmudul Hasan Raju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winner of National ICT Award is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG. Saqib (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this discussion with a delete result, but as per this discussion on my talk page, I have restored the article and relisted the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mahmudul Hasan Raju, A Bangladeshi journalist got National ICT Awards, 2017 by the Government of Bangladesh. This is the highest ICT award in Bangladesh. As a national awardee, I think he is notable. NC Hasive • talk • 09:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bijoy Kumar Sahoo

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Significant coverage not found. Previously deleted with a former AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 07:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-The Weekender is paid-stuff.Among the rest, barring the Telegraph piece, not a single news-piece is anywhere close to devoting non-trivial significant coverage about the subject, independent of the schools.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 07:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Ninja

Staten Island Ninja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this is a notable burglar. Coverage is routine news blotter surrounding the breakins. StarM 01:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is a bit out of date, but a simple google search reveals that this burglar has recieved quite extraordinary news coverage. He pleaded guilty to breaking into 100 homes. Here are details of his sentencing from 2016: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. All these RS taken from the first page alone. The ninja burglar even inspired the cration of a dojo in his name [55] [56]. The article should therefore be kept, and probably also renamed to Robert Costanzo, his real name. Emass100 (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet decided on notability, but the article needs a substantial rewrite as it appears to be about getting the wrong guy. Impressive crime spree if we can clean up the facts. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of weather if was the same guy/right guy or not, I think part of why this atricle is notable is because of the myth of the "Staten Island Ninja" in this burrough. This story got a lot of press coverage together. Emass100 (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIf it isn't the right guy, it's a major BLP violation. I'm not sure details of his sentencing make him notable. THat's pretty much what I meant when I said it's standard crime blotter coverage. Burglars are tried/convicted/sentenced as a matter of course, that doesn't make them notable. StarM 16:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh666 04:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Davies

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

A lawyer who has represented some notable clients, but appears to fall just on the non-notable side of WP:GNG. An unsuccessful dabbling in fringe politics and a somewhat bizarre legal case involving a family member do not appear to confer notability either, neither does having a notable parent. I suspect that an element of WP:COATRACK is involved here too, concentrating rather on the subject's clients rather than the subject themselves. Shritwod (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lots of namechecks, but all the sources are actually about something else. We are basically weaving an article about a minor lawyer who specialises in defending neo-Nazis, out of passing mentions in the cases where he generally fails. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensive coverage of subject regardless of his clients. And regardless of his legal career: he is one of the "intellectuals" behind extreme right politics in the UK (and US connections). Emeraude (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; none of the sources constitutes significant coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Notability is not inherited and this subject has done nothing "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to thoroughly examine this because there is a high likelihood of further discussion. I think that the notability guideline for attorneys based on their legal work created by Bearian is most useful in cases like these. Of the criteria he proposes the only one that comes close to matching this subject is "...trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia" regarding the appeal in David Irving's trial. Even there, the appeal was not actually allowed to proceed and Davies isn't even mentioned in the relevant BBC article. The only other qualification from that which might apply is "...being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law" but Davies's claim to a "specialized area" is only defending those accused of anti-Semitism. That, however, is a result of his selection of clients, not an the area of law so he fails the most-applicable SNG. The other SNG that might apply is WP:NPOLITICIAN as the chairman of two minor parties but he has never held office and his greatest electoral success is receiving all of 473 votes in a Parlimentary seat election. That's no help to retention. As mentioned by the other editors above, the subject also fails the GNG and WP:ANYBIO standards. While there is coverage in independent, reliable sources of Davies, none of it is significantly about Davies. The most extensive coverage in such sources is a two-sentence passing mention in this New Statesman article. The coverage that is significant is non-independent, being produced by Davies or his parties. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Eggishorn, citing my standards. Nothing what this guy has done is more than what any run or the mill lawyer, including myself, has done. Every single barrister in England must be a member of the Inns of Court. The field of anit-Semitism defense is so marginal and obsure as not to be a speciality at all. He got less than 2 % of the vote the only time he actually contested ("stood for") an election. Lawyers are supposed to make appeals. The media coverage about him is not very deep. The subject is marginal, at best. Let's compare this to the professor test: Has this lawyer done anything more than the average lawyer? The answer must be in the negative. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Freedom Party (United Kingdom). JASpencer (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Auxier

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

I see that a user removed the notability tag that had been placed in 2015 based on the subject being the editor of a journal per WP:PROF, but if The Personalist Forum doesn't have its own page, how major a journal is it? Also has edited Library of Living Philosophers, but the other editors listed on that page don't have wiki pages, so again I don't think that should meet PROF. Besides that, the subject of this article seems to have no citations from independent sources that would confer notability per WP:GNG. This article seems to be a textbook example of WP:NOTRESUME. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regunta Yesurathnam

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

I don't know anything about the subject, but suspect it fails WP:BIO/WP:NPROF. It is heavily footnoted, but few of the sources appear to be independent/3rd party/WP:RS, and those that are, appear to mention Yesurathnam only in passing. Was previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Yesurathnam. I would have speedy deleted it again as a recreation, but too much time had passed. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 17:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria one: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." as his "works are available in nearly 35 research institutes of repute, consisting of Seminaries, state universities and Research Academies across Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America. The Systematic Theologian, Michael Amaladoss, SJ, of the Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Loyola College, Chennai has accessioned a title of Yesurathnam in 2014 which is available at the Institute". Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the very least, he has enough publications. I suspect there is more about him that is notable but do not know enough to be sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, this article needs a complete rewrite and a thorough check for copyright violations. It is hagiographic tripe even after my substantial recent pruning. I'm not convinced that he is widely cited, nor necessarily favourably so, and I don't think the holdings of seminaries etc count for much when it comes to assessing NAUTHOR. But I'm not going to !vote delete because I know it is damn near pointless when it comes to articles about authors. Let's just say that the article is crap and an embarrassment but I don't have access to sufficient of the sources to fix it entirely. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Atlantic306 , passes WP:NAUTHOR.But needs a rewrite. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable author. This article is like a pamphlet. Participating seminars is not suffecient for a Priest to become notable. Rayabhari (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Senthil Nathan

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

This was already deleted once at AfD. Recreated and tagged CSD, the A7 was declined because the article makes claims of notability. However, the sources are all either primary, promotional, or simple faculty listings. WP:BEFORE shows the only in-depth article about him to be the current Wikipedia one - and we are not WP:RS. The actual claims to notability are not substantiated. Not to be confused with many other people of the same name. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't have time to investigate this properly right now, but if you search Google Scholar with Senthil Nathan & PROBOT or Senthil Nathan & John Wickham, there are lots of reliable independent review articles that Nathan performed the first-ever robotic surgery using PROBOT. Unfortunately few are free to read; one that is states: "The idea of RSS, or technologies that use robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures on-site, have been around for over three decades. In 1992, Dr. Senthil Nathan of Guy’s and St. Thomas hospital in London successfully carried out the first robotic surgical procedure (prostatectomy) in the world, using ‘Probot’, developed at Imperial College London." [57] There is also this Independent article [58] which states Nathan was involved in the development of the robot. Academics don't need in-depth articles about their life, but rather reviews of their work. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Details of Nathan's involvement in the project from book by John Wickham: [59] ff, though unfortunately Google Books is missing a key page, and [60],[61] original research articles, again not free, which suggest Nathan might publish as "MS Nathan". Another book ref [62] which also backs up the Tomorrow's World appearance; also [63],[64],[65],[66]. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Let's examine your sources, Espresso Addict. The articles you cite only mention the subject in passing, their main focus being various medical issues and robotics: in the very long article in the Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, his name is mentioned only once; in the Indy article, "Nathan" comes up twice; the Googled-text citations lead nowhere, as you also acknowledge (one misses the page where subject is meant to appear, and the other two are works by "M.S. Nathan). Even if we accept that it's "our" Nathan who's the author, the mere existence of an author's own work does not mean anything at all in terms of his own notability. We need third-party, independent sources showing independent notability.
Onwards: the book 21st-Century Miracle Medicine only mentions Nathan as the "surgeon in charge" during a robot-performed surgery. The book Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer mentions Nathan only once, in its timeline of "Robotic Colorectal Surgery Worldwide"; same goes for the book Biomechanics and Robotics and the articles "Surgical Robotics" and "Improving Lives with Electronics", i.e. only one mention in each text, in passing. Conclusion : We simply have no sources.
Here's what I see. Nathan has done something in the past that is described in various texts time and again, though only briefly and in passing, as important, i.e. he performed or supervised the "first pure robotic surgery". But we still lack substantial citations from the medical world or the world in general about the person. Me, I could not find much. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. The article title is "Senthil Nathan". If we have to look up Senthil Nathan & PROBOT, Senthil Nathan & John Wickham (the "godfather" of robotics), or any combination of added names to the subject, then notability is shared and either there is not enough individual notability or the title is wrong. The subject isn't even mentioned on the John Wickham article. Otr500 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 11:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Muni Pranamyasagar

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seriously think that the person is notable. He has written commentaries on several Jain texts (most of which have independent wiki pages). This itself is notable. Moreover, independent sources are available, but they are majorly in Hindi language and some use a slightly different name (in English language). Several news articles are also there. I request a senior editor or admin to assess the article and its importance. –Nimit (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to think seriously, you need to establish the WP:N by providing here coverage. --Saqib (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was a way of writing. I have cited numerous sources but only someone who read the complete article once will be able to see that. -Nimit (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide the coverage here. --Saqib (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: How does it fail WP: Notability? There are so many sources available. I have read that sources in other languages can also be added. Then, why are they being ignored?
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Look at each source none of them are indepth about Pranamyasagar and are about the event and visits to different states of India.
  1. [67] This is about his visit to a private coaching institute. Which is hardly even a news.
  2. [68] same goes with this, not about Pranamyasagar but about the event.
  3. [69] Article by him about peace and non violence. No information about the individual. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Accesscrawl: Several books in Hindi language do mention about him. Sources mentioned above are extra (not used on the page itself).-Nimit (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mention and cite the sources if it is so Accesscrawl (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 02:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pantho Rahaman

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

Winner of National ICT Award is not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they meet relevant notability guidelines WP:JOURNALIST. Search doesn't produce any coverage and substantial information in the independent RS about the person either so fails to meet basic GNG.. Saqib (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Information and Communication Technology Awards an National award given by the Bangladesh government! And he is the winner of this award. NC Hasive • talk • 13:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The award itself is of dubious notability. --Saqib (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigmamsg 04:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Qualifies as WP:ANYBIO#1. Per WP:SIGCOV, coverage does not have to be in English to qualify as demonstrating notability and the sources for the award are in some of the largest media sources for Bangladesh. Articles in the subject article also demonstrate compliance with WP:GNG, demonstrating significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. ~!Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark NeJame

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

Non-notable lawyer. WP:1EVENT and WP:MILL apply. reddogsix (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:33, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Vinayak

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

Article/subject is non-notable Glrm88 (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much better if you explained why. Not just making the assertion. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless I am missing something? There seems to be multiple non trivial reporting in independent reliable sources, and including government level recognition of the subject, from my own searches, let alone what is in the article already. Aoziwe (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unless the proposer decides to be a little less vague then WP:GNG and WP:BASIC are the only categories we can use to assess the subject. There certainly seem sufficient sourcing (hidden though they are amongst the OR), with either medium or substantive coverage. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -The profile is notable. Has been a Prime Ministerial People's Ambassador for two times and has been recognized and awarded by the Victorian State Government for his community work. Several media platforms including SBS have interviewed him for his accomplishments and ground-level work. As a migrant to Australia, his work and contribution highlight Australia's success in multiculturalism. He inspires Australian young people of Indian/South Asian origin to take up community work both as a hobby and a responsibility. Resilpra (talk) 3:34 AM (GMT) 15 May 2018
  • Delete unless I am missing something? There is a lot of sources but this is just promotion with primary sources (such as the Gove sites) and passing mentions. The article listed as herald sun but is actually local press is also another primary. It's news Corp writing about a news Corp award/promotion. Saying he is a JP in the lead is major puffery, nothing remotely notable there. Not of the awards mentioned are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The profile is definitely notable, no doubt about it. The question can be on the content and its structure or the tone. Leostamp (talk)
  • Keep This is a good enough profile to be on Wikipedia. No need to delete. The profile does not represent a business interest. Like artists and educators, community workers are also equally important contributors to society. Raj_vin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given your ownership issues demostrated here can I ask, are you paying someone to create this page, who authorises changes? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any ownership issues. I am just concerned that some people are keen to attack a community leader's profile. I believe the profile is notable and has been created by his fans and followers. I am not connected to the profile neither to the profile editors. No personal interest whatsoever. Raj_vin (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No personal interest yet you created the first version of the page that was deleted as pure promotion and for well over a year here have edited about very little else? Just want to promote mr vin for what? I note that you didn't answer the question, who authorises changes to this profile? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep -The profile should be edited as per the concerns/questions raised. No need to Delete. The Prime Minister's Award for two times and the Victorian Government's multiple Awards are equally important. These are not conferred on everyone unless the person has contributed something extraordinary/special to the community. World's leading newspaper Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com), Australia's Leading News Organization (news.com.au), Victorian Multicultural Commission (www.multicultural.vic.gov.au), Australia Day (australiaday.org.au), Victoria University (www.vu.edu.au) and SBS (www.sbs.com.au) et al have carried his stories/stories on him. There is an increasing need to feature community workers and highlight their work on Wikipedia to achieve its objective of inclusion and social justice along with adhering to its https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Resilpra (talk) 17 May 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that two keeps are from low-editcount accounts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 09:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Shukla

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

Prod removed without comment. My concern was Appears to fail WP:SOLDIER - Shaurya Chakra is a 3rd level gallantry award. The other refs might be a case of NotNews Gbawden (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shirasangi Lingaraj Desai

Shirasangi Lingaraj Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment well if living to the ripe old age of 145 years old isn't notable, I dont know what is! The Guiness Book of Records still seems to think the oldest person is that young whippersnapper Jeanne Calment tho... Curdle (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, at the risk of spoiling some nice irony, the article gives Desai's birth date but no deathdate, but uses the verb "was" in the lead sentence, and never says that he is still alive. Indeed the latest date that any act of his is mentioned is 1906. It says that the trust set up with his funds is still making payments, but that is quite different. (No opinion yet on keep vs delete.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going by the infobox- birth and death date, both referenced.
  • You are correct, I ahd missed the infobox. The source there is primary, in fact a court document. I rather suspect that "2006" is an error for "1906", but if so it is an error in the source. If this is kept, I would remove the infobox death date as not reliably sourced. As the court document says that the person who died was the testator of the will that created the trust, this is probably not a different person of the same name. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. Only thing he seems to be known for setting up the Navalgund-Sirasangi Trust in 1906 It has four refs; one is what appears to be an Indian Government minister's website; said politician claims to be descended from the subject, so cannot be considered neutral. Two is a travel blog- which barely mentions the subject anyway. Three is some sort of legal document? which looks like a primary source regarding the trust and passing mention of a death, which is more than likely not actually the original Shirasangi Lingaraj Desai, considering it was 100 years after the trust was founded (thats where death date in the infobox comes from) and Fourth is a google books excerpt which is mainly about the trust. I couldnt find much anywhere else except two passing mentions in the Hindu saying he was a wealthy philanthropist who founded the trust. Curdle (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - very little online coverage exists, but he was apparently part of the royal family, and a notable college and education society was named after him. The Hindu reported that his 153rd birthday was celebrated, which certainly meets Wikipedia's policy of having enduring coverage. [[73]] Weighing the loss of news with the passage of time, and the language barrier, I think there's something here just barely worth keeping. Hopefully the article can be expanded. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Probasco

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michael WhiteT·C 23:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm open to merging some or all of it to the article Henry Probasco House. (That said, on looking at it again, the German article implies much more can be said of him.)--T. Anthony (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigmamsg 23:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historically notable figure in Cincinnati and Ohio. There is a lot of historical information about the man and likely much more can be found. In just a short time I found historical information: Cincinnati.com, Cincinnatimagazine.com, Beardbarons.com, 1899 auction of items belonging to Henry Probasco, and one from the University of Cincinnati library. The Newberry Library in Cincinnati houses a large collection of Arabic and Turkish Manuscripts that came from the collections belonging to Henry Probasco. Otr500 (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. A Traintalk 13:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Pollack

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG criteria. --Mhhossein talk 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Mhhossein talk 14:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Marwah

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

As per Basic criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary and reliable sources", where this subject failed to meet the basic notability criteria. The cited sources seems to be not having relevant and depth coverage to meet the notability criteria in fact some of the links seems to be the dead/non-existing. — Sanskari Hangout 15:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 15:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — FR+ 07:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. David Archibald

H. David Archibald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a person notable only as founder and executive director of an organization that does not have an article, referenced only to an obituary on legacy.com. This is not a notability-conferring source in and of itself, however, as it simply aggregates every paid inclusion death notice published in any participating newspaper, regardless of notability or lack thereof, and founding a non-notable organization is not an "inherent" notability freebie that automatically exempts a person from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting named to the Order of Canada is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG. It counts as a notability claim if, and only if, the person can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to pass GNG for whatever it was they did to earn that distinction — but the presence of an OC after his name is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from ever having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it wouldn't at least be a trigger to slow down, and put up any amount of templates encouraging expansion, sourcing, etc. The first instinct should not be delete. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Howzabout maybe I already did a WP:BEFORE check to see if I could find enough quality sourcing to salvage it? What's been added since the nomination is not coverage about him, but coverage which quotes him speaking in articles about something other than him — which is not notability-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the matter of legacy.com - the obituary was published in the Toronto Star and delivered via Legacy.com; I've updated the citation to reflect this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. It's still the paid-inclusion "every single person who died at all, regardless of their notability or lack thereof" section in the Toronto Star classifieds, so it is not a notability-assisting source just because it's in the Toronto Star. If the Toronto Star had assigned a journalist to write a news story about his death, that would count for something (but still not for enough all by itself as the article's only source), but the strictly WP:ROUTINE paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of the 'organization not having an article', it has a section in an article --> Centre_for_Addiction_and_Mental_Health#Addiction Research Foundation. I've updated the article accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bjornstad

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

does not appear to meet notability requirements RF23 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 12:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 09:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus after 1 month at AfD (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKenna (Scrabble player)

Michael McKenna (Scrabble player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article appears to meet all the criteria for exclusion in WP:BLP1E. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In view of further referenced achievements, changing my !vote to keep. I am concerned though about the difficulty of finding any IRS outside of the "scrabble world" reporting, hence exposing a lack of WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG, although I do like the analogy below to WP:ATHLETE. Aoziwe (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I talk below about why the highest score "event" should count as a second event. But additionally, two more events have since been added and one is a world record to which Aoziwe's criticism doesn't apply.
    • Speaking to the highest score "event", which Aoziwe believes is not sufficiently important, there are two points of note. Firstly, the record is replicated on the main Scrabble page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrabble), and that it was noteworthy enough to make it to the main page suggests to me that it should count as a second event here.
    • Additionally, the winner's score of 729 has been achieved a number of times in the past (http://www.wespa.org/700club.shtml). None of those games have combined scores which approach the combined record (eg highest score by one player is 850-259 by Toh Weibin), because such games are almost always much more one-sided. So the implication that the subject's role in the record was unimportant is a misjudgement in my view.
    • I will say I was too quick to publish this page and I had inadequately referenced the subject's records with secondary references elsewhere on Wikipedia which were subsequently deleted (and have now been replaced). Performance at the World Scrabble Championship and the now-beaten record for the highest score between two players in 24 hours is now added. Clearly WP:ATHLETE does not apply here, but by analogy, a world youth championship, or a world record, or participation in a world championship is sufficient by itself for presumed notability for many of those sports.Scrumpet97 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have left a notification of this afd at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Insufficient participants
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that these records are important; "most Scrabble points in 24 hours" borders on the absurd. Performance in junior-level competitions never meets WP:NSPORT (and would be a WP:BLP1E concern here even if GNG is met), and I don't see any other coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafay Baloch

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

Self-proclaimed ethical hackers are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. The subject has received some press coverage (mention in passing) but nothing substantial information about him which enable us to create a proper stand-alone bio on the subject. Saqib (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this promotional article (created by a "consultant, marketing advisor, and proud wikipedian"). The claims of the subject's notability are supported by seemingly legitimate sources which, upon close inspection, prove to be trivial and worthless: Mention of name in a myriad-name list by Microsoft; one passing mention in a BBC article about bugs; etc. Local sources (such as this) provide straight up fawning verbiage, unworthy of sourcing. The subject's a young student. Give him time and he might make it here yet. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome: Your characterization of The Express Tribune as a "local source" seems off the mark. It's a national newspaper, and the only internationally-affiliated newspaper in Pakistan. The fact that there are two articles in that paper devoted to in-depth coverage of the subject suggests that the subject is notable. The fawning verbiage is to be expected when covering a young Pakistani who has made an impact on global tech companies. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment. The newspaper is local; I see nothing "off the mark" in characterizing a Pakistani newspaper writing about a Pakistani subject as a "local source." I understand the reasons you give for the quality of their reporting. My assessment about the essential quality of the local sources' reporting remains unchanged. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This is a national newspaper providing coverage of a citizen of the same country as the newspaper. It is no different from the New York Times coverage of a US citizen. We don't make a distinction based on the size of the country. The only guideline we have about geography would be in WP:CORP#Audience, which requires that coverage be national or at least regional in scope. WP:GNG doesn't even have that restriction. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Size of the country"? What does the size of Pakistan have to do with anything? Where did I use the "size" of Pakistan in my arguments? Please clarify. -The Gnome (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I thought you may have been indirectly referring to size when you called it a "local source", which it isn't. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When we talk about a subject from, for example, Freedonia, and discuss the quality and trustworthiness of a source, we might comment that it is not a western/English source but a Freedonian source, a local source. Sometimes, in assessing the trustworthiness of information, we even demand to have local sources. The term is not derogatory but simply descriptive. The aforementioned newspaper has very large circulation and is written in English; it's still a (valid) local source, in my lexicon. In general, most articles in this Wikipedia, the English-language one, are mainly supported by local sources, i.e. western based ones, written in English. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If this reads like too west-centered a viewpoint, let me assure that it isn't. It's merely a description of how things work in every culture. Locality differs across locales! -The Gnome (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 11:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Agree This is not such a thing that you described, because he has many notable works. Just like Tavis_Ormandy. He also belongs to same category. He is featured on international and national media too. Yes there are some local sources but these sources are highly appreciated in Pakistan.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Note: This user is creator of the BLP[reply]
@IamZulqarnain: Have you been paid to create this bio? --Saqib (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: I'm not paid to create this bio. He gave us seminar on Cyber Security and Penetration in our University, SO I read about him and found that this person should be on Wikipedia. because he also has given many seminars in out of countries too. He also starts his company/startup in Pakistan for security of webs and platforms and buit his own products. But I'm not here publicize his company or product. I'm only here after reading his notable works.Zulqarnain Haider (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links that I've found to be useful to me: on the notability of an article's subject; a general notability guideline; the whole shebang about N; specifically about biographies; what to be careful about when editing a biography of a living person; how to create a draft and get community input. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple instances of significant coverage in a national news publication, per my comments above. Pretty obviously meets WP:GNG. The 'delete' comments aren't grounded in Wikipedia guidelines. If the guidelines are lacking, then propose changes in the appropriate talk pages, but for the purposes of this discussion, it looks like the basic notability requirements are met. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Before nom this BLP for deletion, I had a look at the coverage in the Express Tribune but I found it insufficient. This and this does not address the subject directly and in detail, as GNG requre. There is no biographical information in these two news stories about the subject. --Saqib (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A detailed source need not cover biographical information, it needs only to provide coverage of the subject. In this case, they cover the subject's work. That is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself acknowledge that the coverage in the Express Tribune discuss the subject's work not the subject himself so I don't think they meet the GNG. I read somewhere where @Hut 8.5: said "GNG requires that at least one or two sources have to cover the subject directly and in detail. It must be more than a passing mention and it must devote a substantial amount of text to the subject himself." --Saqib (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Often extensive biographical information isn't available except from primary sources. Secondary sources, which are required for notability, will most often be about the subject's works and career, and if the coverage is extensive and/or in-depth, as it is in this case, then that is sufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enigmamsg 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like your own arguments have been refuted. There is no policy that requires significant coverage to be biographical coverage, and I have explained why, above. If I were closing this, it would be 'no consensus'. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I agree that if this AfD were to be closed down now, it'd be on a decision of "no consensus." In the rest of your arguments I find little merit, sorry to say.
Source forensics:
That BBC report: Only mentions subject in passing as part of group of hackers who'd warned Google. Another hacker is actually talked about more prominently.
The WSJ report is similar to BBC's.
The Black Hat Asia conference: Simply a list of presenters in a hackers' presentation. I can suggest far, far more "notable" persons if we are to accept as notability evidence a conference brochure.
The two Tribune articles, in 2012 and 2015: Although "Baloch" is a common name in Pakistan (see Balochistan), there is no disclaimer about the reporter Farooq Baloch not having any relation to Rafay Baloch. Different customs maybe, but I'm a stickler on mine. And his "reports" I find to be of highly promotional nature. Maybe that's just me, but my views are at least also the AfD nominator's. Second, the second story is all about a blog that lauds the subject's work, written up by a company whose corporate interest is boosted, plainly speaking, when mobile-phone users are worried about security.
I also note how the 2015 article charmingly reveals that Rafay has "hardly got any attention from national news channels [in Pakistan]." Essentially, the reporter himself, the one who pushes the story, disputes WP:GNG.
The only report worth its salt is the 2014 post by Thomas Fox-Brewster on his Forbes hosted blog. That's one text online focusing on Rafay Baloch's work; hardly a preponderance of WP:GNG evidence.
All in all, a hacker becomes notable for one achievement/event and already merits an article?! Well, as I already wrote, WP:TOOSOON carries the day, in my view, though not the view of the majority. The marketing consultant who created and pushes this article knows it was deleted in 2015 and again in 2016, but still tries on. This time he may well succeed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Fails WP:NPOV/WP:NPROMO. It isn't obvious to me that the sources on the subject are neutral or in-depth enough to easilly deal with these issues. I would consider changing my !vote if these policy issues were dealt with using better sources, but a quick look doesn't find any sources that are obviously better. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jyoti Ann Burrett

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isima Odeh

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

Subject not notable, doesn't fly WP:GNG or any other. Mahveotm (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T Low Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Lalić

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Gilman

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

There is no RS available for her, most of the sources are primary. Also her work in 2005 as just as a coach intern and she is definitely not professional athlete. Fails GNG too. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Niligirinorbert (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A Traintalk 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham al-Hashimi

Hisham al-Hashimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. The sourcing looks impressive but usually is just passing mentions where al-Hashimi comments on some topic, without significant coverage of al-Hashimi himself. Significant parts of the "bio" section aren't confirmed by the cited sources. Huon (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what is around online in English, he clearly has some significance, although I don't think he would quite edge over GNG based on what I've seen alone, for reasons mentioned above. However, most of the references are in Arabic, and indeed I would expect there to be more sources about him in that language. He also has a page on the Arabic Wikipedia, which is possibly an indication of notability based on such sources. Unless we can find an Arabic speaker who can confirm all the Arabic sources are not significant enough to establish notability, I would err towards a keep to be honest. BubbleEngineer (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added many sources 185.88.24.150 (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be equivalently construed as a weak keep.Gnome has put it nicely. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 13:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milovan Stanković

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

I didn't find any links, beside his personal site that he is laureate of Isidora Sekulić Award. Also, beside this award nothing adds to notability Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources....Sorry, but you can overdo it. There are so many articles where you can name the problem of really missing references. Everything is correct in the article. If You are interested in references: example 1...a meaningless action, sorry!!--AustrianFreedom (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles in Wikipedia may be lacking in sources is entirely irrelevant. You cannot use it as an argument. For more, see here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for me is that I didn't find any secondary sources confirming he received the award. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please, look at the sources: article of the newspaper Danas (introduction: 2001 Nagrada Isidora Sekulić). Thanks.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, hallo, I'll try to find something. But it is a fact that already enough references are available. Many articles with much more text are not nearly written with such a number of references. Sorry, I can't understand this process. I wanted more factual behavior, rather than such action.--AustrianFreedom (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I guess. He did receive the 2001 Isidora Sekulić award according to:
"Harmonija i odgonetanje smrti". Danas. 20 January 2007.
I also found a 2013 interview concerning his Leptir novel:
"Potraga za srećnim ostrvima". Večernje novosti. 22 December 2013.
There's a review of Fuler in Serbian Studies:
Serbian Studies. North American Society for Serbian Studies. 2003. p. 154.
Combined with sources already in the article, I think the GNG and NAUTHOR are (barely) satisfied. No such user (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to state Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge, Userfy or Transwiki to help the person who closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a right mess. This discussion is an even worse mess. Almost all sources are non-English. And the subject's main advocate is behaving boorishly. Yet, we seem to (just barely) cover the WP:NAUTHOR criteria. So a (very) Weak Keep it is. -The Gnome (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that while notability is not temporary, this topic is not encyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E, in that coverage was covered only for a very brief time and as a novelty, not for any impact on culture or any given field of study. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Perebal

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

Lack of real notability. Ten lauguages in eight more than I speak with any degreeof fluency, but for a linguis it is not a remarkable number; the principal ref Prens Libre is a run of the mill human interest story and I imagine the BBC Spanish service is a retread based on the Prens Libre story. TheLongTone (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. The topic meets the people notability guideline. The person is worthy of notice or note, remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. It is my opinion that it is highly unusual, remarkable, interesting and maybe even unprecedented that a security guard in Guatemala learns ten languages. Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a polyglot is not a particularly remarkable thing (and it does not make a person a linguist - sorry, but that terminological point is not unimportant, and most linguists are not polyglots). Yes, speaking ten languages is impressive, but that is again not a criterion for notability. I do not see that GNG is met based on the sources presented above. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The remarkable thing is that he was a security guard, who usually gets paid minimum wage, working in a repair shop in a seedy part of town and managed to learn basically by himself many foreign languages. And as proof of how remarkable that is he was a featured story in many media outlets, even internationally. Please tell me how you do not see the sources I posted as meeting the GNG. Thinker78 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this is the remarkable thing about him, please say so in the article. As the wording stands, it doesn't make a claim of significance. If you'd actually written what you wrote here, this might not have come to a deletion debate. Deb (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But "remarkable" isn't a reason for keeping the article, especially since it is always a matter of personal opinion. Of the sources provided (above and in the article), the prensalibre.com one is the only independent source with more than brief coverage of the person. Make no mistake, I think it is a wonderful thing that people learn more languages, but if we actually read the sources, it becomes obvious that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is false - he speaks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Quiché, which is six languages of which four are rather closely related, and has a smattering of four other languages. The main story in the source is about him getting a scholarship to study German - again, that is great, his achievements and enthusiasm make me truly happy, but that does not make him notable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "remarkable" because you were talking about not being remarkable, but the topic is notable as well as I have submitted evidence about in the form of reliable sources. According to the GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent" ."Brief" is wording that is not included in the GNG.
You said that the "if we actually read the sources, it becomes obvious that the claim made in the Wikipedia article is false - he speaks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish and Quiché, which is six languages of which four are rather closely related, and has a smattering of four other languages". I clearly stated that he speaks " ten languages with different degrees of fluency" and that is according to the sources (contained in the article) which I will quote "Perebal, quien habla 10 idiomas" (Spanish: "Perebal, who talks 10 languages"), "Indicó que habla inglés, italiano, francés, portugués, castellano y quiché; además, en fase intermedio domina el alemán, ruso, japonés y mandarín" (Spanish: "He indicated that he talks English, Italian, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and K'iche'; in addition, in intermediate phase he dominates the German, Russian, Japanese and Mandarin").[6] Prensa Libre has multiple articles about the subject, not just the one where he is going to study German. I will go through the other sources I provided:
The BBC. It is an independent source from the subject and a reliable source. It may not be a long article but is not just a passing mention either, so I believe it is significant coverage that the BBC had a full article just for him, addressing the topic directly and in detail, where information is given to us about his sex, his age, a job offer made to him, the languages he talks and that it even features a dedicated video showcasing languages that he speaks.
The YouTube video published by Univision's "Despierta America" (which is a variety morning show) is I believe a primary source because it is an interview of the subject, but which use as a source, if I'm not mistaken, is not against Wikipedia's policies. It is nevertheless independent from the subject, a reliable source, and covers the subject directly and in detail.
Canal6 is a reliable source and independent from the subject. It features a dedicated article to the subject, where it is addressed directly and in detail.
ChapinTV is a reliable source and independent from the subject. The article I provided is one of a series dedicated solely to him,[7] and so the subject is addressed directly and in detail.
Gente d'Italia is independent from the subject and seems to be a reliable source. RAI (the Italian state-owned broadcaster) has an article about Gente d'Italia.[8] Gente d'Italia's article about the subject is dedicated to it and addresses it directly and in detail. Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really that substantial. It's an interesting but fundamentally run of the mill human interest story which, once published once, has generated o flurry of copycat coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivial. Look at any news source, you'll se trivial feel-good human interest stories. these do not make the subject notable, and to repeat myself, jounos being lazy will pick up stories from other sources, hence a cascade of repeats of the same story. It's like crimes, which generate news coverage but are generally not notable unless there is significanyt ongoing coveage.TheLongTone (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS states that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". But at this point you don't know and can't know whether the subject will have an enduring notability. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. Wikipedia does not predict the future." WP:BIO1E refers specifically to events not achievements. The subject in this case is notable because of his remarkable achievement of being a security guard working in a seedy part of town in Guatemala and learning by himself many foreign languages. He was not involved in any event. According to WP:BIO, "...the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be 'worthy of notice'... or 'note'... – that is, 'remarkable'... or 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded' within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." The sources I provided prove very much that the person is worthy of notice, remarkable, significant, interesting and unusual enough. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 07:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete or userspace for more drafting (Thinker78 has IDed at least one source, an Mexican interview, not used in the article yet). Striking option not viable: Replace with a concise entry in List of polyglots (since it's verifiable information, so we need not expunge even the mention of him). I agree with the N, NOTNEWS, NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and BIO1E arguments: while there's a small amount of coverage, most of it's trivial, and the one piece that is not is focused on him getting a scholarship and on the "gee whiz" aspect (i.e. people being prejudicially surprised that a security guard isn't a dullard). This isn't the enduring notability we're looking for. Four of the six languages he's actually competent in are closely related in vocabulary and grammar, and a fifth (English) derives much of its vocabulary from one of those four (French). So there's just really not much there, from an encyclopedic perspective, even if it's a fun human-interest story. Honestly, it probably takes more time and devotion to become a top-100, national-class pool (billiards) player or skateboarder, yet such people are not notable (and often have more coverage, at least in the specialist press like pool and skating magazines). This is a borderline case, and while I tend to lean inclusionist, I do so primarily on the basis of likelihood that the subject will have more coverage later and increased relevance to the public. I'm skeptical in this case, because I think even if he learns Romanian, Galician, and Catalan over the next few years, more detailed coverage isn't likely because the story hasn't really changed at all from a journalistic or public perspective, and if it doesn't and there's not more coverage then there's no encyclopedic story to tell, either. That is, Perebal doesn't really matter to the general public on any segment of the world stage, more than the next random person matters (and by a certain age, most of us are quite competent at one or more things). He's simply had his 15 minutes (in primarily local- or regional-interest publication). And good for him; too bad we don't have more news coverage of interesting people who aren't criminals or involved in a scandal. But, really, by 2020, no one will remember or care other than Perebal's friends and family, and collectors of language- or guard-related trivia. It's not really fair, perhaps, but the "one hit wonder" band that charted with a top-10 hit in 1987 and then broke up remains notable because their song still gets played and people still care enough to want to know about the band. That won't be true of the obscure guy who "knows" 10 languages. Nothing is going to make him stick in the public mind (unless he becomes more notable for some other reason, like saving the life of the Guatemalan president, or winning that international pool and skateboarding biathlon :-). In short, if we don't delete this now, we'll delete it in a few years, after his obscurity becomes more obviously opaque with time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC); revised: 07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC); revised again: 00:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • SMcCandlish I'm not understanding BIO1E very well. I thought it applied only to people notable for only one event. The subject is not related to any event that I know of. How does it apply here? Thinker78 (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Btw, the subject has many more articles about himself in Prensa Libre and ChapinTV, not just the ones I mention, and to be included in the List of polyglots, the subject needs to have an article in Wikipedia. Thinker78 (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Answering on the talk page; I don't want to WP:BLUDGEON the AfD. Also covered in more detail here. Short version: "event" doesn't have a narrow definition in BIO1E, though it's not the strongest argument presented here anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete . Nonnotable feat. 15 minutes of fame in the news, but there are no really reliable sources which discuss his level of mastery of the languages. I myself can say hello and thank you in 37 languages (thanks, Wikipedia :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subject got significant news coverage, got coverage even in international media, in Mexico,[9] Honduras,[10] the BBC[11] and an Italian international publication;[12] got coverage multiple times continuously for about a month in at least two national sources, Prensa Libre and ChapinTV, from April 2018[13][14] to May 2018.[15][16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have already said that, Thinker78. And replied to almost every comment in this discussion. I think we know what your position is at this point. It's time to let the process happen (again). – Joe (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason that link of Bludgeon is only an essay. Some editors can come up with the most unreasonable things. That essay is just a wish to bludgeon minority views out of a full debate. Besides, I didn't point out previously the international nature of the sources or the continuous coverage of the subject. In fact, I added this comment because of my discussion with SMcCandlish, who was not aware of the international origin of the sources and thought all the sources were local. Thinker78 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sigh I entirely fail to see why this afd has been reopened, simply because one editor feels passionately about it. Well of course they do, they wrote the page. Despite this, they seem to be unwilling to update the article to reflect changes inn Senor Perebal's circunstances, altho they can come up with a ref to back up the info.TheLongTone (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, if I hadn't reopened this AfD, I'd bet $20 that Thinker78 would have just taken it to WP:DRV. Someone's time was going to get wasted, regardless. A Traintalk 16:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone, I didn't correct the information in the article because I already reverted your addition so I didn't want to be seen as if I was edit warring. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually changing the content rather than reverting would not be edit warring, it would be constructive. The article ref dsays he is a security guard; you have a ref saying he now does something else. Why not use your time constructively by improving this (imo doomed))article.TheLongTone (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A Train, you are right, I would have, but the house didn't take your bet, so you are left without the $20 win. I have to say that the reopening made the consensus more clear, because the media interviews event reasoning did not provide much clarity and I'm still puzzled about it. Thinker78 (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone, the earlier sources stated that he was at the time a security guard but the story evolved and the source I showed you that indicates he is no longer a security guard is a more recent one. At this point I don't know what you want in the article so if I make further edits that you don't like you probably will do a manual revert, changing the content back as it was. So to avoid the impression that I am edit warring I will let other editors (including you) change it if they so want or let it stay as it is, even though it currently contains untrue information. Thinker78 (talk) 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated above, this is a classical case of 15 min of local fame. The subject do not pass per WP:GNG by being a polyglot alone and thus has no encyclopedic value. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/traders-nation/392323/
  2. ^ https://canal6.com.hn/otras-noticias/guatemala-pone-en-aeropuerto-a-guarda-que-habla-diez-idiomas.html
  3. ^ http://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/pedro-perebal-el-joven-poliglota-llega-a-su-primer-dia-de-trabajo-en-aeronautica-civil-161287
  4. ^ http://www.genteditalia.org/2018/05/04/guatemala-borsa-di-studio-per-il-poliglotta-pedro/
  5. ^ http://www.prensalibre.com/PrensaLibreTV/DetalleTV/1876451
  6. ^ http://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/poliglota-recibe-becas-para-estudiar-italiano-y-aleman#cxrecs_s
  7. ^ http://www.chapintv.com/buscador/perebal
  8. ^ http://www.rai.it/dl/RaiTV/programmi/media/ContentItem-4a049830-c42b-499c-b2e0-97eedcf952bc.html
  9. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKUkaDXIFis
  10. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20180522005445/https://canal6.com.hn/otras-noticias/guatemala-pone-en-aeropuerto-a-guarda-que-habla-diez-idiomas.html
  11. ^ http://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-43843383
  12. ^ http://www.genteditalia.org/2018/05/04/guatemala-borsa-di-studio-per-il-poliglotta-pedro/
  13. ^ http://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/pedro-el-guardia-de-seguridad-que-habla-diez-idiomas-y-quiere-aprender-mas
  14. ^ http://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/disciplina-y-esfuerzo-premiaron-a-pedro-perebal-158281
  15. ^ http://www.prensalibre.com/ciudades/guatemala/pedro-perebal-el-guardia-poliglota-cumple-con-su-primer-dia-de-trabajo-en-aeronautica-civil
  16. ^ http://www.chapintv.com/actualidad/pedro-perebal-el-poliglota-cumple-su-sueno-161303
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/People&oldid=843041566"