Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary 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.
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.

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

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.

If possible, please use one of these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

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

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. Nom-ed by a sock. W/o prejudice against any fresh nomination . (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 06:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Solanki

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

Notability in question, fails: WP:PEOPLE Roundmaster (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Roundmaster (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ivor Browning (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McGurk

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

Delete It is of a minor priest and doesn't include details about his career— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) 07:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 07:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm holding off on a final !vote for now, but I disagree that an archdeacon is a "minor priest." Though Anglicans use the terminology a little differently than you might expect, archdeacons are actually pretty high-ranking within Anglicanism - they're almost like assistant bishops. When we have a named article like Archdeacons in the Diocese of Liverpool, of which there were only 2 at any one time until very recently, I am inclined to err on the side of inclusion for holders of the office. But I will wait to see what others have to say. MarginalCost (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Liverpool is a relatively modern diocese, so that there has been little opportunity for a long succession, but we commonly have had articles on Anglican archdeacons and Cathedral deans. They are not assistant bishops, but have an administrative responsibility covering a diocese or part of one. In some dioceses, the suffrigan bishop does this job as well as a bishop's own. Elsewhere it is a freestanding post. Many previous holders of the office have articles, as so the other three archdeacons in the diocese. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we have more often than not kept such articles. Note that the Episcopalian Archdeacon is ordinary, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk)
Keep as per WP:Outcomes detailed above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not typically keep clergy below the rank of a bishop unless they are independently notable from RS coverage. This is reflected in WP:OUTCOMES which oddly appears to have been miscited above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Archdeacons are high enough up in the Church of England hierarchy to be considered notable on the basis of their position. We have many stub articles on archdeacons of the Church of England, and I see no reason to delete any of them. I also question the motives of Ivor Browning in nominating this article for deletion when an article he wrote about a Liverpool priest is currently being discussed for deletion -- seems rather WP:POINTy to me. BabelStone (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Dega

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

Non-notable person failing WP:GNG with no in-depth sources. The two news articles where the person is mentioned more than a passing mention are not about the person (about car event/stuff). A couple sources are passing mentions. Other sources are not independent or don't cover the subject. Declined AfC moved to mainspace by author. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think he is notable enough for an article. It is most likely promotional (even if not from him). Ivor Browning (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- — Ivor Browning (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of J.K.McBrine. (talk • contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Most sources just mentioned subject in one or 2 sentences (passing mentioned) and not showing any merit of notability required. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ethnicities in Iran#Turkic-speaking peoples. Sandstein 13:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic groups known as "Iranian Turks"

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

This is an unsourced list and sounds like WP:OR; both its title and lead/intro. How we know all of those mentioned Turkic ethnic groups call and identify themselves as "Turk"? And no source for that term "Iranian Turks" too. Plus we already have Category:Turkic peoples of Asia. So creating a sub-category named "Turkic peoples of Iran" would be helpful if it's really necessary. Another option is rename/move; e.g. moving it to "List of Turkic ethnic groups in Iran". But the current content of article is just another example of turning category stuff into a pointless list/table. Wario-Man (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename. I've added one citation, doi:10.1017/S0020743800052284. There are things for an encyclopaedia to say about the various Iranian Turkic groups, so I think an article is appropriate, not just a category. What form that article would best take is a harder question: I concur that the current article title doesn't really work. Bondegezou (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just added two references [1] without adding any new content to article or expanding it. A list should be notable and offers some additional info but currently this article is just a table version of a category plus its misleading and wrong title and lead. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead complaint motivating this AfD was that this was "an unsourced list". It now has two sources. I was just trying to address the concerns that were given!

The article does offer additional info in that in gives a language and religion for each group (some of which is now sourced). It's not "just a table version of a category". I believe there is material to expand it further.

AfD is not clean-up: if the title and lead need changing, then change them. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please... Do you really think "It now has two sources" is a valid argument when you have just dropped two sources there without improving the content of article? Both sources are not free to access and require permission/purchase. And you expect other editors do the rest of your incomplete job? That's not the proper way to convince a nominator to change their opinion. I ignore the rest of your comment because I'm not a new user who uses AfD for the first time, and that part of your comment is irrelevant. As I said, this list is just a category with a table. And there is a good home for it: Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples --Wario-Man (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding citations to support material in an article is a way of improving it, yes. I am unclear what so upsets you about this. There is absolutely no requirement in Wikipedia for sources to be free to access: see WP:RSC. Wikipedia is always about collaborative, incremental improvements, so I don't feel comments about "expect other editors do the rest of your incomplete job" to be helpful or in keeping with WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this information all be found at Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples? Dream Focus 15:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel there is sufficient material to support a standalone article (with a new name). However, if the AfD concludes otherwise, I would support a merge to that section. Bondegezou (talk) 08:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou: IMHO, the problem is not only sufficient material or not, the problem is that this list sounds irrelevant given that we already have Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination and Move the table/list to Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples. --Wario-Man (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Farsi-language page has multiple additional citations and shows a route for possible development of this article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethnicities_in_Iran: There is almost no useful information in this list compared to Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples, and the title does not follow the naming conventions either. If there is the need to expand on this topic in the future, a new one could be created with a more fitting title. Esiymbro (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wario-Man.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demographics of Iran. This title of that list can be a subtopic within the article with the two sources mentioned being used to describe them.--Persian Lad (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have Ethnicities in Iran and it has the related section Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples. Any ethnic-related stuff should redirect to that article and the proper section. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethnicities_in_Iran#Turkic-speaking_peoples per Wario-Man and WP:CHEAP. It's notable, but currently is almost all original work and a fork. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Santhekadur

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

I don't see that this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:PROF. Sources given don't indicate that his books have won any awards or were reviewed, and the science award he won is not a major one. Google search for the name shows that he's published as a scientific author, but nothing that has garnered particular attention. Also possible conflict of interest. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources in search results. All sources on the current article are either self-published or unreliable. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - associate professors are rarely notable. Pinging DGG in case I'm wrong. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacking in acceptable resources. Barca (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. by our usual standards. 3 papers with 100 or more citations. This is sufficient to show influence in their field, and 100 is the level we've been consistently using for biomedicine, the most heavily cited field. This article was written (by the subject) in ignorance of our WP:PROF standard, without the papers or citations being mentioned, but I have added them. The only reason it's a week keep instead of a keep is that he is the principal author for only the one of the most-cited papers--judging not just by author position, but by where the work was done at that stage in his career. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Watts Jr

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

WP:N not well-established and relies heavily on a PR, coatrackie, potential BLP vio ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:43, 29 July 2019 (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? 17:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, fails WP:AUTHOR. I ran proquest newspaper searches on his name with and with "jr", with keywords "prison" and "drug dealer" and found nothing. Launching a writing career while serving time for drug dealing is admirable, but we need sources, and those now on the page do not suffice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding much in my BEFORE (I also search for "John Boy Watts" which seems to be the form he's running with). I couldn't verify he authored 39 books as our article currently claims (e.g. Amazon - usually accurate for contemporary books - doesn't show anything close to that). The two books listed in the article seem to be self-published.Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being friends with Ice T and writing a lot of books while in prison (while its good he apparently turned a new leaf) doesn't grant him auto notability (ecspecially since his publishing company isn't notable). Josalm64rc (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not met at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a fairly deep search of this subject and the subject's works, I could not find WP:RS. In addition the books look to be self published. This also is starting to look like WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Narayan

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

Insufficient establishment of notability. He created a single Indian TV show and he produced one other thing. Big deal. There are tons of guys like him in every TV market. I can't find any significant coverage of him. Here are some sample articles from Google News: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 15:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Ware

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

Biography of a person who does not meet WP:GNG and doesn't fall within any of the more specific notability categories - the most applicable one is probably WP:NAUTHOR but that is also not met. All sources are primary and I cannot find any secondary sources that discuss her in any significant depth or detail. The title would be a plausible redirect to the article about her husband (Joseph F. Ware Jr.) which mentions her, but there is no content in this article that would need to be merged.

Note also that the subject of the article has asked to have it deleted; that's not sufficient reason if clear notability exists, but again, I don't see that notability does exist independently of her husband. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and insufficient standalone sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. TheEditster (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I don't see a need to redirect to Campus_of_Virginia_Tech#Joseph_F._Ware,_Jr._Advanced_Engineering_Lab. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any notability measure that the subject passes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting up the money to found a specific lab setup in a university is almost never alone sign of notability, and that is all I see here. I would say this article should be speedy deleted because it seems to really violate the privacy of the non-public figure living person who is the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As noted on WP:N a topic can be considered notable if it meets GNG (which nobody is claiming here) or one of the subject-specific guidelines that include NACADEMIC; it's also not clear what "the article is poor in taste" refers to nor why it would require deletion. I know that some people advocate deletion of GNG-noncompliant articles even when they meet some other notability guideline and that this practice is often applied in AFD closes, but here I am not seeing anyone explicitly advocating for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Lawless

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

not that notable. Ozar77 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Lawless was included in the Wikiproject Women in Red redlist index. Being an international fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering is notable. AllyCAD is well known as a low cost CAD option for engineers. Yes, the article needs more work. Searching her name on Google provides many sources that I need to dig through for quality before using them in the article. --Madds212 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ozar77 (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep per Madds212. bd2412 T 01:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #1 as a South African engineer elected an international fellow of Britain's Royal Academy of Engineering. StarryGrandma (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is poor in taste and fails to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable and meets WP:NACADEMIC #3 "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association - Royal_Academy_of_Engineering#Fellows_of_the_Royal_Academy_of_Engineering states: "Honorary and International Fellows who have made exceptional contributions to engineering are also elected". I do not see deletion rationales here - WP:Not notable is in WP:ATADD, and "poor in taste" is close to WP:IDLI. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Julius Amberg

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF. He may have briefly been an assistant professor when Einstein was studying to become a maths teacher but this does not make him notable. As stated in his bio "It seems that he did not publish much apart from his thesis" Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Domdeparis:, @Johnpacklambert:: When I wrote the article I was aware that notability criteria were very low. But the element already existed in WD... I will no object the deletion or the keeping.--Ferran Mir (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The notability guidelines for academics are more aimed at the present day than at mathematicians of the late 18th and early 19th century. And we do have one in-depth source on the subject [9]. If we had a second source, independent of that one and more in-depth than [10], I think he'd pass WP:GNG. He doesn't appear to be significant except as a teacher of Einstein, but significance is different than notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were a couple of what look like wire-service stories about a letter of Einstein's that mentioned Amberg, when the letter was auctioned in 2017 [11][12] (which gave enough detail to find the auction house's record). Still doesn't seem to be adding up to in-depth coverage of Amberg himself, though. XOR'easter (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per the above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Thapaliya

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

no extensive news on him... Ozar77 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ozar77 (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Sources on page are PRIMARY, PROMO websites, and/or not WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every writer who contributes to notable publications is notable. That is really the only standard that would make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe just too soon, but I don't see WP:BIO here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTPROMO and not WP:RS. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Jackman Ashton

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

Non notable "philanthropist" and "storyteller". The sources are too weak to show she meets notability requirements. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say that there is no reason to put philanthropist in scare quotes. That said, being on a university board is not a defact sign of notability. Even when it is the state-wide elected boards we have for 3 univerisities in Michigan, even more so for that of UVU which is an ascended community college. True, it is without question a university today, I am less sure about its status when Ashton was on the board. As a BYU alumni I would love to demonstrate that Ashton is notable, but I am psotive she is not. She probably had a defining role in her husband's business success, but Wikipedia is built on sources, so unless you can source that, nothing is there. Her endevors have not risen to the level of notability. Positions like a university art museum board clearly do not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are not scare quotes but to draw the attention to the fact that when you read the article there is nothing to show that she is either. She has organised a storytelling festival but there is no mention of her being a storyteller herself and there is no suggestion that she is a philanthropist in the sense that she has made large donations of her own money to charitable causes. I suppose she could be described as a "festival organiser" and "real-estate developer" but this may not be the tone the article creator was aiming at. It would have been better if I had said this in my nomination I think. I have just look at the page for the festival that she founded...it is unbelievably promotional. I shall be taking a hatchet to it soon. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Baines (academic)

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

Doesn't appear notable. The claim to notability is unclear. Perhaps, it's the books, but notability isn't inherited. Only primary sources, tagged with serious issues, and question of notability at talk page, running on almost 10 years now. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF based on citations of his works as seen in his Google Scholar profile. 4 works have over 100 citations.Thsmi002 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, meets notability easily and also pass WP:PROF. Meeanaya (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overwhelming Keep Consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tazeen Fatma

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Person is wife of Azam Khan but that's not criteria to have Wikipedia page of hers.

She didn't receive any major coverage in WP:RS to have Wikipedia page dedicated to her. Here, most of the sources used are non reliable and doesn't help to receive the WP:Notability. Like,

1. Fails WP:RS
2,3,4,8. Websites of government. Repeated citation. Doesn't help to achieve notability.
5. Fails WP:RS
6. Website of university where she studied.
7. WP:RS but again she is mentioned as spouse of someone.
9. Not Reliable source and only negative mention about her regarding case on her son.

I don't think Tazeen need any Wikipedia page. Hence, this debate. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an elected member of India’s Upper House, described as a ‘leader’ and pro-chancellor of a university, she’s certainly ~~notable~~ significant. Mccapra (talk) 06:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. She meets WP:NPOL "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" as a member of the upper house of India's national parliament. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What the hell? nominator WP:IDONTLIKE ??? Clearly she meets WP:NPOL: Current or Former member of parliament are always notable. 117.18.229.108 (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC) 117.18.229.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Azam Khan (2nd nomination). --Muhandes (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another case of WP:JDLI from this editor on a notable Indian woman. Please see WP:BEFORE as the subject clearly meets notability criteria WP:NPOL. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Don't bring gender in between and refrain from doing sexist comments. See the references of the page, one government site is cited by 4 times. Other citations are negative and some are not reliable. If you don't know then visit India deletion sorting. I have submitted some other articles too for deletion. Remove glasses of gender before commenting, stuck on policies. --Harshil169 (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep according to this source here 1 2 3, She is a Member of Parliament. Pass WP:POLITICIAN.--Nahal^(T) 10:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL. ∯WBG^converse 13:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but people who verifiably served as members of state legislatures pass WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL is a member of the Rajya Sabha the upper house of the Indian Parliament.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Azam Khan

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

Non-notable person who hasn't achieved enough attention in WP:RS. Reliable sources are not used here to achieve the criteria in the page.

1. Times of India (RS)
2. Same article is again quoted
3. Non-RS (Myneta.info is just website which displays data of elected representatives)
4. India.com is not news organisation. Fails RS.
5. Reliable source but controversy in faking birth certificate.
6. Reliable source but stay on arrest of him.

In this case, the person fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG criteria who hasn't received any special coverage to have Wikipedia page. Already, Wiki community reached on the conclusion to delete this page and this page is again created as he won the election. But winning election doesn't guarantee person should have Wikipedia page as per WP:NPOL.

Hence, this debate. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person passes WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:NPOL "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them". He is an elected member of the legislature of a state of India. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tazeen Fatma. --Muhandes (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL as member of provincial legislature.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a legislature of a state of India passes WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per NPOL. ∯WBG^converse 13:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article does need some improvement, but people who verifiably served as members of national legislatures pass WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 09:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people born after a failed abortion attempt

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

Created to preserve the content of the POV category Category:Abortion survivors, comprising a tiny list of people notable primarily in anti-abortion propaganda. We already cover the medical concept in various other articles and don't need a list of people for a particular POV aspect of it. So NLIST problems combined with being a tiny unnecessary POV list. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Never heard anyone group people by "abortion attempt" viz ✦ 14:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't make sense to have this article, given that it appears to be duplicative of Category:American anti-abortion activists and Category:Abortion survivors. While there are some notable individuals who specifically talk about the fact that their parents tried to kill them in the womb, there's nothing unifying about the category that distinguishes them from pro-life activists more generally (who are, for obvious reasons, most likely to talk about this in public). It would be better to simply include this information in each relevant person's article, assuming that there are sufficient reliable sources and noteworthy third-party coverage of these claims related to each individual. Michepman (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This whole article is really useless KingSkyLord (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Michepman The Category:Abortion survivors is at WP:CFD at the moment. The voting is edging towards delete. One editor suggested that the contents be listified. To prevent information loss, I created this page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator I think that this is primarily just a factual list and not POV pushing. Arguably, the desire to delete could be seen as POV pushing. The preamble to the list was cut 'n' paste from the main abortion article. I'm not wedded to it. The article can lose the preamble but might look strange without some context. While all attempted-abortion-survivors in the current list appear to be also involved in "anti-abortion propaganda", as it is phrased above, not everybody involved in "anti-abortion propaganda" is an attempted-abortion-survivor; the sets do not overlap perfectly. I've also now included the article as part of the wider Category:Survivors which includes holocaust, lynching etc survivors. So there is precedent for this kind of thing. The article is useful as the info will be held nowhere else conveniently once the CFD is carried. For the people involved, it is a defining fact of their lives. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three things listed, not enough for a list article. Dream Focus 05:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply After a quick Google search, I found another and added her to the list. Are we really so sure that this list has no potential to grow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added a biography of a non-notable living person to a list (WP:BLPLIST) based on an exceptionally poor source (WP:RS)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list is a list. There's no wiki rule that says everybody in the list has to be notable. In fact lists are for accumulations that would otherwise not be notable in their own right or worthy of articles in themselves; it is only in a list that their relevance is seen. Are we really so sure that this list has no potential to grow? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list isn't meant for only activists, if there is a non-activist you can add it. Oldenburg Baby wasn't an activist even if activists use it to support their position. The potential POV with the name of the category can be solved by renaming instead of deleting. Blumpf (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Am not wedded to the name. Am open to alternatives. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being a survivor of a failed abortion attempt does not appear to confer notability, as there are many more individuals who could be included in such a list (supposedly there are a dozen or so each year in the United States, [13]) who are nonetheless not notable individuals. The only individuals listed here who have articles are notable for being anti-abortion activists, not because of the manner of their birth, and so I was going to suggest merging to a list of anti-abortion activist individuals, but we do not appear to have one. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the above. I understand why the original person created this article, since it sounds like the category is being deleted or will be deleted in the future. However, I don't think that this article really makes sense as a standalone article. As a compromise, I would support including this information in the pages of the individual pro-life activists or figures listed here and potentially including a subpage on (for example) abortion or pro-life or similar articles which would include a list of people who have specifically been identified in reliable, notable sources as abortion survivors. Michepman (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Plan B, I could support this suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy ‘Bos’ Bullock

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

I found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy ‘BOS’ Bullock is an acclaimed music producer, with Grammy nominations and everything on his page is true. There is no reason for deletion. All of his songs listed can be verified through ASCAP’s official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livinmydestiny (talk • contribs) 01:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Venerability is not the issue, notability is. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree as per nom. Barca (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Worrell and James Duell

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

no apparent notability DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presumptive copyright violation per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors; author has been blocked for repeated copyvios. MER-C 20:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication whatsoever of notability as a couple – no hits on Gnews, no hits on Gbooks. Sourcing of the page consists of two obit notices and a gravestone. Duell seems to have been a minor government functionary, but of no encyclopaedic interest; Worrall is apparently completely without notability. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the most egregious violation of the not memorial guidelines that I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. John Pack says it right, violation of the not memorial guidelines. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Kuruvilla John

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

A Google News search turns up only two hits on this individual, one of which, though from the Times of India, only mentions him in passing as an award recipient for a non-notable award for updating a police training manual, and the other of which discusses him only as one of a team of police officers assigned to a particularly awful Indian criminal case. Neither article is "about" him. A Google search reiterates these results and adds others that seem to lack independence from the subject. Did not come across enough to form the basis of a genuine claim of notability for a living person (WP:BLP). A loose necktie (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please delete this page of non-notable person. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : New reference articles are added and notability is introduced Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources currently used in this article don't indicate notability, a further search didn't turn up anything to establish notability either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ANYBIO. No notability established. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user also recently created Merin Joseph IPS. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: that's a recreation of the previously deleted article Merin Joseph. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea

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

No sources independent of the organization from which he draws his notability. p b p 14:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is independent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per my previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ángel Abrea (2nd nomination). No adequate evidence of notability was provided at that time. One source that might possibly provide significant coverage is not enough. Multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one that may possibly have the required depth-of-coverage, or maybe not. Furthermore, there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. The subject may be important in the LDS church, but is not notable as per Wikipedia's standards of notability at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per comments above and in the prior nomination decision. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After discarding a bunch of socks, consensus clearly favours deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lekhraj Bugaliya

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

I do not see why the person is notable. The article was moved multiple times out of the draft by the creator and moved back by other users. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am striking comments from three accounts all of which are unambiguously block-evading sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete This person hasn’t achieved any coverage in WP:RS and no proper sources are even cited here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability. —Harshil169 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have right details with sources. This is Rajasthan local person who work to teach poor student and have Education YouTube channel for iit jee and neet prepration. I think wikipedia allow this article on main page WP:NPOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chota92 (talk • contribs)

Note that the creator of the article has been indefblocked for spam, and the above user is likely their sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No coverage whatsoever from WP:RS; all sources primary or poorly-written user-submitted list articles, that's about it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure promo. Fails WP:GNG. COI editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person passes WP:NPOL..... Caller92 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:GNG. b4sky005 (talk) 13:26, 01 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— b4sky005 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gamble (socialite)

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

It is possible for socialites to be notable , but it takes more than this. None of the references are references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a presumptive copyright violation; the author was blocked for an extensive history of copyright infringement. MER-C 15:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as being very poorly written, and lacking significant coverage on his own, assuming good faith. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Wells

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC, as per several WP:BEFORE source searches. Sources found are affiliated (non-independent) and primary. I located this Deseret morning news 2006 church almanac source, but from the snippet view, it appears to be a rather standard directory listing of sorts, one that may not consist of significant coverage. Otherwise, not finding any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Some news articles such as this are out there that provide passing mentions, but fall far short of being considerable as significant, in-depth of coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC and WP:RS. All sources are either a passing mention or someone else. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The previous AfD raised issues around what is considered "independent" sourcing for notability, but did not reach consensus. This AfD raises similar issues, but there is neither sufficient participation nor sufficient agreement to resolve them. RL0919 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Octaviano Tenorio

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

Several WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no evidence of this subject meeting WP:BASIC. Searches are providing affiliated (non-independent) sources and primary sources, but finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I supported keeping this article in the first AfD three years ago. I explained my reasoning in great detail at that time, and feel the same way today. I encourage people to read that debate and the closing statement carefully before coming to a decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. p b p 13:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple indepdent reliable sources, such as the Salt Lake Tribune article, the section from Hearts Turned to the Fathers and others. Those pushing for deletion are using a far too broad criteria to exclude far too many sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is actually said about Octaviano Tenorio in the Salt Lake Tribune article, though. It is mostly about ARTURO Tenorio, who found himself in hot water a few years back. The only mention of him is: His brother, Octaviano Tenorio, was a member of the LDS church's First Quorum of the Seventy. The Salt Lake Tribune article fails the WP:NOTABILITY's mandate for significant coverage. p b p 13:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Salt Lake Tribune article only has a one-sentence mention of the subject. This certainly is not significant coverage, and does not qualify notability. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. This is not an overly broad interpretation of notability guidelines to exclude sources, it is an accurate and correct application of guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the Tribune does in fact add a smidgen of notability; the article mentions him because he held a major position in the Church, and names the position, so it is an independent source on the fact that he held that position. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is, though, is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. The subject may be an important person in the LDS church, but passing mentions do not qualify notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that footnote 6, an article in the academic journal BYU Studies Quarterly, see the discussion at RS Noticeboard entitled "Are university presses legally affiliated with the Univ. independent of the parent ORG of the University?" This scholarly journal is WP:INDEPENDENT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock Rollidan (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rollidan (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kida Burns

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

No evidence of significant notability. The only accurate sourced statement which indicates notability is the award of "America's Favorite Dancer". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I will come back to this one. Seems like this subject was a winner of a television dance show competition. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject easily passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor $250,000 and first place on the national television show: So You Think You Can Dance: The Next Generation. I also see enough non-trivial coverage of the subject and the subject has appeared in national television productions such as a the BET awards and the Ellen DeGeneres Show and others. The subject may also pass WP:ARTIST as a creative professional dancer. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers. The subject's notability is not temporary. WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, being the winner of a "reality" show, even one nominally based on talent, is not even evidence of a significant award. But, there may still be non-trivial coverage in other venues. I am certain the subject doesn't qualify for the slightly greater requirement for appearing in 2002#Births, which is why I noticed ~~her~~ him. For example, the first Survivor winner has the additional notability of being a tax protester (or at least, tax evader). But I won't complain if the closer disagrees. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is covered in multiple reliable sources and he won a nationally televised dance competition which seems a notable award (it does have it's own article here), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm inclined to think that the award is significant enough (it doesn't have to be the nobel-equivalent), and the subject's also received significant coverage elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that the additional reviews added demonstrate notability per NAUTHOR, (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Vanita

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

Non notable person. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Author. No major coverage in WP:RS and no secondary source is cited as reference even though this is WP:Bio. All the claims are dubious and vague; not backed by sources. Wiki is the only source and can be used as circular reporting.

This article should be removed as soon as possible because the Ruth Vanita was involved in the editing the Article. Violation of WP:COI

--Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Deleting this article makes no sense. Ruth Vanita is a major academic and researcher. Her books have been published by Penguin India, one of the most important publishers in India, and her works are regularly used in courses around the world. She is one of the leading scholars in the world on the history and sociology of queer people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans) in South Asia, a part of the world that accounts for more than 15% of the world's population. She did not start this Wikipedia article: I did. I have never met her, and this article was not started as any kind of promotion. It was started precisely because she is a major figure in an important area of research and teaching. I'm not sure whether she has contributed to it. If she has, those portions can be edited. Interlingua 14:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Interlingua: let’s accept that she’s major scholar and notable person who should have page on Wikipedia but why not a single secondary source has been cited in the page to support her notability? If someone is being taught in studies then it doesn’t mean she should have Wikipedia page. —Harshil169 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil169 (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just look at the contributions of @Ruth vanita: in which she is adding details about herself and her colleague Saleem. Clear violation of WP:COI and this page should be removed or should be started from scratch. --Harshil169 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is obviously notable given independent sources that are easily found by doing Google, Google scholar, JSTOR and news searches. Article could have been improved before nom as per WP:BEFORE. She is not only widely published and reviewed, she is a full professor and the director of the South & SE Asian Studies Department at the University where she teaches. She has received grants & fellowships from the American Philosophical Society (the oldest learned society in the US), Fulbright Foundation, National Endowment for the Humanities, and others. Netherzone (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: Main concern is conflict of interest(NPOV) and verifiability is too. Ruth Vanita herself is a contributor in the editing article and adding details about her books which are not published yet and that too without any proper citation. Whole article was written on the base of one reference and that too is not reliable. I tried to improve the article but so much details and that too about her parents are added in the article which isn’t even publicly available. Obviously, her associate is editing article on her. According to me, she’s not notable scholar who received multiple coverages and interviews in media to have Wikipedia page. If you think article should be improved then we can work together but no unsourced information about her should be tolerated as it violates WP:BIO —Harshil169 (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her work does seem to be reviewed in various scholarly journals, and additionally she is described as prominent in other RS and cited in more. Seems to be a notable academic. I agree that the article's poorly written, but that's hopefully fixable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: You can cite those RS here if you think she has received enough coverage and her article should be kept. And another main concern is she herself was editing her article and adding details about her upcoming books. Obviously, violation of WP:SPAM --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is sufficiently prominent; article should be rewritten however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindongyt (talk • contribs)

Sign when you're commenting on important issue. Cite reliable sources to prove that she is prominent. --Harshil169 (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some book reviews, enough I think to pass WP:AUTHOR. As nominated the article needed cleanup but that's not what AfD is for. And Harshil169: Please see WP:BLUDGEON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this policy. Thanks for bringing attention of me. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not policy; merely advice. Anyway, you're welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage and reviews of her books. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing brought by David Eppstein]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated by the reviews included by Eppstein. PROMO can be managed through editing. I placed COI banners on the talkpage. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR with room to spare. As edited, it is not overly promotional at the moment. The remaining biographical claims are dry stuff that can be sorted out through ordinary editing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What the....hell ? Harshil169 Shame nominator! what reason you nomination for MPs (member of parliament) and notable articles only?? You did many deletion reqs for notable persons with base on WP:IDONTLIKEIT! Shame on you. should be report this nominator to check user request.Burmese pokemon (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than shaming, try to stick on policy and debate on the issues. I already said that at time of nomination, only one reference and that too personal blog was cited as reference and Ruth Vanita was also contributor in article. Is this Wikipedia’s policy to write article? I didn’t did any crime to nominate this person’s article. Read WP:Civility before shaming on me. —Harshil 14:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR, and AfD isn't the place to fix problems with the article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's some suggestions here for redirects and mentions on other pages, but in the same comment, it's said that this fails WP:V, so I don't see how we can do anything with it, so just delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranka

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

Removed prod regarding a supposed ethnic group from India. The article has has a "no citation" banner for nearly a decade. After an extensive search, I was unable to find any sources on the topic: I found sources on a location and company called Ranka, but not on an ethnic group. Even assuming this ethnic group meets notability requirements, the article is so poorly written that it would need to be completely rewritten to be suitable for Wikipedia. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can’t find anything in English either. I wonder if anyone reading Marwari or other possibly relevant languages can turn anything up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 03:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a source in the text - "Mahajan Vansh Muktavali" [14]. Unfortunately, I can't read the language the source is in. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, this book was authored by some Jain monk in 1921, and is not an academic source, thereby unacceptable for history/religion/caste-related content on this project. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Ranka is just one of the 1,444 gotras of Oswals. At best, it can be mentioned at the Oswal page. As far as the page in question is concerned, it should be moved to Ranka (disambiguation), as there is no primary topic here. BTW, three articles of persons with this (sur)name – namely Ranka Velimirović, Arpit Ranka, and H S Ranka – can aslo be listed at the disambiguation page.

A relevant quote regarding Ranka

Choudhry, P. S. (1968). Rajasthan between the two world wars (1919-1939). Sri Ram Mehra & Co. p. 78. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
The Oswals are peculiar to Rajasthan alone.¹ They get their name after a former town in Marwar called Osia or Osinagar. They are supposed to be the descendants of a number of Rajputs of different clans who were converted to Jainism by a celebrated Jain priest, Ratna Prabha Suri. They are said to have over 1,444 exogamous sub-divisions, some of which are Abhani, Bhandari, Hirawat, Khazanchi, Chajer, Daga, Juniwal, Guglia, Lunawat, Muhonot, Nahar, Patwa, Ranka, Sankhla, Tolawat, Targar etc.

NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and turn it to a disambiguation with Ranka (disambiguation) becoming a redirect, nothing meaningful to be found about the subject in my searches, fails WP:V since nothing can be verified, and WP:GNG since there are no multiple WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pendry (hang glider pilot)

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

An almost-entirely-unsourced BLP. No substantial coverage in independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent, reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. Thought topic might be sexy enough to have generated more interest, but apparently not, or at least not in the digital world. If anyone can find good evidence, print or otherwise, happy to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Twice a world champion and four times a European champion in his sports, which is reliably sourced, so clearly meets WP:SPORTSPERSON. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These championships do not appear to be in a "major amateur or professional competition", as specified by SPORTSPERSON; likewise, the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that he "is likely to have received" is also absent. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can the world championships in a sport possibly not be major? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not major if not notable. Please provide substantial coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources to indicate that AfD subject is notable. There don't seem to be any. There doesn't seem to be a particular reason to think that there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSPERSON shows a clear presumption of notability for participants at his level in any sport. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this "clear presumption"? SPORTSPERSON says "...major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor". I deny that he has done so, for lack of evidence that any of his awards could be termed "major" or "significant" in terms of WP's concept of notability. You decline to evidence that any of these awards are notable. Fortunately, SPORTSPERSON includes a link to "Main Page" Wikipedia:Notability (sports), where the results of "rule of thumb" discussions about participation and success in competitions in various sports are collected. I observe that none of his competitions are mentioned, nor even is hang gliding mentioned at all. Again, I request that you please provide evidence that this subject is notable based on substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that "major amateur or professional competition" means such within each individual sport. The fact that hang gliding and paragliding are not listed as specific sports is utterly and completely irrelevant. It just means nobody has done so yet. So yes, he has a clear presumption of notability, as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google Books search shows that he pops up in plenty of works as a pioneer of hang-gliding, and achieved some world records. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with some more work but the world championship makes him noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a world championship may be notable within the confines of a minority sport, I'm doubtful that it meets the requirements of GNG which are based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are other more serious issues with the article as given in the cleanup banners. It's obviously an autobiography and it contains original research. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some excellent work by RebeccaGreen, I'm happy that this now qualifies and have struck put my previous entry immediately above. Well done, Rebecca. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added coverage from digitised newspapers (I haven't yet looked in Google Books, so Slashme's comment suggests that there are more references that can be added). (I also found some more information about competitions he won, but not being familiar with the sport, I have hesitated to add information that I might get muddled - eg some Australian sources talk about world championship competitions in Australia, while British sources say he won Australian championships - do they mean world championships in Australia? or did the Australian sources mean that it was an Australian championship with entrants from around the world??) There certainly is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. As other editors have pointed out, he has won numerous world and national championships. He has also won two Royal Aero Club Gold Medals. These should all mean that he at least meets WP:ANYBIO, even if there aren't specific WP:SNG for hang gliders. I have de-orphaned the page, but if there were better coverage of hang gliding and paragliding championships on Wikipedia, or a list of winners of the Royal Aero Club Gold Medal, there would be many more links to his name. Pinging Hobbes Goodyear as having mentioned that they would reconsider if SIGCOV was found. Perhaps No Great Shaker would also like to look at the coverage. I must say that I can't see much evidence of original research, but anything that is could be edited anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now well-sourced. A world champion is obviously notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable according to the source presented. Barca (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now sufficiently sourced and compliant with GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to changes made since the nomination and for Pendry being notable for being a champion ie WP:ANYBIO. Josalm64rc (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since nomination and documented world champions will the nod from me for notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Parker (teenager)

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

I don't believe being the 17th UK victim of a particular disease meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). This information is more appropriate for inclusion in the article for the disease itself, Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. — TAnthony^Talk 23:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the newly-created article for a related victim:

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

Magnoffiq has also created other stub articles for vCJD victims, including:

The bulk of other people in Category:Deaths from Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease appear to be notable for other things than the manner of their death.— TAnthony^Talk 23:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. Dying of this particular disease does not come remotely near to making one notable enough for being the sole topic of an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect I have also nominated Grant Goodwin as there was no deletion notification which I believe should also be merged and redirected. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good grief. Why do we have pages for these people? Tragic of course, but not notable as individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find non-trivial coverage of this person in RS. I suggest WP:ONEEVENT is relevant here. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As has been pointed out in this discussion, an unique medical situation is not in and of itself evidence of notability and the concerns about WP:ONEEVENT have not been contested. A redirect may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Goodwin

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

I believe that this article should be merged with the main article Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Had he not contracted the illness it is unlikely that he would have had coverage. This article will certainly be a WP:PERMASTUB and nothing of importance that is said in this article could not be usefully integrated into the main article. The information about him is entirely linked to his disease and entirely negative. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good grief. Why do we have pages for these people? Tragic of course, but not notable as individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Necrothesp. Interested editors may also want to check out the current AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Parker (teenager), created by the same editor.— TAnthony^Talk 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good grief, Every other person who died from vCJD (at last count 177) has had a homozygous Methionine-Methionine form of prion gene. Goodwin differs from the norm, and hence is notable per wiki guidelines. Don't you read the articles which you propose to delete? It is shameful that wiki guidelines are grist for Dom's mill, but who am I to judge? ... The comment of Domdeparis about negativity make no sense and should be struck. I'm happy to hear his rebuttal... TAnthony is in high dudgeon because I demoted Sarah Roberts (character) from headline status. -- Magnoffiq (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Magnoffiq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I'm sorry you didn't understand my comment I'll try and make myself clearer. The information that you wrote concerning his symptoms is entirely negative and has nothing to do with him but the effects of the disease and carries undue weight it is sensationalism and not encyclopedic. These are the kind of symptoms that all victims of vCJD suffer and simply because his father has chosen to share these details in the press does not mean that we should include it in an article. The inclusion of these details in the different articles you have created is IMHO distasteful and is aimed to shock. Please remember that as per WP:SHOCK Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. I believe this was not done.

Just because a particular victim is the first to have died with a different form of prion gene does not make him automatically notable by any guideline I believe. I'd be interested to know which one you are referring to. What is important in all the sources is not Goodwin himself but the discovery that people with a different form of prion gene can be affected. This information has been reported and should be included in the main article. Also please stop making ad hominem comments about other editors as these can be seen as personal attacks and will always lessen the weight of any argument you are trying to make. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Dom. Goodwin is notable because more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years have been published on him. I'm just curious why there have been more than a dozen newspaper articles published on the same subject over more than 20 years. Your belief is irrelevant... I'm not making ad hominems. If I were, you would know it... The list of symptoms was in the newspapers; I simply digest what I read. The symptoms were intended to shock neither by the newspapers (the shock value is in the headline, not buried on page 6) nor by me. That construction is yours alone... Wiki has, literally 100's of articles "created, expanded or edited to some degree of significance" by User:TAnthony about the Dune (franchise). Some might feel this irrelevant and wasteful, but wiki is a big place with room for everyone's inanities. Does that not include real-life people that are notable because more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years have been published on them? -- Magnoffiq (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you have not replied to my question which was very simple. You said Goodwin differs from the norm, and hence is notable per wiki guidelines and I asked I'd be interested to know which one you are referring to. You may not understand what wikipedia defines as an ad hominem comment but FYI when you talk about my "mill" you are clearly making an ad hominem comment, when you talk about TAnthony being in "high dudgeon" this is also an ad hominem comment and should be avoided in deletion discussions as per WP:ADHOM. Deletion discussions are about the article and its content only. You have tried to make this one about me and my "mill" and TAnthony's Dune contributions. Please stop at once and stay on topic or if you can't do so please do not reply. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! We are getting somewhere. The wiki guidelines which this article meets are at least as follows:

I'm interested in your contention about wiki definition of ad hominem argumentation. Do you have a link to a reference? There is a difference between mere behavioural observation and fallacious ad hominem argumentation. This is highlighted in the wiki Ad hominem#Non-fallacious_types. NB and for the record, I have never contributed to the Ad hominem wiki. -- Magnoffiq (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm clearly not getting through to you. WP:ADHOM is quite clear though "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself...the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." Keep the comments on track or please do not comment at all. As I have said the coverage is all about the disease and had Goodwin not died of the disease he would not have been mentioned this is a case of WP:BIO1E. I think we have both come in a full circle and we should just let discussion ride to see where it goes. I shall not reply again, unless there is more ad hom stuff and then that will be on your talk page. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I read the article Magnoffiq. Goodwin may be notable enough for a paragraph in the Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease article, but he simply does not meet the criteria for an individual biographical article. And even if I researched the "more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years" written about him, I doubt it would change my opinion. He is only notable for being the first person with a certain gene to die of this disease; this is totally WP:ONEEVENT. I'm also rolling my eyes at your attempt to trivialize our opinions by identifying articles the rest of us worked on that you think are stupid or unimportant, but the argument that other stuff exists doesn't make Goodwin any more notable. And by the way, I had no problem with your Sarah Roberts article name change, as a matter of fact I changed the 50+ links in other articles that now pointed to the wrong article, which you didn't seem to give a sh*t about because you're obsessed with vCJD. It did, however, bring to my attention the fact that you created a handful of unnecessary bio articles about the victims of this disease, so thanks for that.— TAnthony^Talk 17:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless you get a huge amount of detailed medical research coverage being a victim of a disease almost never is enough to make one notable enough to justify a seperate encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, known for WP:ONEEVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his unique medical history. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this info belongs in the article for the disease; this article is actually more about vCJD than Goodwin. And he simply does not meet the criteria for an individual article.— TAnthony^Talk 16:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, but add any pertinent info there, per TAnthony's argument. The subject of the article may have decent coverage based on their medical status, however WP:BLP1E does apply here - from the sources that I've reviewed and been presented, the coverage on Goodwin is limited to his medical history. That he is the first person to suffer from a certain variant of the disease combined with the coverage in sources may be notable enough to be mentioned in the main article, but the criteria for a standalone article hasn't been met here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Jackson (psychiatrist)

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

I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [15] [16]. Sometimes, the controversial statements are even blatantly incorrect, such as "When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

In its current form, I believe that the article would require a complete rewrite in order for it to become fully neutral and encyclopedic. See the talk page for additional concerns. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. lovkal (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I have made several improvements, such as added sources where Jackson is explicitly being labeled as a "nazi" and "nationalsocialist" by Gellert Tamas. I propose rewriting the parts which are mentioned here. There are several references to a numerous big news papers which mentions that Jackson has jonined a nationalsocialist party, but also where he is described as having "nazi" sympathies. Deletion of an article with 83 articles is not appropriate since it is not dubious or biased considering that I am merely quoting the articles content and the over all general debate about Jackson, based on my research. I will further improve the article based on these suggestions.

"When Jackson acted as a whistle blower in 2008 and 2009 he was branded as a nazi by Aftonbladet [...]" where it is implied that Jackson has been wrongfully labelled a nazi by Swedish media when they simply state the fact that Jackson has joined a party which was formed out of the remnants of the Nazi organisation Nationalsocialistisk front.

- This actually did happened. It is a summary of the series of events which led to him suing Aftonbladet. This is not a "lie".

"Simultaneously, Jackson was branded as a right wing extremist and thereby denied him the opportunity to deny any allegations resulting in Jackson becoming known as the nazi doctor" - None of the sources provided can properly back such a statement up and none of them refer to him as "the nazi doctor".

- He was shut out of the debate, according to sources from himself, and he protested by joining a nationalsocialist party. He is mentioned as being part of a "nazi movement". Sources provided are sufficient.

"Jackson was interviewed in 2006 by Swedish media where he said that he was a Christian doctor and that he was against multiculturalism" - There are two citations that accompany this statement, one is from the conservative "Ingrid & Conrad" podcast and other is from a local newspaper based in Sundsvall. The term "Swedish media" in this context, at least to me, implies major Swedish news organizations. Not a podcast and some small-town newspaper.

- Two sources together can be considered as part of "Swedish media"...

Improvements: Changed text from "Jackson was labeled as a nazi" to "Jacksons interpretation of Aftonbladets article of him joining a nationalsocialist party was that he was branded as a nazi". Improvement 2: Jackson became known as the "nazi doctor" because a google search of "Thomas Jackson nazistläkare" (translating to nazi doctor) shows several hits. Change text to "he believes he was branded as a nazi".

"I believe that the article is heavily biased and beyond saving. Several controversial statements in the article relies solely upon sources that come from biased and otherwise unreliable publishers [17] [18]"

NewsVoice is not an "unreliable source", its a Swedish independent news paper... The source is here: https://newsvoice.se/2017/10/thomas-jackson-resignerade-flyktingbarn-miljardindustri/ The second source is this one: https://mxp.blogg.se/2017/november/psykiater-thomas-jackson-apatiska-barnen-en-svensk-psykos.html

--Albert Falk (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. He might be notable, but the wall of biased, soap-box text and citations makes improvements through the normal editing process difficult. His theory of "malingering by proxy" sounds an awful lot like Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Bearian (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with lovkal and Bearian. This is a rare case, I think, of an article about a plausibly notable subject that needs a complete rewrite to be acceptable. In the meantime it's worsening the encyclopedia and deletion is the clearest path to the article's eventual contribution. Its bias is so ingrained in its construction and wording throughout, apparently dedicated to railing against a perceived liberal media persecution (WP:GREATWRONGS) without much (any?) other content explaining anything about either him or the distinctiveness of his primary idea (malingering by proxy), that changes short of a rewrite won't help.

I appreciate that writing it must have taken Albert Falk a great deal of effort and that seeing it deleted will be painful, but I would respectively suggest stepping away from this subject and editing something else. It can be difficult to be objective about subjects you care about a lot and I think this is one of those cases. I criticise the current article so harshly not to be cruel but to be clear that I don't see a way that this is going to work for Wikipedia. › Mortee _talk 20:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that NewsVoice is not simply an "independent news paper". It's a known conspiracy website which has been exposed by Metro's Viralgranskaren and other organizations when NewsVoice published, among other conspiracies, articles that supposedly proved chemtrails.[19][20] lovkal (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agreement
I agree. Remove the article.
Signed Albert Falk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Falk (talk • contribs) 2019-08-03 09:41:00 (UTC)
Delete, I had this page on my (long) to-do list because it blatantly misrepresented sources in a decidedly non-neutral way, but nothing short of a complete rewriting will fix it. It's better to have no article than one this thoroughly biased. Huon (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Sing Lama

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

Not notable. Not even the article establishes notability. No RS coverage. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dearth of coverage per WP:42. Does not meet WP:BIO Dlohcierekim (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of his careers are uncommon but rather run of the mill. Producers are notoriously common, and we almost always delete such articles. My triplet brother, my partner, classmates, and hundreds of thousands of other people have appeared in music videos, which pop up like poppies on YouTube. Badly fails WP:GNG. Consider salting this nonsense. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shreedeep Rayamajhi

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

clearly doesn't fulfill the WP:N criteria...sources are from some blogs and just because he wrote for the Huffington Post or was assaulted doesn't mean the subject qualifies to have a Wiki page. There are no extensive coverage on him... Ozar77 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ozar77 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ref-bombing is a red flag. The principal contributor's username is "RayShree" and they've blanked their user and talk pages after receiving a COI warning. I've tried to cut the crap but someone with a better sense of RS and relevance to notability is required here. I will remove the primary, social media and self-published sources to aid. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly self-promoting and I think WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 95% sure that sources that I've left in do not meet the qualifications to establish this subject's notability. Was holding out in hopes that someone else might look at it thoroughly and clean it up further. Add that with BLP1E concerns in the comment above, and I have to agree notability isn't sufficiently established to discount the self-promotional aspect of the article. I would expect an activist that ruffles feathers particularly in the current climate of attacks on freedom of speech to get decent coverage in national newspapers, which is sorely lacking here. So, I must conclude the subject maybe notable in certain sections of the blogosphere at best, if that. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Alvarado

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

The subject is a niche politician of no real notability. The article contains a great deal of non-verifiable information. A cursory Google search shows no RS validating the information in this article outside of the puff piece in the Mercury News. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more coverage of her than just the Mercury piece, including this, and I suspect there is lots more out there for such a storied career. It looks as if her activism thing is still going strong at 88 years old; the last time I read about someone similar was Marjory Stoneman Douglas, who today gets more attention and google hits about the shooting in her eponymous school than about her and all her accomplishments. StonyBrook (talk)
Keep Even based on a cursory look, I seem to see lots of entries on the subject. Also used material from the archive entry from the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Library at San José State University as a reference. --Big_iron (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC) Also, I would contend that although the content of her papers in the library at the San José State University would constitute a primary source, the biographical details in the web entry which describes that resource would be extracted from primary sources and hence a reliable secondary source. --Big_iron (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the coverage rises above expected coverage for a city council person and that is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — San Jose is certainly a large enough city that a well-sourced article about a city councillor might be keepable, but three local newspaper articles and two primary sources is not enough referencing to get her over the bar. I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody can beef the article up with a lot more than just three reliable sources, but being a city councillor is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #2 for an article that's referenced this inadequately. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to write an short accurate informative article about someone with a long record of public service. Verifying that there are enough to do so is the purpose of the notability guideline. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 02:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google Books search turns up coverage about her in numerous books such as a chapter in Ethnic Community Builders: Mexican-Americans in Search of Justice and Power. Also her work is covered in these books: Success While Others Fail: Social Movement Unionism and the Public Workplace (Cornell U Press); Silicon Valley, Women, and the California Dream: Gender, Class, and Opportunity in the Twentieth Century (Stanford U Press); American Women Leaders. Netherzone (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. Having a substantial coverage of a subject in several books (as one can easily check) is proof of notability of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per as above. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle 9ice

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST. Even if all of the cited sources are reliable (not clear that this is the case), the coverage therein is a mix of routine music release announcements and interviews and is thus insufficient for GNG. Internet searches did not turn up anything better. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 19:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Soliman

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

per WP:MASK and WP:FAKE, this person is not a leader or political, just working in normal role in a "low profile" party in Egypt, he also guest writer in some newspapers, no achievement, awards nor works, all sources don't talk about him it talk about another things, he also put articles he wrote it Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 14:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:37, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Richardson

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

No claim of notability. Nothing to indicate WP:MILPEOPLE is met. MB 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MB 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recorded subject position and station but subject has not done anything to meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:MILPEOPLE to merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Awful name to BEFORE. There is a playwright with the same name ([21]) that might be notable. During WWII an individual with the same name was the manager of NBC London ([22]) and sent reporters to D-Day - and might be notable. There is another D-Day sailor - who served on the Canadian HMCS Bayfield whose diary was used in a book ([23]) - who is probably not notable. Having found all these other Stans, I can't quite see why our Stan would be notable from the description in the article and I've been unable to locate sources establishing notability. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Afraid I'm not seeing any notability at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for User:MB or someone else - Where is this page? Is this page in article space or in draft space? There seems to be some edit conflict, and it seems to have been nominated in both spaces. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: I procedurally closed MFD:Draft:Stan Richardson because this was better attended.
Technically, Draft:Stan Richardson needs to go to WP:RFD instead for deletion since it's now a redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't go to RfD. If this AfD results in "delete", the redirect goes per WP:CSD#G8. If this AfD does not result in "delete", the redirect can stay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know... ^{I am not very funny..} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if in article space. Does not satisfy GNG or military notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible sources found:

~~https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/06/06/nbc-radio-reporter-who-witnessed-d-day-told-world-what-he-saw/?utm_term=.b5e18aea2947~~ "NBC London manager Stan Richardson" different person same name, mentioned co-incidentally in relation to the same d-day.

https://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/people/littlehampton-d-day-veteran-99-to-unveil-commemorative-plaque-at-75th-anniversary-event-1-8955798 "99-year-old D-Day veteran Stan Richardson". Good source.

~~Leaning keep~~ due to unlisted sources being about to be easily found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some about other people... E.g. WaPo which you link to has a passing mention of "NBC London manager Stan Richardson" - not our subject. I found at least 3 different people with this name with coverage in WW2.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am counting one good source for notability. Where there is one, it is worth scratching deeper for another ... --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what is his notability? Just a Royal Navy petty officer and later a mid-level business executive. What possible notability guideline does he meet? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like just the one, a newspaper story on the family friends Probus club surprise party, the cardboard cut out of his 16-year-old self making a good photo for the paper. Not enough for an article. Delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability guideline. Fails GNG, because the purported source s for notability do not hold up:one is a tribute to a local person in a local paper, and the other is about a different individual . DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above the subject does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference and not seeing any notability at all. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice to refund or recreation should sources showing notability become available. bd2412 T 02:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Perkins

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

There are two sources with no links. Seems really irrelevant. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 12:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering this subject's career/death occurred before the internet age, it seems very unlikely any sources will be found online. Most likely what exists will be in 1960's-80's industry trade publications. Getting a career achievement award from the Grand Old Opry seems like it passes some level of notability among broadcasters, but I agree that without a source for verification it's tough to argue keep. Maybe someone (not me) wants to do the legwork to get this in a keepable shape. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article was created by the editor Genshi, a near-SPA who states on his user page that he is an experimental musician with the band jido-genshi. That almost certainly means that he is the Craig Anthony Perkins mentioned in the last line of this article, and therefore he wrote the article as a memorial to his late father. The TV Radio Mirror source cited as a reference was a TV gossip magazine (the front page for the cited June 1971 issue focuses on the love triangle and paternity suit between Lucille Ball, Desi Arnaz Jr. and Patty Duke), and probably doesn't qualify as an RS in the same way that we wouldn't use TV Guide or Hello! magazines as reliable sources. I'm not sure what the "Grand Old Opry award" is, but it doesn't appear to have been one of the major CMA Broadcast Awards awarded at the 1990 CMA Music Awards. At present I haven't been able to find any mention of Mr. Perkins in Billboard, neither a mention of his receiving an award in 1990, nor an obituary in 1991. Richard3120 (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have added refs for the 1990 award, and two obituaries. RossRSmith (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so it's basically just coverage in his local newspaper, and a long-service award not tied to any notable award ceremony. Richard3120 (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article contains a few local sources and some passing information about an award that does not appear to confer notability. I agree with the sentiment that this reads more like an obituary than an encyclopedia article. WP:GNG does not appear to be met. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ran his name through a proquest newspapers search using keywords including KHEY, "El Paso", radio and got nothing. finally tried keyword "country music" and got hist like : (Gary's gig will be music to the ears Holmes, Jeff. Paisley Daily Express; Paisley (UK) [Paisley (UK)]02 Feb 2013: 8. .. Gary Perkins has released six popular albums and was voted Best Male Vocalist...) which cannot possibly be the same Gary Perkins. So the sourcing we are left with, is all from the local El Paso Times, where he appears to have been a beloved local deejay. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Chater

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find any references that would make the subject meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC (no significant coverage in reliable sources, no reviews of his work). The article makes claims, but all seem unverified per WP:V (and is a policy). I don't see a case for WP:NACADEMIC either, citations don't seem to be great [24] (note that the 3139 cited article is from KF Chater, not James Chater). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a distinguished early musicologist, although I wish I could find more sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Ping @User:Antandrus Xxanthippe (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comment That is non-existing keep rationale though, dissapointed. WP:NRV. It's actually my big mistake I opened this, since it of course will be kept on unverifiable basis and rationale. Eh. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Espresso Addict in 2009 AfD discussion: "publications by "J Chater" are cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves as well as one in The Oxford Companion to Music, which suggests he is a significant expert in his specialised area." TSventon (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even putting the "significant expert suggestion", which I certainly don't agree with at all.... the evidence for that is...where? I will again refer to WP:NRV, and the fact that nobody refers to an actual policy, which is WP:V. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The evidence is in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, WP:V allows reliable sources which are not easily accessible. TSventon (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that (WP:AGF and WP:PAPERONLY applies), what I meant is how does that establish his notability (for which WP:NRV and thus WP:V applies as something has to be cited as a reference)? I would have agreed if he had a biography in there, but it just seems he is cited there (and as I mentioned above, he is actually very poorly cited all-around to pass Criteria 1 of PROF). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited in 14 encyclopedia entries in Groves suggests that Chater passes Criteria 1 of PROF. Unfortunately, as PROF says, "in humanities book publications tend to play a larger role (and are harder to count without access to offline libraries)." TSventon (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination is not to delete, but this is a *very* undersourced BLP. Grove's seems not to be independent of the subject, as he says he was an editor of it 1997-2000. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Citations of his work in 14 encylopedia entries is not sufficient for passing WP:PROF#C1. If there was an encyclopedia article about him or at least an article discussing some of his contributions in more detail, that would have been a different matter. I looked around a bit for published reviews of his work but did not find them either. The WP article hasn't been improved since the 2009 AfD. Moreover, as was brought up in the first AfD, this is a WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY case. Given that the notability here, if it exists, seems to be borderline, the WP:AUTO considerations push this case into the delete column for me. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Marrero

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

Non-notable political staffer and former candidate for a municipal position. Does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG. There are also SPA/COI concerns, as the photos included in this article are all the initial editor's own work.

Previously nominated for PROD by me, dePROD by brand new editor LorenzMa, who added a citation to a mere mention in a newspaper article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politcal staffer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable publicist. Simply being named as a spokesman is not enough to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOL and there is nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 15:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN . Couldn't find anything to show he is meets WP:GNG. Josalm64rc (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alois Buttinger

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

This article has been tagged for notability and a lack of sources for over ten years. While the article indicates that his life was eventful, it doesn't convey a sense that he'd have been notable. If there are sources that indicate notability, the article isn't sharing the sort of information that would make him seem that way to us. In any event, nothing available via Google demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG or any aspect of WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly notable, not all sources for twentieth century lives are available online. I have added an obituary from the German article and Google books brings up a number of mentions, mostly on snippet view, including:

Nationalsozialismus in Kärnten: Opfer. Täter. Gegner. (Nadja Danglmaier, ‎Werner Koroschitz - 2015)

"Heiss umfehdet, wild umstritten ---": Geschichtsmythen in Rot-Weiß-Rot (Werner Koroschitz, ‎Lisa Rettl, ‎Museum der Stadt Villach - 2005)

Erwin Scharf, Zeitzeuge (Erwin Scharf, ‎Maria Sporrer, ‎Herbert Steiner - 1986)

Ein korrekter Nazi: Oskar Kraus, NS-Oberbürgermeister von Villach (Lisa Rettl, ‎Werner Koroschitz, ‎Oskar Kraus - 2006)

Österreicher im Exil: Grossbritannien, 1938-1945 : eine Dokumentation (Wolfgang Muchitsch - 1992) TSventon (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions in books are not automatically ironclad proof of notability in and of themselves — the degree to which book content does or doesn't help to make him notable is strictly coterminous with how substantive that mention is or isn't. An entire chapter about him would help to establish his notability; a glancing mention of his existence on one page, in a context whose primary subject is somebody or something else, would not. So it's not enough to just list books that appear to have his name in them somewhere: you would need to actually demonstrate how much each book does or doesn't say about him before we can evaluate how much each book does or doesn't actually contribute any GNG points. So without a more detailed summary of how much those books do or don't actually say, I can't evaluate how much they do or don't help — so I can only evaluate this on the basis of the sources present in the article. But one piece of purely local coverage in the local newspaper is not an instant free pass over GNG in and of itself, founding a non-notable local youth summer camp is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG, and everything else stated in the article is just biographical information rather than notability claims. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually read the books to provide more detailed proof that Buttinger is substantively a subject and not just a trivial namecheck, but as it stands nothing here is enough yet. And per WP:WAX, the fact that an article exists on the German Wikipedia does not automatically mean that one has to exist on the English Wikipedia too — on the evidence at hand here, the German article should probably be deleted too, and the only reason I'm not personally listing it for deletion myself is that I can't sprachen zie deutsch to navigate their deletion process. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Bearcat: I am not arguing with anything you have said, and I am not voting to keep based on what I have found so far. The German article is a potential source of evidence of notability, but unfortunately only has one in depth reference. The reference I added from the German article means the English article is no longer totally unreferenced and makes a contribution to establishing notability, admittedly limited as it is a local paper obituary. TSventon (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | confer _ 01:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It doesn't seem notable enough (despite being eventful!). Ivor Browning (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – bradv🍁 22:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lewis (Royal Navy officer)

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

I've been looking into Douglas Lewis and I am struggling to see why he is notable. The article appears to have been written as an expansion of his CV, with no useful references (apart from the one I just added!) His rank doesn't qualify him for WP:SOLDIER, and a CBE doesn't quite meet WP:ANYBIO (there are nearly 2000 honours given out each year, this doesn't seem that notable) There's nothing written about what he got the CBE for? His charitable work is even less notable than his military career. There are no articles written about him - he simply doesn't meet the WP:GNG. If it isn't deleted, it needs excessive editing to remove the clearly non-neutral language ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ツStacey (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a point about the CBE - Order_of_the_British_Empire#Composition states that "The Order is limited to 300 Knights and Dames Grand Cross, 845 Knights and Dames Commander, and 8,960 Commanders". That is in total, so the number of new CBEs created in any one year is limited by the number of members still alive. It's the lower ranks where around 2000 ("no more than 858 Officers and 1,464 Members") are appointed every year.

As for whether a CBE meets ANYBIO - I have sometimes seen it argued in AfDs that it does, and sometimes that it doesn't. KBE and above seem unequivocal, but CBE not so much. I'll see what I can find - there must be at least minimal coverage of the award. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I added the reference with link to the Newspaper Supplement which listed the CBE but that was all I could find. I really intended to improve this article but my limited results regarding this chap have made it impossible for me to do so. Please let me know if you find anything; I'm willing to work on rest of article if you do. ツStacey (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commodore does indeed qualify under WP:SOLDIER #2, as it is equivalent to flag rank in other navies (it would naturally be ludicrous if a USN rear admiral (lower half) qualified because his rank included the word "admiral", whereas the entirely equivalent Commonwealth rank of commodore did not; same with brigadier generals and brigadiers). And the CBE has always been held to qualify under WP:ANYBIO #1. Only 100-200 are awarded every year, not 2,000 (OBEs and MBEs, on the other hand, do not meet ANYBIO). I have never seen a CBE deleted at AfD, and quite a few have been nominated by people who are clearly unaware of the honour's significance. So he qualifies twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for military achievements (unless there's more to add), not promoted to 2-star (rear admiral) so fails WP:SOLDIER; commodores are not generals/admirals, they're one-stars, and do not qualify as flag officers. If he had done something notable in combat as a 1-star, my vote would be keep; but his sole one-star appointment seems to have been at Greenwich. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are going down the ridiculous route that his rank doesn't include "admiral" so he doesn't qualify, although an American officer of the same rank (and same authority and status) would? Frankly, words fail me. As I've said, we always have considered that Commonwealth "one-star" officers do qualify under WP:SOLDIER. And as I've also said, CBEs have always been held to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lets assume commodore (as rear admiral) inches past WP:SOLDIER(2). And lets assume CBE inches past WP:ANYBIO(1). Both of this establish likely notability (or presumed notability) - but just likely (and in both cases - he's right at the threshold set). Had our subject been Laotian (few enwiki editors speak Lao, and Lao script is non-Latin) or long-dead (e.g. died into 1970 - online sources might not be available) - going the presumed notability route might be legit. In this case we have BLP in an English speaking country, in a contemporary period - we should be able to see at least some sign of WP:SIGCOV online - instead we see close to nothing in terms of secondary sources available online.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - He retired from the Royal Navy, his main career, in 1998. 1998 is hardly comparable to 2019 as far as internet presence is concerned. I think presumed notability is fine for someone who retired 21 years ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should also point out that someone is not notable because they were awarded the CBE; they are awarded the CBE because they are already notable on a national level! It seems bizarre that some editors consider that Wikipedia's notability standards should be higher than those of the United Kingdom, which only awards 100-200 CBEs a year to a population of well over 60 million. Mind you, if he was a sportsman (one appearance for a national team required), a pop singer or a reality TV star (endless reams of coverage by fans on the internet) his notability requirements would be much lower. Such, apparently, is the drift towards pop culture on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        In response to Necrothesp, my definition of a general/flag officer is a two-star, not a one-star. One-stars aren't generals (or admirals); they're brigadiers/commodores etc. Combat service might move him up; the CBE might move him up; but not being a one-star. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing my point. In other countries (e.g. United States), a one-star officer is a flag officer or general officer (and is called a rear admiral or brigadier general). Are you saying that Commonwealth officers would not meet WP:SOLDIER simply because they are not considered to be flag or general officers whereas US one-star officers, who have exactly equal rank and level of responsbility but happen to use the words "general" or "admiral" in their rank titles, would because they are? That makes no sense as it relies merely on differences of terminology. Or are you saying that one-star officers should never be considered to meet WP:SOLDIER? Which would go against many previous decisions at AfD and what SOLDIER actually says. Also note that Commonwealth air commodores are considered to be air officers (i.e. flag/general officers), although they hold exactly the same rank as commodores and brigadiers. These claims are all completely illogical and inconsistent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Necrothesp. I'm saying that in my 30-year understanding of Commonwealth armed forces, one-star officers are simply not generals or admirals; they are officers under that rank. They do not meet my definition of what a general or an admiral is. If you like, no, I do not consider they meet SOLDIER in terms of being general/flag officers: they are *not* "considered to be general, flag, or air officers." Our article for Air officer says that commodores and brigadiers are not considered general/flag officers, which would stem from the common Commonwealth understanding which in some way I picked up 20+ years ago. (I have noted that that article says air commodores are air officers.) Usual clashing definitions. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that in the Commonwealth brigadiers and commodores are not generals and admirals. I've said that. However, they are equal to generals and admirals in armed forces in which they are called brigadier generals and rear admirals (or something similar). And you could not possibly argue that the latter are not general or flag officers, since they clearly are. So what you're basically saying is that Commonwealth officers (apart from air commodores, even though they hold the same rank) should not be considered notable because of their title, whereas their direct equivalents in other countries should be considered notable because of theirs. Because a word is omitted from their rank they're not notable! That is utterly bonkers! And we have found commodores and brigadiers to meet WP:SOLDIER many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Necrothesp. No, as far as I'm concerned you have to make 2-star to be a general/flag officer, worldwide, whatever other countries say. I do hail from the Commonwealth, after all. Commodores and brigadiers only make WP:SOLDIER, as far as I'm concerned, on combat or other notable achievements, not rank alone. That will remain the underlying reason why I vote as I do. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question of WP:SOLDIER #2 is an interesting one. British commodores aren't flag officers (under the British set-up), but their NATO positioning does mark them equivalent in rank to officers in other armed forces/navies that are. I'm inclined to agree with Necrothesp that since it is the level of authority that underpins #2, not specific phrasing, the criterion is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There may be more coverage of the article subject which would establish notability. I am at the moment looking into that matter. In the meantime, it is worth pointing out that WP:SOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO are guidelines to indicate when a subject is "likely" to be notable enough to invest the time in writing an article about the subject, rather than if the criteria are met that establishes notability, and both guidelines do say this. The criteria that is needed is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we can establish such coverage, then Doug Lewis would be notable enough under our criteria. Has anyone done a search for mentions in books and so forth? SilkTork (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After conducting a search I cannot find an independent reliable source that mentions the subject other than as a listing. When looking into the history of the article I note that it was created by User:JDNM1989, a single purpose account who only edited two other articles, both connected to the subject, and then left: [25]. The article has not received much attention, and has gained very few readers - an average of less than 1 a day: [26]. The organisation that the subject is president of, International Social Service, is tagged as needing verification, and a quick search doesn't reveal much in the way of independent reliable sources. The combination of lack of independent reliable sources, lack of readership of the article, and creation by a WP:SPA, points to this being a promotional article to support the International Social Service article. SilkTork (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline SOLDIER pass (either way) - however SOLDIER merely creates a presumption of GNG. Sources in the article are not in-depth secondary reliable sources. Searching for "Doug Lewis", "Douglas Lewis", "Douglas Raymond Snell Lewis" (+some D. Lewis, D.R. Lewis, D.R.S Lewis) (with CBE, Royal Navy, and other stuff) did not lead me to much. Lewis could plausibly be notable (rank, CBE, charity work, etc.) - however given that this is a biography in English, in the digital age - some reasonable sources should be available and we do not have to rely on presumed notability. Absent any reasonable secondary source covering him in depth - this is a delete. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't consider the CBE to be a qualifying award. "Cecilia Mathieson" a CBE from the 2019 New Year Honours has nothing online other than mentions of getting the award. So we shouldn't assume that there would be offline significant coverage for CBEs from before the internet era. I'm not sure that he meets the military guideline. Maybe if he were higher ranking or there was likely to be offline coverage I would support keeping. Blumpf (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So you think these people are awarded the CBE, only 100-200 of which are awarded every year in a country of over 67 million people, despite not being notable? Good grief... As I said, maybe they should kick a ball around a field for a couple of hours. That would make them notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have an even rarer award! It can only be held and given out by one person and that person is me. Should I get an article now? What if I get mentioned one time in the newspaper?

It looks like "thank you for your service" award that is artificially limited not because it is very difficult to get, but because there can only be a certain number of living recipients. There are probably thousands each year who are just as deserving of the award but weren't lucky enough. I don't care how special the British government thinks it is or how much the Queen appreciates them if there is zero significant coverage.

There's something called the "sports" and "entertainment" section in most newspapers. So if some singer or ball kicker gets covered there multiple times I'm not going to try to delete it even if I don't think they deserve it. But for CBE holders it's not uncommon to only get one sentence in a list. And the one game sports guideline is insanely retarded it should be "have played in at least two seasons". Blumpf (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. There are numerous other 1 star bio's on WP Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while CBE and a single star does not make one automatically notable, in this case, he appears to make the grade. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajeesh Dasan

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria. No national awards or significant coverage. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Archer1234 (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does he not meet WP:BASIC for having three reliable independent sources that cover his work? Mccapra (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will get the source have more references, initially i did had more content, but it was removed either by a bot or removed by an user. Will get something in a day or two. Please share me what are the notability criteria - i can get those.

Below are the articles featured about his works in Media. (1) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/leela-l-girikuttan-and-ajeesh-dasan-on-their-song-for-poomaram-that-has-gone-viral/article18515260.ece Hindu is considered the best english news paper in India, particularly S.India. The photo in this article, he is on the right side. (2) Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/kayale-kayale-song-from-thottappan-is-out/articleshow/69737112.cms Talks about his recent work - Kayale Kayale (3) the Hindua https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/music/composer-ranjin-raj-on-his-journey/article26407776.ece This article shows why the poet is ignored by the musicians are more celebrated too, while both the said lyrics were penned by Ajeesh. (4) IB Times https://www.ibtimes.co.in/kalidas-jayarams-poomaram-song-kadavathoru-thoni-out-will-it-repeat-success-njanum-726610 This talks about a much celebrated song Poomaram, in which Ajeesh has debuted.

I've provided 4 urls, I will update the wiki page with his published books with their ISBN and amazon references - and other media coverage if any. Please share me the WIKI page which describes what all needs to be there for a biography article for a living person.

almithra (almithra) 10:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability criteria for composers and lyricists can be found at WP:COMPOSER. – Archer1234 (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill songwriter and poet. Getting a song into a film does not automatically make you notable. Bearian (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Highlander characters. The consensus on a redirect target is weak enough that a WP:RFD discussion can be started if people think there is a better target. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Four Horsemen (Highlander)

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

In-universe fancruft which relies entirely on primary sourcing and offers no indication of real world notability. This is not the Highlander Wiki. PC78 (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to our List of Highlander characters, Methos is a major character in the franchise, but the other three Horsemen appear only in a few episodes of the series. Thus, if that article is correct, then this group lacks in-universe significance as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT List of Highlander characters. Someone might find some information to merge over. Dream Focus 17:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Methos and recreate that page. Prior to February 2013, Methos was its own article before it was needlessly merged and redirected into this one. As a main character Methos is worthy of a page but the other characters were one-shot villains. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Main character or not, that article was just as bad as this one – entirely reliant on primary sources with no indication of real world notability. It should not simply be restored in its former state. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Highlander characters. Even if one of the members of the group is arguably more notable than the others, there are no reliable sources that give any notability to the group as a whole. A redirect to the main character list for the franchise seems like the most logical answer. Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Highlander characters per above. A redirect to the existing character list seems like the best option for a group of characters with limited notability. I would be opposed to a recreation of the Methos article as I agree with PC78's assessment on that article being far too reliant on primary sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrie Nelson

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

The second source gives the only non-stats details about this racing driver, but makes it clear he didn't compete in major circuits. The third reference states he won one race in the 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship, but nothing else, so WP:SPORTSPERSON is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely 18 starts at Bathurst 1000 counts. Got 7th one year, don't know how the rest went [27]. Looking in two books Greenhalgh, David; Thomas B. Floyd; Bill Tuckey (2000). Australia's Greatest Motor Race 1960-1999. Chevron Publishing Group. ISBN 1-875221-12-3. and Noonan, Aaron (2018). Holden At Bathurst - The Cars: 1963-2017. AN1 Media Pty. Ltd. would tell you more. Coverage also in [28]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any significant independent coverage of him. I found some passing mentions and results, but no significant coverage. I'm not sure if he meets any criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. He hasn't competed in any series mentioned in those criteria but it's not an all encompassing list. I would lean towards delete since he fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I definitely don't see the coverage necessary to meet the GNG. My search found him in results, lists of competitors, and some passing mentions--none of which is enough to show notability. Don't know why just competing at the Bathurst 1000 would show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final. Commenting seems to have picked up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme. Bookscale (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand as The Bathurst 1000 is "Widely regarded as the pinnacle of motorsport in Australia," according to it's article, alternatively he could be merged there Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O. Leslie Stone

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this subject does not appear to have received an adequate depth of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Sources found are short directory listings (e.g. [29]) and what appears to be short minor mentions (from snippet Google Books views). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I see plenty of sources that indicate that this person could pass the WP:GNG, but User:Northamerica1000 makes a point by stating that the sources do not have enough depth. I have changed my decision to Delete as a result of the subject failing WP:RS. Keep per User:RebeccaGreen's excellent work. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources out there that aren't of his employer, the Mormon Church. Trillfendi (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the others. No independent sources. Changing vote to keep per additions by RebeccaGreen. Rollidan (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hmmmm~~ - I see a two-page long article in this book, and an apparent one-para article here, which appears to be an RS, but I can't read them as they're not accessible online. However, not being accessible online does not dismiss them sustaining notability. Additionally he is one of ~20-30 LDS churchmen to have received emeritus membership of the First Quorum but I'm not sure how big an award that is. I've got to be honest and say that on balance I think sourcing likely exists out there to sustain this guy's notability but, not having read it, I'm not sure how to vote. I guess this doesn't really help anyone but there you go. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Yeah, keep per User:RebeccaGreen's typically excellent work on this thread. FOARP (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have searched Newspapers.com excluding Utah (just to make sure that the newspapers were not affiliated with the LDS church), and I have added 11 references. Most of the significant coverage is from the Oakland Tribune, although there is also some from newspapers in Texas and Idaho. I have added more information from these sources. Other papers in Nevada, Montana, Idaho and Ohio provide supporting information. The articles date from 1961-1978, and cover periods before that too. I believe that he meets WP:GNG, or at least WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I am sorry to come so late to this AfD, but I do wish that editors nominating or !voting on AfDs for people active in pre-internet days would check contemporary news coverage (personally, I think that should be added to the requirements for WP:BEFORE). The sources in an article at the time of nomination are not a valid reason to delete. Perhaps FOARP, and maybe AmericanAir88, would like to have a look at what I've added and see what they think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was trying to see if the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history had an artcle on him. I was unable to find my copy. If it does, being published 14 years after his death probably makes it indepdent of him. Either way, the sourcing the Rebecca Green dug up clearly shows that Stone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are no credible arguments for delete other than the nominator. Several sources have been posited as providing SIGCOV, and since multiple of these (but not all) have remained unchallenged over a period of time, I judge consensus to be keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saranga Shrestha

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Translations of the presented sources do not show any significant coverage related to the subject's career as an actress or a dancer. IMDb Link credits her for insignificant roles in two movies. Not meeting minimum requirements per WP:GNG either. I am open to the reassessment of non-English sources by an expert in Nepalese language. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On WP:NEXIST basis. I will attempt to convince you of the same (I do have a bias as the creator of the article.)

I started creating this one back when I wouldn't first collect sources before starting on the article. This actor is notable. But I can't prove it on strict Wikipedia standards. I don't have access to offline sources and we don't have a reliable and prolific online source on entertainment in Nepal. So, having started the article, I left the article with all the hopefully non-controversial sources I could find, hoping I'd at least established that the actor is real and notable based on NPOSSIBLE.
First off, this is the state of the article on the most successful Nepali actress in history. This is the case because she went in decline before the internet became a big thing in Nepal. It's the same case with our subject, although she was not nearly as successful. I could beef up both with iffy sources. I chose not to.
For example, this gives 23 film credits for our subject and this one gives 25. Almost all of them were as lead actress or co-lead as love interest of the protagonist. I didn't use these sources because they're not standard reliable sources but on the other hand, I think they do meet the spirit of the WP:SOURCE statement that appropriateness of any source depends on the context since there's little reason to fabricate filmography of a retired actress who's moved on from her profession as well as country, not to mention these sources are used in almost all other articles on Nepali film.
I am certain there's plenty of offline RS coverage of her during her prime, which was most of the 90s and early 2000s. I can see at least half a dozen credits of those 23-25, which anyone from Nepal who knows anything about Nepali film would know of. Like: Aago - A big name pro-maoist propaganda feature released during the maoist insurgency, which generated plenty of controversy and earned some dough at the back of that controversy, but also got banned and generated freedom of expression/censorship debates, which was had again when it re-shot and re-released after the insurgency ended, even leading to a sequel.
This is the extent of what I'm willing to say in defence of this article. I do think it will contribute to systemic bias in Wikipedia if it is deleted, but other than that I am not really going to lose sleep over this one. I certainly wouldn't create this article now, but I wouldn't go as far as deleting it either.Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 18:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I quickly found an RS for this article, on my first google search ~ that I have edited into the article ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitchellhobbs:, As I said earlier that I am open to revaluation of the sources, but this is not something that can help in establishing notability. I recommend you to understand WP:GNG before !voting keeps in AfDs. Regards Hitro talk 07:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It, nonetheless, supports NPOSSIBLE. As such, I appreciate the effort. I don't think we ought to be judging who understands which policies, with any amount of certainty. Let's leave that to uninvolved editors who will close the discussion. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool:, No it is not like we need to leave the things to the closing administrator. This not how AfDs work. This is not the forum to create indiscriminate possibilities to misguide the discussion and eventual road to consensus. We are trying to reach consensus and community needs to discuss before reaching the consensus. We need to make policy based rationale to keep or delete the article. Read and understand these policies and guidelines, this what is written in WP:BEFORE. I have made policy based nomination, I did my research before bringing this article here. I came across few passing mentions that I deemed not enough for demonstrating notability. Even you made it clear that there are lack of online sourcing and you have not produced any instant of offline sourcing yet. This is not the kind of sourcing that is required to be discussed to demonstrate WP:GNG. Please read WP:DISCUSSAFD, there are some expectations from the users who are taking part in AfDs. You don't need to vote on everything. Hitro talk 10:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant to say was, the first sentence of your comment was sufficient to make your point as it relates to this AfD. Perhaps we disagree on that, but since that's not what we're trying to resolve here, let's leave it at that. To be clear, I do think I've supplied enough evidence to assure editors that offline sources do/must exist even if I can't provide them. But I do understand that ... once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, ... and so I leave it at the capable hands of the community to decide its fate. My non-chalance is mainly to do with how little there is to write about the subject currently, and how easily the content can be recovered/recreated when the sources become available (neither of which is a reason to delete though). Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HitroMilanese: ~ Nice to meet you ~ as I said I quickly found a RS mentioning her and several other performers in the United States about a Nepali actor/performers~ if I ~ being so (inexperienced) as to find a RS mentioning someone from Nepal in such a large city as Baltimore ~ I'm sure an editor with more experience (and a faster computer) would be able to find more information quickly ~ and I think that a mention of her in the Baltimore Sun is worth mentioning, I understand it is not a slam dunk but every little bit helps ~ Also !voting is open to any one for any reason ~ and telling me I should understand one of wiki's WP:GNG ~ before I vote ~ is like telling me don't vote for this candidate because I can't speak his language ~ it's quite improper ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:No coverage whatsoever on Google news or anywhere. Fails WP:NACTOR Ozar77 08:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

So, you're back, eh? I recommend reading WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:AFD and WP:GNG before you resume editing on Wikipedia. Feel free to ask at the WP:Teahouse if you find anything confusing. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 11:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Search of Native Name (सारंगा श्रेष्ठ) gives a some good references like 1, 2 that provides WP:SIGCOV of the actress in respect to her acting career. Given that this is one of the oldest movies in Nepal, it is hard to find reference for the actress and the movie. But I found some references that talk about the movie 'Aago' here and here. The later talks also about more of the movies she has worked on. Also WP:GNGACTOR mentions that missing out WP:GNG doesn't mean the actor is not notable and it isn't required to have in-depth coverage of the individual in the reliable source. These references along with the ones already on the page is, I believe, enough to prove her notability, both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to a comment now withdrawn:) Hello again Ozar77, you don't need to reaffirm your vote after the relisting. The closer evaluates the discussion all the way from the top. You can just put the word "delete" in one of the two between <s></s> and it will prevent any confusion. Regards! (The way to sign your comment is to end your comment with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay thanks. Ozar77 (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, after extended time for discussion, and reasonable arguments that the subject has sufficient coverage to be kept. bd2412 T 01:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Claxton

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 11:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability guidelines here - fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although would be nice if someone took a run at sources.Catladyz6 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with possible draftification: In the article's current state, only his revue provides a reasonable if weak claim against WP:N. Everything else is noteworthy, accomplished, or non-notable, and the discussion between article creator FloridaArmy and myself at Talk:Leon Claxton#Pivot applies. Unfortunately anything by his granddaughter (website, film, book) currently falls under self-published and non-independent, while Audrey Taylor Henry's Sound of Applause[30] and Joe McKennon's A Pictorial History of the American Carnival, Volume 1[31] would be useful but unfortunately appear to be self-published.

However... the show was an early inspiration for Joni Mitchell [32]. Claxton was "the most successful black carny on the [fairground] circuit"[33]. Has sigcov in Seeing is Believing: America's Sideshows[34] and Caribbean Tourism: People, Service and Hospitality[35]. Notable performers who appeared in his shows were at least Fontella Bass (for a couple of weeks)[36] and Lester Bowie [37] (the show became known as Harlem Review for some period[38]). Evidence of popularity of earlier show "Hep Cats"[39][40]. Between Claxton and his shows there's more than enough material and evidence of notability out there for one article but not, at the moment, for more; cover his shows under his article and redirect there (WP:NOPAGE). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What about these sources. There is a lot more on Gbooks. I'm sure there would be more on newspapers.com and fold3. I think there is enough to flesh out a basic article, more if the work was done. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
Johnson Publishing Company (30 November 1967). Jet. Johnson Publishing Company. pp. 58–. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (27 November 1954). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. p. 87. Retrieved 20 July 2019. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (2 November 1959). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. pp. 71–. Retrieved 20 July 2019. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Audrey Taylor Henry (November 2009). The Sound of Applause. Dorrance Publishing. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-1-4349-6350-5. Retrieved 20 July 2019.

scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough sources and satisfies WP:GNG but the article needs to be reworked.Taewangkorea (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further examination of sources recently listed in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is covered very substantially in reliable independent sources as noted above in this discussion and as cited in article. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG, is covered directly in independent secondary sources.

https://jonimitchell.com/library/view.cfm?id=2464 Contains substantial biographical commentary on Leon Claxton.

https://itvs.org/films/jig-show "unearthed is the life and lore of African American showman Claxton, a little-known civil rights hero whose vision, passion, and determination produced a multi-cultural stage show that still resonates today." This is an impressively rich secondary source, even as only a single sentence.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources, though significant, are independent since Cunningham is Claxton's granddaughter. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I love those revue shows, the performers are almost always too common for notability. I'd change my mind if someone can find better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rollidan (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Halik

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

Not notable- nothing about him online besides his books. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - if he does do a spaceflight article can be recreated but nothing apparent to establish notability. On basis of articles obtained by User:Northamerica1000 this is probably borderline, so I'll change to neutral as the article needs significant work and sourcing. Bookscale (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above MaskedSinger (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per a basic WP:BEFORE search, I found some articles and content about the subject in seconds, listed below. Not !voting at this time, but the subject has received some coverage outside of the purview of his books. Furthermore, coverage about a subject's books can qualify notability per WP:AUTHOR if independent book reviews in RS are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Sydney Morning Herald
The Age
The Common Thread of Overcoming Adversity and Living Your Dreams. pp. 238– (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While much of the article and in fact the searches turn up puff pieces I am convinced there is notoriety in the subject: Perhaps not for the book (5 Day Weekend) which was a co-write situation, but more for the subject's wealth and ability to perhaps be a civilian moonwalker. I found references which appear in reliable sources: Forbes, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Entrepreneur The article is in need of a Neutral POV rewrite (I started to add refs and rewrite a bit), however WP:NOTCLEANUP Seems this subject meets our general notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per a source review, just squeaks by WP:BASIC. Some sources have interview content, but also contain non-interview biographical information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Entertainers are notable based on their creation. If his book is notable, then so is he. Dream Focus 09:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except he's not an entertainer, he's an entrepreneur. Bookscale (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is notable for being a "best-selling author". Anyway, doesn't matter, passes the general notability guidelines with coverage like this [41] Dream Focus 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't disagree with you - was just pointing out the error (in case there was some confusion about him meeting a guideline for entertainers). Bookscale (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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