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/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 delete. G5. Author's sockpuppet blocked. – bradv🍁 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Verma (musician)

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

need to be reviewed Rooptera (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rooptera (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable but needs cleanup. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 14:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per g5, the sources are puffery and this is a violation of the TOU. Praxidicae (talk) 14:28, 26 November 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. Although GNG was never specifically mentioned, it appears from the keep arguments that it is likely to meet that guideline. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Peake

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

PROD declined, there's no indication that Peake is notable per the biographical or general notability guidelines because of a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The "silver commendation" alone is not enough to establish notability. SITH (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although the present article text's focus on student work contains little to suggest notability, the subject may be more prominent as an artist/illustrator: 2005 exhibition article, 2016 exhibition article. His career to date probably falls short of WP:NARTIST but it is another angle worth taking into account so I am tagging the Visual Arts project. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet any of the ways for notability as an artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with AllyD that there is evidence that he is better known as an artist, in various media. Architectural Digest had an article about his tableware designs [1]; Wall Street Journal covered his wallpaper [2] and his crystal glassware [3], which was also covered in Wallpaper* [4], Interior Design [5] and Surface magazine [6]. There are a lot of other Google News results too. I think it will be worth checking if his works are held in the permanent collections of any galleries. Given that this article is new, it's surprising that it doesn't mention any of this - but it should certainly be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also a The Morning News (online magazine) article[7] to go with all the others. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 11 December 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Akiniymika

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

The subject is a junior athlete, currently not meeting WP:NATH. Presented sources are passing mentions or mere database listings, not enough to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Google searches do not emit anything substantial. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind reading the notability criteria for sport entry again especially 2, 7 and Basic criteria in line with the content of the article and it's references? Danidamiobi (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing the subject meeting either criteria. If you are indicating that she is meeting NATH then please demonstrate it below with keep!vote. Hitro talk 07:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a keep or a delete to decide whether a relist should be done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 01:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a clear-cut case. Youth who falls well short of the criteria. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not come close to meeting WP:NATH. According to a link in the aritcle, her current world ranking in the 200m is 320th. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:46, 10 December 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann-Mari Lindberg

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

Just one line article. Sources are not that reliable. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Brown Chocolate (talk) 07:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the Swedish wikipedia has more info in their article but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tried to find more about her on the internet, nothing much that I can find. To me, this aritcle fails WP:BIO, her notability is in doubt. Swedish Wiki is also very short (stub level). Unless if anyone can improve it, my vote is Delete - Jay (talk) 06:11, 3 December 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 Delete. (non-admin closure) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 16:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BiKi RoasTer

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

Non-notable. Has 216k subscribers on YouTube. Searching him on the news section of Google brings "8 results". There isn't anything about this YouTuber that is covered by any news source. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 07:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- G11. Delete per nom on AfD. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11 as unambiguous advertising. SITH (talk) 12:53, 26 November 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. Looks like the consensus here is that WP:NPROF is not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Hutchman

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

no indication of notability and the article doesn't assert anything that indicates notability per WP:NACADEMIC The same editor has been creating a load of Dial-A-Poem Montreal related articles over a short span of time. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professor at a major university. scope_creep^Talk 12:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Scope creep:.. I think we use WP:NACADEMICS when we evaluate notability for professors. I did a quick check and I'm not seeing any indication. Since having published things is often a tenure requisite, I think this ensures Wikipedia from becoming a catalog for every professor at every major universities. Graywalls (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Full professors at major universities are almost always notable. Almost every professor at every major university will eventually have an article in Wikipedia including this man. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While full professors at major universities are often notable, it isn't automatic. That's what WP:NPROF is for, and I don't see it here. WP:NAUTHOR looks much more likely; I'm not familiar enough to judge. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a professor anywhere, even at Harvard or Cambridge, does not confer notability by itself. Sources inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Despite the claim made above, professors even at "major universities" aren't automatically notable, and many are not. Plus, 5,000 students isn't "major". Now, the subject has published a number of volumes of poetry, but that alone doesn't make one notable; nor do I see that the subject passes WP:PROF. Thus, delete. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Sadly, even top poets are often too difficult to source to achieve Wikipedia-notability. They don't tend to have the in-depth coverage such as book reviews that one would expect for other people working in the humanities. In this case, the awards are a good start but they're too local to convince me. And full professor at a good university is suggestive but not by itself sufficient for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, this is a problem, yes, but there are dozens of magazines/journals (really, websites...) that review poetry, and I don't find any reviews of his work. There's this, but it's nothing. He's published a load of books, but that press doesn't seem to be that notable either... But this is something we need to work on: guidelines for poet biographies, and some commentary on reliable and notable sources. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - and there are many "self publishing" houses specifically meant for the creative types as as the examples in https://www.editage.com/book-editing-services/articles/top-10-self-publishing-companies-a-2018-guide-for-first-time-authors.html having a book published through vanity presses is like saying you have a Wix or a Weebly website, which means "published" as in more than likely satisfying evidence of publication for copyright or "prior art" burden for when the idea came up for patenting purposes, but meaningless for "reliably published" definition for Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I say mostly since I commented already. NPROF just isn't there, and it doesn't look like the reviews for NAUTHOR are there either. Comment that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Lemm is an especially similar case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the inclusion guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:7C07:2600:3872:173E:11E1:2108 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Iadarola

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

American talk show host. This article was redirected as non-notable in 2017 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination). At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 16, GeekInParadise argued that the person is now notable. DRV decided to re-submit the article to AfD. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) @GeekInParadise, DGG, Lightburst, Robert McClenon, Trackinfo, SportingFlyer, and RoySmith: This is to notify you as DRV participants and previous AfD closer about this discussion. Sandstein 10:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 10:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article has been reference-bombed with too many sources, but it has sources, and the subject appears to pass general notability marginally. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last discussion on this topic was in 2017. Previous reasons for deletion included WP:RS and WP:TOOSOON. However, since this was last discussed, he has become the co-host of The Young Turks. The channel averages over 30 million views per month, and has over 4.55 million subscribers.[8] Additionally, his newer show "The Damage Report" averages over 300,000 views a day. [9] As part his program, he has interviewed propionate public figures including Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang.[10] Additionally he is often cited by news outlets regarding his political analysis, such as Mediaite, Paste, Washington Examiner, Newsweek, and The Washington Post. He has also been on Politicking with Larry King and has been a contributor for KTLA. I now feel that I can assist in creating this page without running into WP:RS issues. This combined with his prior discussing on a show he hosted for Fusion TV and "True North" (a Verizon produced mini-series), makes me feel that this is now eligible for creation under WP:WEB. GeekInParadise (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you are complaining about reference bombing, then that might be my reaction; to source everything due to two previous AfD attacks against this subject. It doesn't need the volume of sources except for the fact that this is the third AfD on this article. The second one merged it. Background: The Young Turks is a an online youtube based network. If it is not the current top rated network, it had that rank and is near the top now. That means they are a big player. Their cumulative views are in the billions, tens of millions monthly noted above. That means more viewership than cable news. Started by Cenk Uygur in 2002, they take a politically progressive stance. They have not been regarded as part of conventional media. Their success is offensive to conventional media, who would love to ignore them out of existence. Like many youtube celebrities, they have self-created their on-air personalities. Iadarola is one of those and not just an also ran. For years he has been the #3 anchor of the main show, so he frequently anchors at least an hour a day. Plus lead anchor of several versions of his own shows, currently the Damage Report which was launching when the last AfD hid his article through the merge. Documented, he has also branched off to other independent projects. He contributes and plays pundit on other media outlets. With Uygur running for Congress, Iadarola is now essentially the co-anchor of the main show. In previous arguments, I believe Iadarola has been used as a token target to dismiss the importance of the network, and its content that obviously offends those of opposing viewpoints. It is a classic case of an WP:IDon'tLikeIt argument. The standards of sourcing artificially increased and obviously for the last year those in opposition have succeeded in squelching wikipedia's mission of providing information. We should be answering the question: "Who is this guy?" which is why I created the article. It was not I who brought the suggestion of resurrecting his article up, there are other people noticing this omission to our content. A year on from the previous poor decision, there are even more sources reporting on Iadarola. Trackinfo (talk) 22:59, 26 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Warner (artist)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.I tried several different searches with his name and I can't find anything without searching alongside an author name, and then it's an illustration credit at most. I found several articles about a Bob Warner who compiled art by Ray Johnson, but all are primarily focused on Johnson's work and mention Warner only as the curator of the collection. I'm not sure if it's even the same Warner. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even more serious than failing the GNG or a subject-specific guideline like NARTIST, the article fails WP:V, which is policy, not merely a guideline. All I could find is an archived version of his website at https://web.archive.org/web/20120731133617/http://bobwarnerdesign.com/?page_id=213# which says "Bob Warner is an Illustrator and Musician living in Fife in Scotland.
He has Illustrated hundreds of books since 1994. His Specialities being Science Fiction, Horror and Fantasy." Vexations (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming he has illustrated 100s of books, this is a notable achievement. However we can do nothing about that here, as we depend on SICCOV- of which there is none.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:SNOW. I tried another search and found nada. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Subject does not meet WP:GNG , WP:ARTIST or WP:V , Alex-h (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article does not meet WP:BLP or WP:ARTIST, but I have looked up about him on the internet and he has some sources mentioned but I am not clear if he can have an article or not. But someone should try to add those sources in the article to see if it meets the requirements. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 08:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Assassin!, If you have found sources, could you please let us know what they are? I made an effort, but found nothing at all. Vexations (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was "Robert Warner", I was mistaken. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything about the artist. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 13:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has sat over 12 years with the only source being the subjects own website. This is an example of why some look upon Wikipedia as unreliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC) I didn't notice I had already voted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 30 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Maltsev (psychologist)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG when one considers that CESNUR is neither a reliable source nor independent of Maltsev. There are brief mentions of his degree on a government website, two reviews of a martial arts book that make brief mention of him, but that's it. (Additionally, the article was created by an editor with an apparent COI suggesting they are from CESNUR, here to engage in widespread promotion of that group's materials.) Feoffer (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article has already been submitted twice for deletion by the same argumentation.124Sanroque (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination was rightly closed by a non-admin as intentionally disruptive after its nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. Also looks like that discussion wasn't correctly listed, at least not at first. The "second nomination" was really just a contested close by a user unfamiliar with non-admin closure.

When a COI is exposed, it makes sense to revisit these issues. I don't think this article would exist if CESNUR didn't send someone here to create it in service of promoting the subject, and I don't think there's enough to write an article without the CESNUR-published articles.

No prejudice against the subject whatsoever, I'd be quite happy to be corrected in the form of RSes with which to forge a good article. Feoffer (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that CESNUR is an authoritative source is easily any unbiased author can be check. Here are dozens of reputable sources, printed books that confirm the authority of CESNUR. But besides Cesnur magazine, the article included other sources that have been deleted. I understand that some sources were primary related to the subject of the article, so they could cause displeasure for a number of participants. But also removed a large number of independent authoritative sources.

National Geographic 1

National Geographic 2

There are still sources of authoritative magazines:

Sport Illustrated

The Ring

As for your remark that CESNUR is affiliated with Maltsev, it sounds absurd. The Maltsev's group was the subject of CESNUR research. With this logic, we can assume that a microbiologist is affiliated on bacteria.124Sanroque (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources, I've added some of them to the article already.

Most of the sources seem to be passing references (but still useful! thanks again!). The Sports Illustrated piece is a full review of Maltov's book Non-compromised Pendulum! (that book already has its own article, we could always merge the biographical material into that article if the powers that be decide we don't have enough to do justice to a bio).

We shall have to disagree on CESNUR; my understanding of past archives is that longstanding wikipedia precedent (far predating me) has held CESNUR is not considered a RS. A well-sourced criticism of CESNUR is that its scholars lack sufficient independence from it subjects. Feoffer (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your main point, as I understand it, is that CESNUR is not RS. This is your POV. I do not see problems with RS. I looked at the article in Ukrainian Wikipedia, there are a significant number of sources there, which were not used in the English Wikipedia. Apparently some of them are affiliated. It will take some time to select the sources that can be used and are not affiliated with CESNUR. Moreover, I think we can find other sources if we will work with Google Search.124Sanroque (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found more additional reliable sources: Interfax(Interfax), tureligious.com.ua, allboxing, WBN, telegraf, Nächste Stufe 124Sanroque (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feoffer Why did you delete Reliable sources? Among the remote sources is the Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated. This is very similar to what was done with this article in the first and second nominations for deletion.124Sanroque (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a super-quick cleanup to remove the promotional tone / COI issues, but Ring & SI are definitely RSes. In any case, cleanups shouldn't have any effect on this deletion discussion -- my understanding is that deletion discussions are NOT about the current version of the article at all, they're about the idea of Wikipedia having an article about the given subject. Feoffer (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed Reliable sources for no reason at all during the discussion of deleting the article. Such removing is not consensus. You say that you removed the promotional tone/COI issues, but you left the {{COI}} template.124Sanroque (talk) 13:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Ring and SI are still being used in the article, they weren't removed at all.

COI tag is just up pending deletion discussion resolution. Feoffer (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. 124Sanroque (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 124Sanroque (talk) 19:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion has not yet received enough input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a number of independent reliable sources that sufficiently describe the subject of the article [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] --Yakudza (talk) 03:29, 2 December 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 restoring to draft if any editor would like to continue documenting the subject towards establishing notability. BD2412 T 05:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vion Konger

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

The article currently contains no references to sources at all - just a bunch of links to the subject's social media accounts and to sites selling his work. I searched for sources, and can find nothing giving him significant coverage that is independent and reliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a tough one, like all articles about DJ/producers. Started DJing and making remixes at 13, won a competition for remixing a major DJ's track at 17, has played around the world and released tracks on major dance record labels... and he's still only 20 years old. But as ever, there are no reliable online sources about him, if they exist they are probably all in print versions of Mixmag and DJ Mag. I can't make a case for keeping the article seeing as I can't find online sources, but given how young he was when he came to prominence, I can't believe that it wouldn't have attracted some attention from dance music magazines. Richard3120 (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable Disc Jockey. Celestina007 (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Bikram Choudhury. After two relists, a consensus that the article should be a Redirect to Bikram Choudhury, given that the appropriate content has already been merged into the target article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajashree Choudhury

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

No significant coverage and all mentions are in RS(s) are for being the wife of Bikram Choudhury and esp. stemming from their divorce. See WP:INHERITED. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:25, 23 November 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? 11:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's not quite so; she is notable for winning both the first Indian National Yoga Championship and the first Bishnu Charan Ghosh Cup; she is also notable for co-founding the United States Yoga Federation (USA Yoga) and the International Yoga Sports Federation (IYSF); so her notability is not solely based on her former husband (Bikram Choudhury). I'd have thought these four claims would be sufficient for a Keep, but if not then a Merge to BC's article would be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the exact heck is Indian National Yoga Championship? Who organizes the competition? Google shows me near-absolutely nothing and sources, that proclaims the notability of the championship, are welcome.
This NYT piece literally describes everything about IYSF as well as USYF, a country-affiliate of the former. Two of the gazillion NGOs who have made a lucrative business of yoga and universal opinion is that they were founded by the husband-wie duo to promote Bikram Yoga and that it has precisely zero relevance outside of their well-maintained cult. Also, this. ∯WBG^converse 13:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too many "heck"s and "near-absolutely"s and "gazillion"s for an orderly discussion, really: they are quite unnecessary. However, the competition is, as the article says, the National Yoga Championship held by the Yoga Federation of India from 1979, so I'd have thought that more than clear enough already; it's also covered in the more reliable parts of the Indian press. Where I do agree with you is that RC seems to have functioned very closely as an adjunct of her husband during the marriage, and since it seems she won the competition(s) she founded, that in itself is worth noting in a paragraph of his article (remarkable, actually), implying a MERGE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide an independent source or two, behind her's winning the National Yoga championship, held by YFI and the first Bishnu Charan Ghosh Cup ? ∯WBG^converse 17:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious places (India, her own/Bikram Yoga sites) are all flaky or dependent. The [Daily Telegraph] mentions she is the "five-time winner of the All-India Yoga Championship between 1979 to 1983", i.e. every year from 1979 to 1983. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bikram Choudhury as per Chiswick Chap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:100F:D239:FCBE:9AB7:1349:90BD (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bikram Choudhury. I am not seeing notability in the sources presented. Doing well in a non-notable competition mentioned in passing, and being married to a notable person, are not sufficient. There is no need to merge, as the subject is already discussed in enough detail in the target article. BD2412 T 15:09, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I've added it there since this began. A redirect is indeed all that remains to be put in place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 15 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl B

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NM. Article does not make a claim of notability, nor can I find any sources that aren't track listings or write-ups by interests trying to sell his music. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominating statement: there is no claim of notability and no independent, published sources that show the subject meets wither WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability clearly not shown in the article, and nothing out there shows notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. For now. Not notable enough.BabbaQ (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 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 07:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bailly

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

Possibly non WP:GNG actress. No third party sources can be found, either in the article, or by searching. IMDB isn't a notable source. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid. I can't find a thing thing. There is a couple in French newspapers but they are not the subject. scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR. Her performances have been reviewed. See this review of her Shakespear performance. Other reviews include:

"LAST WEDDING.(Review)"; Eisner, Ken; Variety, Sept 10, 2001, Vol.384(4), p.58
"'14 Hours'.(Movie Review)"; Richmond, Ray; Hollywood Reporter, April 1, 2005, Vol.388(27), p.10(2)

Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, her Shakespeare performance seems to be a minor role and there is only one mention of her in the link you provided. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third in the cast list but it seems to be a play that is a spoof of Shakespeare Atlantic306 (talk)

But the reference only mentions her once and isn't about her. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors do not automatically pass WP:NACTOR just because roles happen to be listed — the notability test is the ability to demonstrate the significance of the roles through the use of reliable source content that singles them out for attention, but the sources listed above aren't sufficient. The Shakespeare book gives her exactly one sentence in a review of a play, technically verifying that she had a supporting role in a minor local theatre production, but not substantively enough about her performance to clear the bar all by itself if it's the best you can actually do. The Last Wedding review just mentions her name in the fine-printed complete credits block at the very end right alongside everybody else who was in the film at all, and doesn't give her even one word of space in the actual body text of the review itself — and her role in that film was a bit part as an unnamed receptionist, not a starring role significant enough to count toward NACTOR. I can't find the Hollywood Reporter review of 14 Hours at all to verify whether it focuses on her performance or just mentions her name, but it would still be subject to the same issue as the other two sources. We're not looking for sources which offer technical verification that roles have been had — we're looking for sources which demonstrate the significance of the roles by singling her performances out for dedicated attention. And even on a ProQuest search, I'm finding nothing else: I get nine hits total, eight of which are glancing namechecks of her existence in sources that say literally nothing else about her, and the one that's slightly stronger is just a repeat of the same review that was excerpted in the Shakespeare book, and thus isn't a new second source. This is simply not enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of one time appearances on TV shows do not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all her roles are so small I can't even tell if they are red shirts. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to the nomination: actors need to meet WP:NACTOR, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", not WP:GNG. Third party sources (by which I presume independent, reliable sources) can indeed be found - I have just added two to the article. She has certainly had starring roles, as in Bong of The Dead, but whether that is notable is debatable. Contemporary listings for Good Luck Chuck say "Starring Jessica Alba, Dane Cook, Dan Fogler, Michelle Harrison, Simone Bailly", and I'm not sure why IMDB and the Wikipedia article rate the importance of the roles/actors differently. Bailly's role in the 4th and 5th seasons of The L Word was significant. I will see what else I can find, and try to improve the article a bit. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting NACTOR still requires sources, so there isn't as much of a conflict between meeting NACTOR and having to meet GNG as you seem to think there is. A person inherently fails the former if they haven't simultaneously passed the latter, in fact — every actor who exists at all could instantly exempt themselves from actually having to have any sources if all they had to do was invoke the words "major roles", which is precisely why we rely on reliable source coverage to tell us, by virtue of singling her and her performance out for more attention than just invoking her name in a cast list, whether the roles were "major" or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia:Notability, which says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (my emphasis). What's the point of having subject-specific guidelines if all subjects have to meet WP:GNG?? Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that all subjects have sources, so there is no possibility of actors "instantly exempt[ing] themselves from actually having to have any sources". RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has properly notability-supporting sources, then by definition they pass GNG. If a person does not have properly notability-supporting sources, then by definition their notability claim has not passed the verifiability test, and can't be kept on those grounds regardless of what the article merely claims, but fails to properly source, as being their notability claim. That's always how notability works on Wikipedia: it's not the things the article says, it's the quality and depth and range of sourcing that can be provided to support the things the article says. It's not the words "major role", it's the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to demonstrate that the role was "major" enough to fulfill the criterion. Even minor walk-on roles can be technically verified by directory listings and credit blocks at the bottom of Variety reviews — so the majorness of a role is demonstrated by sources which focus on the actor and their performance in the body text, not just by the ability to technically verify that a role was had. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 7 December 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. ST47 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Dolcefino

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

There are a fair number of local sources, but really none that seem to cover him. He's been a news anchor who has won a lot of awards (but I can't source any details on that from an independent source and I suspect they are all local awards?). He got in a accident and sued. I'm not seeing much else. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:13, 22 November 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence J. Hansen

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

I'm not sure Hansen meets WP:NSOLDIER / WP:GNG. He was medalled, but was never awarded the Medal of Honor. His rank is insufficient for automatic notability, and as far as I can tell he doesn't meet any of the other more esoteric bullet points in NSOLDIER.

As for GNG, the only substantive independent source I found about him was this book. Find-A-Grave is unreliable per WP:RSP, and the book cited in the article is an autobiography, so it's not independent.

As always, if there are substantial sources I've missed I'm happy to withdraw. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better sources can be produced. It's very possible that Eisenhower's personal pilot during WWII could pass GNG, but I'm not finding anything to indicate he does. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being Ike's personal pilot could be a claim to fame, but he doesn't seem to have played a role in anything. That the article is an orphan is another bad sign. Find-A-Grave has nothing on him. Contrast with Dusty Rhoades, General MacArthur's pilot (who doesn't have an article) is striking: Rhoades has a lot more references. An acceptable quality article could be created from the memoir, but the sources cited in the article are pretty much it, so that leaves GNG up in the air so to speak. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 27 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Osefo

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary sources independent of her hereby failing WP:GNG The article claims a lot of notability for its subject but doesn’t substantiate those claims with reliable sources. In the references provided most are broken links. Furthermore article is written as though it were a WP:PROMO & WP:LARD is strongly observed in this article. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say what I find most disturbing is the heavy WP:PUFF in the article without provision of inline citations/references to substantiate claims of notability. Clicks on references that look promising all redirect to a dead/broken link. Celestina007 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been cleaned up and much of the puffery has been removed. It still needs work but with the existing sources as well as coverage found in Google search, subject passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one @AuthorAuthor: , I saw your WP:C/E work on the article but a more pressing issue is that of reliable sources, could you please provide on this AFD the ones you can find that discusses subject of article with significant coverage and with in-depth. I have searched as per a WP:BEFORE but could not find any.Celestina007 (talk) 15:16 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Puff isn't a reason for delete, nor is clean-up. scope_creep^Talk 12:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: no WP:PUFF isn’t a reason to delete an article that’s why the reason I gave was that subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable source. I mentioned WP:PUFF as a secondary issue.Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you would have seen the significant coverage on the subject. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't see much else that needs to be removed, although I'd like to see deeper coverage about her, which is not in the article yet. She writes for The Hill and has appeared on television, which would make her marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet the GNG and the promo issues seem o have been resolved. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 02:55, 28 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Edward Wood

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

PROD contested at WP:RFUD. I agree that it's not a notable person. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic, not notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too short to determine notability, or much of anything else.--Auric talk 18:19, 21 November 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 10:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emraanakbar Enamdar

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

not enough established filmmaker, I didn't found reliable source Fail WP:RS, he just make 5 short film , those are non-notable film, this article written he got award but google search Nothing shown. fail WP:BLP also don't know what is the award name and I think this is the Baseless win of the award, fail WP:GNG. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -Nahal^(T) 09:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON; fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage about article’s subject in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:28, 22 November 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 21:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katzun

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

Non-notable youtuber, no independent coverage. Fails GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only source that seems to be reliable is the Pride.com citation. NewNowNext.com and Toonado.com seem very questionable. –Matthew - (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is simply no coverage of this person at all. This is written in more of a promotional tone, and easily fails WP:GNG. Handoto (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Celestina007 (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's been some coverage but this appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She looks like she's up and coming, so a timely re-creation in the future would appropriate when she becomes notable. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines, without prejudice to recreation per Bearian --DannyS712 (talk) 22:29, 26 November 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 consensus of the discussion supports a WP:NEXIST keep based on the assumption that an actress with a lengthy career (better documented in the French article) will have sources that are not in the article currently. RL0919 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laure Killing

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

She's a French actress who appeared in films from 1986. And....? A handful of edits were made over a four year period since this article was created. The most recent edits came due to her death. Only one reference thus far. Even her corresponding French article isn't very detailed. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Her death is reported in multiple major French sources, indicating she was fairly well known. They all focus on her being the actress from the 2017 soap opera Tomorrow is Ours. However, I found almost no significant coverage of her before her death, so this may be borderline. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fr entry does however detail somebody who has been a jobbing and film actor since the mid-80's. I think there is probably a mountain of coverage available if somebody does the work. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Snickers2686 --DannyS712 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in multiple notable productions, including the TV shows Paris enquêtes criminelles and Tomorrow is Ours, and film The Teddy Bear, among others. There are certainly other obituaries which could be added as sources, as well as older sources which confirm her roles in things like Une femme en blanc [fr] [17]; Écrans de Sable / Écrans de sable [fr] (different Wikidata numbers, unfortunately) [18], etc. I agree with scope_creep that there would be more coverage in French media from the late 1980s on, which could be added by anyone with access to it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 27 November 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 Draftify. Consensus that it should be draftified on the basis of WP:TOOSOON; also, the name does not need to be disambiguated (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Boleyn (musician)

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

There is hardly any information about this person beyond the fact that she has a single out. This alone does not qualify her for a page. WP:TOOSOON ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am inclined to think we should move to draft for now. There is already some coverage ([19], [20], [21]) though not really enough yet to justify an article. Realistically though, unless she packs it all in tomorrow, she's probably going to get a lot more press before long. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her stuff is already being heavily remixed for the club circuit, so there is quite a strong awareness of her music. There is no coverage so it is all underground. I agree, I don't think it will be long before she is huge. WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 11:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as there is some coverage in reliable sources as shown above but with only one single released so far it seems WP:TOOSOON at this stage Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this looks like it is going to be draftified, which seems sensible to me, but I would note that the disambiguator "(musician)" is unnecessary here and if the move to draft happens it should be moved to Draft:I Am Boleyn. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 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. If anyone would like the article restored to draft to work on, ping me and I'll sort that out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gurlez Akhtar

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

Too many contradictions and too few references to check them against. For example, the lede mentions three films she has "played a role in", but the Wikipedia articles do not mention her or mention her only as a singer. The "Music Career" section says her debut song was in 2012, but her discography starts in 2004, and does not include the one song cited in "Music Career". The two awards (unlinked, so difficult to check) are for songs that do not appear in the list. It's very difficult to estimate her impact based on this information.

Previously discussed in Articles for deletion/Gurlez Akhtar, which has a comment relevant to this discussion. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could this be kicked back to AFC as a draft? The article has been created once before, obviously there is interest in this person, but the sources in the present version seem not-great and the grammar/style is lacking WP:TONE. Shearonink (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. Like the nominator said, there are many contradictions in the article itself. I am not even sure if the subject passes WP:NSINGER, and or WP:GNG; as I cant be sure if the sources are talking about the same person or different persons with similar names. If thats the case, all the persons fail GNG, including the subject. It is better to have no article than having a faulty/factually incorrect one. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:42, 28 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrius Rukas

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

Contested prod on the grounds that the player "passes GNG". However, the player, fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG despite statements to the contrary. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of the article fails WP:NFOOTY. He previously transferred to FC Dynamo Moscow and FC Arsenal Tula but failed to get any minute under his belt. His current club U.D. Leiria is not a professional league. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see WP:GNG being met with those two sources, and a WP:NFOOTY failure like his requires a healthy showing of WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 15:53, 20 November 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 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hines Fischer

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

lacking significant in-depth, independent reliable coverage. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable young figure in the New York hospitality design scene. Author should add more independent coverage sources to establish relevance. ArtAndDesignNerd (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — ArtAndDesignNerd (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Syndro0 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Keep I just added four additional magazine articles and a link to better establish relevance. Syndro0 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC) — Syndro0 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of ArtAndDesignNerd (talk • contribs). [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Beyond the terribly written promotional style, the award he got from an industry magazine is just not notable. The subject of this page appears to be an ordinary lighting designer, and the page is by all evidence using a NY charity as a free webhost and free advertising. I remind the gentle reader that a former resident of New York known for his design work was just fined $2,000,000 for misusing a charity. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 22 November 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Thorpe

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

lots of dependent coverage and trivial coverage but absence of significant, in-depth, fully independent and reliable coverage on subject that develops general notability. Reviewing the article history revealed that it was created by an undisclosed paid editor who has since been blocked. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some of the sources are clearly not what we'd consider reliable and independent. This article for example, is credited "By Staff for Chrysler 200". The video clearly says "SPONSORED", and at the bottom of the page, Esquire clarifies that "Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites." Vexations (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: Yep. The article creator was banned for undisclosed paid editing involving multiple articles. All this aside, I don't find that this particular article subject merits enough notability to justify remaining in place hence deletion nomination. Graywalls (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is/was promotional. Almost everything I can find about this artist is promotional, even this bio on the (reputable) Corning Glass Museum web site. Even this independent souce ends up promoting a new glass series (i.e a product). No independent non-promotion coverage = no article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough indepth, relaible sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 30 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Dean

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: The current references are a database entry and an industry award listing. The award doesn't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found nothing useful. Cheers, gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 03:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This performer not only fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT but he would have also failed later interpretations of the now-superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG. The Hot d'Or Award was understood to fail the "well-known and significant industry award" test. The article cites no good sources and I couldn't find any in an independent search. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person as mentioned above fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT as well as WP:GNG. SVUKnight (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above consensus.--WikiAviator (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 20 November 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 12:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandoz (Youtuber)

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

Non notable YouTuber and doesn't have links with other articles. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the mentioned has 147k subscribers at this moment, I believe this makes the channel somewhat relevant, it is a stub but it can Be worked on. Dellwood546 (talk)
Keep There are more than 147,000 users who follow his youtube page, which is a recognized influencer on the Internet. In addition, many renowned sites relay its investigations .He was interviewed by serious sites. The person is in adequacy with the criteria of notoriety in force on Wikipedia. It has its place on Wikipedia.-Susanowoo (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Has many Youtube subscribers" is not an assertion of notability, because (like 'has many Twitter followers') it's way too easy to game. Am I saying that Sandoz bought tens of thousands of fake subscribers, no. But it can be done, and as such it does not show notability. Remember Goodhart's law. DS (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate subject passes WP:GNG. Amount of followers doesn't indicate notability, only indepentant, non-primary coverage. Of the sources, #1 is just analytics, #2 is Primary, #3 looks like a blog post, #4 is Primary, #5 will not load for me, #6-8 is not about the subject, #9 is primary. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 09:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Darth Mike's source analysis, he doesn't appear to satisfy the web, biographical or general notability guidelines. I'd like to also take this opportunity to yet again restate one of the fundamental truths of Wikipedia: a subscriber, follower, like or view count does not endow someone with notability. SITH (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Darth Mike, and Sith (StraussInTheHouse). Combinedly, they've said what I was going to say. Amount of followers is not an indication of notability (followers can be purchased), the subject doesnt have significant coverage, and thus fails general notability guidelines. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails the WP:GNG guideline for talent/authors. Graywalls (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per Darth Mike.-Nahal^(T) 11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 147,000 followers makes one famous but not notable, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which is missing badly here. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 3 December 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. Consensus that with the deprecation of PORNBIO, the individual fails to meet other notability grounds (BASIC, ENT) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Steele (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current references are an interview and an award listing. Mr. Steele's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. (The various other references removed in 2018 are obvious press releases/promo.) I looked for additional sources and found only a bit of coverage in a Jeffrey Escoffier book[22], some critical analysis of a pornographic film Steele appeared in[23], quotes from him in Gawker[24] and the Advocate[25], and assorted minor and trivial mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 21:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Yes, I could not find much coverage either. Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 03:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only basis for notability was the now-deprecated WP:PORNBIO SNG. Independent coverage consists of 1–2 sentence entries in list articles and incidental mentions, not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Porn industry honors don't satisfy WP:ENT without acknowledgment by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 20 November 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 23:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Grace

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

Tabloid fodder. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not encyclopedic. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 68.134.154.158 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP violations galore. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although Article doesn’t really establish why she should be in the encyclopedia. I believe a quick google research indicates she has been discussed in several reliable press. As per that I think the WP:42 may apply here as if we are to be sincere she is quite notable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 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 23:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viemens Bamford

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

Notability concerns as well as WP:BLP1E. Being admitted to college at a young age is a single event that is not of particular importance or significance. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage outside the story that he got admitted to university at a young age.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:31, 20 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shakhban Dzhabrailov

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

Could not be prodded as previously prodded by a now blocked user. Fails WP:NFOOTY as the RPFL is now not a WP:FPL league, part of a systematic cleanup of a large number of non-notable footballers. No indication of wider WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any sources that satisfy the GNG (could barely find anything AT ALL). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A check in both English and Russian gives me no results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:43, 20 November 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 12:12, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Jorwal

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

Promotion Raju Jangid (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is noted Indian entrepreneur. I added reliable sources. If you feel something like promotion then we can remove that things. But The Article should not be deleted. Virenderthind2019 (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must not be deleted If we find an article written in a promotional tone, we should correct it instead of deleting it. According to sources, he is noted. That is what matters. Main thing, now I have improved the article. Now there is nothing like promotion. Virenderthind2019 (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is not notable current time and only references are not enough for notability. --Raju Jangid (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If only references are not enough for notability So please tell me what things are enough for notability?

Virenderthind2019 (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Raju Jangid (talk) 10:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotion and give warning to creator of COI.Krishna's flute (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even assuming everything is true, there's no allegation of notability for this run of the mill business person. Lots of people around the world are "noted" in newspapers, some of them actually famous, but without being notable. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A publicity operative whose company has no article, so cannot provide a redirect target. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from doing commissioned work for celebrities (e.g. The Hindu article) and the other sources are the kinds of puff-pieces inherent in the subject's field. I see nothing which establishes encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 26 November 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrinder Singh (disambiguation)

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

Not necessary considering how short the page is. Could be easily solved with a hatnote at the top of “Amrinder Singh” KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's only one Amrinder Singh. One of the other two entries has a different spelling and the other has Singh as a middle name only (John Fitzgerald rightly doesn't list John F. Kennedy). One "distinguish" hatnote for the former is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have added a couple more entries. Useful dab page. PamD 16:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've nominated the singer for deletion, and one politician's name is "Amarinder"; close, but no cigar. That leaves two entries, so WP:TWODABS applies. (A second, distinguish hatnote could be used for Amarinder.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems people could confuse Amarinder/Amrinder. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 13:49, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:PamD work. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Very often in Punjabi names, the last name isn't used, so Amrinder Singh Gill or Amrinder Singh Raja Warring could also be referred to as Amrinder Singh, as is even evident from those articles as they stand and the spellings Amarinder and Amrinder are used interchangeably, as is evident from the references in those articles. Therefore there are at least 4 listings for the dab (someone who actually works on dabs - PamD et al, can fit these two in). —SpacemanSpiff 03:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Have tidied it up and restored names. An entry should not be removed just because it has been proposed for deletion, only if it is deleted. Have restored singer's sourced full name to his article as it had been lost in series of edits. Useful dab page. PamD€

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Heart

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT: the current sources are an interview and two award listings. The awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found only a passing mention in Out[26] and a name-drop in the biography of a gay community leader[27]. An editor at the previous AfD suggested two other sources: one is a mention in a photo caption[28], the other another industry award roster[29]. gnu 57 23:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Yet another BLP-violating pseudo-biography. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one of many run of the mill porn actors. Nothing particularly remarkable about him. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 22:19, 20 November 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scump

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

All are unreliable sources/non notable person.--121.148.2.133

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP 121.148.2.133 Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As a Nominator, Topic has no reliable sources. 180.12.211.4 (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC) blocked[reply]

*Delete. Lacks of sources and all the contents are just trivia. BoneHeadHuman (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Checkuser note: Every !vote above including the IP nominator is either an open proxy, or a banned user, or both. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close for this bad nomination. A single purpose IP addresses can not nominate a group of articles for deletion, and you shouldn't do it for them. Since the only ones appearing to try to delete it are now blocked sock puppets, kindly close this bad nomination. Dream Focus 05:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, well there is no such rule that I can find that prevents IP from nominating articles. Even if we later ban them, I think they should be left open until there is a clear "keep" consensus. If you wish to change the rules, hold a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Then Keep [30] "The most popular player in Call of Duty, Scump finally won his first world championship in 2017". Winning the world championship in a notable competition and making $652,140 from this, makes him notable. Google news search shows a lot of results to go through, but not bothering since winning the championship alone makes him notable. Dream Focus 22:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, WP:BLP1E? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They get coverage for more than just that one tournament win. Hit Google news search at the top of the AFD. Dream Focus 00:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of the sources provided are unreliable like YouTube, Call of Duty Esports Wiki, Twitter (although some of them are justified since it is the Abner's Twitter but still does not establish notability) per WP:RSP. Most of the other sources are small mentions. Some of the sources do not even mention him like the Scuf Gaming source. Therefore does not establish signficant and thus fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 14:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the two post-checkuser !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [31]] Seems to be a bit of a whale on social media. 2.5 million followers on Twitter, 4.15 million followers on Youtube. scope_creep^Talk 16:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undefined*:Scope creep, social media presence doesn't automatically means notability. He would need to pass the WP:GNG first. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody has that number of followers, which are verified and close to the population of Scotland, and their videos have been played more than 520million times, then they are notable in anybody's book. That is coverage. They don't play themselves. It is unfortunate the subject works in a industry that is still fairly new, probably less than five years, but it is undergoing stellar growth. I did find a ref on Reuters which combined with what's there already makes WP:THREE references. It is sufficient. scope_creep^Talk 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view WP:BLP1E as applying here. This is the man's career and the work he has done is consistent with a career. scope_creep^Talk 18:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not in my wheelhouse, but I can see that the player is plenty notable. Perhaps passes WP:ANYBIO for awards and WP:GNG for coverage. I have to wonder idf the Nominator did a WP:BEFORE. Esports Earnings, Red Bull, Top Ten Highest Earning Player, Venture Beat, He is Called a World Champion covered on ESPN, One ES Sports, Paste Magazine. Lightburst (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, nominated on behalf of IP... --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This local news profile is the only source I've seen which is definitely reliable and definitely significant coverage. There is an ESPN mention to go with the interview. I'm not sure which of those e-sports sites listed are reliable, I'm not convinced WP:GNG is met, I'm not voting either way since only a couple of them need to be reliable but the article desperately needs to be updated if it's kept, as only one of the 20 sources is credible at all. Call of Duty Wikis? Youtube? Tweets? A list of everyone who graduated in his high school class? That's what you'll get from the current sources! Needs to be tagged for cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 10:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites unreliable sources such as wikis and tweets. If notable, about which I have no opinion, needs total recreation based on reliable sources. Sandstein 15:41, 27 November 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. Sandstein 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Loel

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

I referenced article about an actor which does not meet the notability thresholds of WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as having no reliable sources, only the unreliable IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies as a speedy since there's enough of a vague assertion of notability via the claims of TV roles. That said, it would be good to find someone fluent in Hebrew who can help look for sourcing, just to verify whether or not there's anything out there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think he may actually be notable - he seems to have held major roles in some notable shows and a notable film. I've added them to the page. I haven't looked for sourcing yet, but ideally it should be out there - most likely in Hebrew. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While nominations can't really establish notability, it looks like he was nominated for an Israeli Film Academy Award for Best Actor for one of his films, the Pretzel one. I'm finding coverage in English for some of his other work, so I'm pretty certain that he's notable at this point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still have some searching to do, but I've found enough coverage to justify notability for this actor and to show that there's definitely more out there. He seems to be fairly well known over in Israel, so most of the coverage is in Hebrew. I will try to add what I've found when I have more time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has prominent roles in notable productions so passes WP:NACTOR with the article currently being improved with the addition of multiple reliable sources there is no longer a need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 24 November 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. Sandstein 12:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnia Agu

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

Subject of article does not qualify as per WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The article appears as a WP:PROMO and written like a resume & as per WP:NOTRESUME this is wrong. Furthermore article does not exactly establish notability for its subject in any which way as subject lacks WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable press. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I believe a delete !vote Is most applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 21:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe keep because the subject has received the 2018 West African Leadership Summit Award and the Lagos State Award of Excellence, which at least qualifies her for WP:ANYBIO, given the article can be improved.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, now please I would like you to add a reliable source to substantiate your claim on this & emphasis on the reliable source(s) only. Furthermore the page in question has received no WP:SIGCOV in reliable media. A sharp WP:Before shows she falls short of WP:GNG. A quick check on her via google search only shows links to her Twitter page. You recently deleted a undisclosed paid tag that was issued on your talk page by a diffferent editor. Also I believe you get paid to promote & create WP:BLP pages on certain non notable persons. I suspect you of suck puppetry & would report my findings to the appropriate authorities. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment noting the nominator's WP:CANVASing, [32], for the record. ——SN 54129 10:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You aren’t wrong, I did ask Cabayi to look into this AFD as I have seen him in other AFD’s providing reasonable rationale on why an article should be kept or deleted and thought it wise to draw his attention to this one. You see certain Nigerian related articles on the encyclopedia are on non-notable persons & people who create this articles often have a vested interest & financial reward at stake which I strongly perceive is the case here as the editors edit pattern & a mere google search on this current article up for deletion proves this as the subject doesn’t pass WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. Anyways I appreciate you Serial Number 54129 & your efforts for keeping me in check. Celestina007 (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG. Google searches of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sources in the article are broken links, while others are primary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has undergone very minimal changes since it was nominated for deletion. It still doesn’t have significant coverage in reliable sources that show subject has significant coverage in reliable press independent of subject, hence a delete vote is most applicable. Celestina007 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes GNG with Guardian and Leadership articles, especially. Also, it doesn't matter if the article has undergone minimal changes. It's either notable or it's not. This article has a notable subject as shown by the references. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please @Megalibrarygirl: If it isn’t too much stress do provide the reliable “articles” as you claim that establishes her notability. And please passing WP:GNG is about multiple independent secondary sources having in-depth coverage on a subject. So far I am unable to see that established in the references provided in the article. Please Don’t just !vote keeps because you can or in passing and not provide reliable sources to substantiate your claims. I don’t mean to sound rude or anything & I’m sorry I’ve sounded that way. Please do respond to this if you can. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Sorry I missed this. The articles I mentioned are listed in the article itself. I just didn't have the time to list everything out when I decided Keep. I don't just !vote keep because I can. I really only weigh in when I think it will make a difference. I do expect that people have gone through the sources in the article already when reviewing them for AfD so I didn't think I needed to be much more specific than I was. Basically, I think all of the sources help add up to GNG, which is why I didn't say specifically this article or that one. I just wanted to point out thatLeadership and Guardian sources are certainly RS and she's covered pretty significantly there. Then when you take the other articles, it all adds up to GNG to me. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Megalibrarygirl I thought you probably read it & chose to unlook. I’ve lived in Nigeria/with Nigerians for 20+ years & on face value I know notable & non-notable persons when I observe them. I’m not claiming to be all knowing but I know enough. Any Nigeria-related articles I put up for deletion it’s because they probably deserve to be there. As for subject of this article, the articles by Guardian & Leadership are definitely RS but to be honest are they enough? Are they the “multiple reliable sources” that are required in BLP’s? I’m all for articles on women to be retained on Mainspace but when I see a fraud I say it as it is. I appreciate your politeness by the way there aren’t many good ones like you left.Celestina007 (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Celestina, I appreciate that. I think you and I have different approaches to articles. When I find good coverage in several RS and mentions about someone in several other sources, I find that clearly speaks to GNG. You are arguing for more coverage, which is a valid argument, too. That's why the AfD process is important. We can allow a back and forth between participants and a consensus decision, which is usually fair. I don't expect to change everyone's mind in an AfD. I just want the ability to put in my own decisions when I decide to weigh in. I respect your position, even if I don't agree with you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:20, 29 November 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. This is very borderline, and difficult to get at any essential notability due to the article being poorly written with trivial sourcing that should not have been used. As noted in the discussion, the article is not focused on why the subject is notable (which appears mainly due to the Nextdoor incident), but attempts to create a general notability for which there is little evidence. There is some disagreement over the value of the alcohol article in establishing notability. I haven't given that article nor the discussion against it much weighting either way. It appears to a promotional piece for a book she has written, though that thought is not present in the discussion, so I have not considered it as weighing against notability, and on the whole have viewed that article as possibly leaning toward notability, though it would require more than that to keep the article. The most viable piece of sourcing for the subject's notability is the Nextdoor incident, though it is argued that coverage is about the incident rather than the person, so one event would apply. The delete arguments used in the discussion are more closely aligned to our inclusion criteria and policies than the keep arguments; and though there are more keeps than deletes, the keep statements are more assertions rather than rationales. "Meets XYZ" without giving details is not helpful to a closer. That is not to say there aren't some detailed keep statements and a healthy and lively discussion has taken place, but where there have been solid keep rationales, they have been refuted by reference to inclusion guidelines. I did consider this as a No consensus close, but on the whole feel that the delete arguments were more convincing when looking at the article and the sourcing, so close as delete, though will userfy on request to anyone who feels they can rewrite and refocus the article appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica C. Barnett

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

Noticed an open RfC on Talk:Erica C. Barnett regarding whether to restore, or leave deleted, some content from a potentially editorially conflicted editor Ericacbarnett who appears to be the subject of the article in question. I think this misses the larger point—that is, is this subject notable? As written, most of the references are either passing mentions, tangentially-related, and there's a fair bit of primary sources authored or co-authored by the subject herself. No indication of any significant coverage. Thus, I thought we should bring this to AfD as a potentially non-notable blogger and regional radio personality/guest host. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly tags: Chetsford, as initiator of the open RfC, and Bearcat, for his expertise with respect to person/biographical notability as there's a lot of primary sources, passing mentions, and questionable, non-reliable sourcing in this article. As well, the potential WP:COI doesn't help and it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON for her autobiography which is not yet published. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The bulk of RS merely mention her in passing as the author of this or that article. I almost AfDed it myself but found more thorough - albeit unflattering- treatments I thought redeemed N (which are currently undergoing RfC as to whether they should be included after the subject of the article issued a call on Twitter for the article to be defended against "assholes" [I think that's me]). I don't suspect the RfCs will allow said coverage to be included due to lack of participation from non canvassed editors. Since the only sourceable references are, therefore, not SIGCOV I'd cautiously support delete with no prejudice against future recreation. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, Agreed. I think once she's got her autobiography published, given her journalism work, she may be notable, but WP:TOOSOON seems to apply here. Perhaps, then, someone, non-editorially conflicted can re-create a slimmed down version this article? ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the three articles at [33][34][35] are sufficient to meet WP:GNG and the sources at [36][37][38] show the subject is considered a signifant player in the post-print media landscape, doing city hall beat work after the downsizing of print newspapers. The sources at [39] [40][41][42][43] further corroborate this, demonstrating that Barnett has filled the void in local reporting using new media and crowdsourcing. Taken together, they meet WP:ANYBIO, that the person made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepShe is undoubtedly notable, and a significant presence in the public sphere of the Pacific North West. In the age of a decline in the influence of print media, she has earned the hostility of the establishment, reporting on issues that otherwise would have been passed over.Oldperson (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, which is challenging for a profession like a journalist (or historian), where they're usually the ones writing about others, not being written about themselves. Schazjmd (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a number of concerns about the article - many of the sources in the article don't cover her in a WP:GNG capacity, the (only two though three links exist) sources listed above which appear to satisfy WP:GNG only cover her in the context of one event, and the article definitely has some COI/promotional issues. I expect this to be kept based on experience and I don't mind draftifying, but based on context and sources, I don't see her as notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I agree. I'm not seeing any sources which provide significant coverage on which to write more than a stub-class article. I assume there's a similar provision for biographies as WP:CORPDEPTH such that we cannot use all primary sources to write a longer, detailed article because there may be two or three sources that meet WP:GNG but because they make relatively little mention to the subject, we can't "get" much out of those sources?

Don't get me wrong, she's to be commended for her investigative work uncovering malfeasance, corruption, or shenanigans at Seattle city hall in age of declining print journalism, but we need to remember to check any biases or preferences in favour of seeing whether the subject is notable, eh? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some bloggers are notable, and this one is per the SIGCOV in RS. Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not adequate to show actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RS clearly passes WP:SIGCOV. Those saying otherwise are clearly WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments.4meter4 (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is SIGCOV? SportingFlyer T·C 11:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Well said. I think we're seeing a lot of vague waves here from the "keep" camp, which is likely why administrator RL0919 relisted it as still in "no consensus" territory. Good example of not !vote counting by RL0919. Doug Mehus T·C 18:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The charitable, good faith assumption is that we're seeing editors who evaluated two arguments, found one more compelling than the other, and !voted without need for further embellishment, confident enough to ignore bludgeoning and sealioning. Ignoring someone yelling "debate me, dude" doesn't make them right. It usually means that the facts are already on the table and further debate would amount to mere repetition. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, True, but I'd note only one editor (yourself) has provided sources to substantiate whether WP:SIGCOV is met here. It would be nice to have some substantive analysis of the sources, so we can have a collaborative and constructive evaluation of the sources on offer. I've said why I disagree with that, so won't repeat, but I'm just saying that it would be nice to hear other editors say why they feel those sources meet WP:SIGCOV beyond merely stating that they do. SportingFlyer, did you have anything to add to this, since we're replying to your comment? Doug Mehus T·C 20:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you should assume they're competent and diligent enough to have read the prior !votes, and choose to be concise, rather than re-state facts already given. If this was a blatantly obvious swarm of newly created SPAs in response recruiting on Reddit or someplace, you might have reason to question their competence, but there's no hint of such a thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I don't have a strong opinion one way or another. I'd be open to withdrawing my nomination as "speedy keep," without prejudice to renomination in the future (although there's never prejudice to renomination in the future since AfD discussions are notionally not precedent-setting); however, I'd need the consent of Johnpacklambert, Chetsford, and SportingFlyer to proceed since differing opinions have been expressed. Doug Mehus T·C 21:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles presented above, in my opinion, get us close to WP:SIGCOV. The first three presented are about how she was suspended from Nextdoor, which isn't about her but something which happened to her in furtherance of her own journalistic position. In the other sources, she was on a panel, she was in a story about the panel she was on, a story she wrote was mentioned in another story (twice), and she's got a brief blurb from SeattleMag for starting a blog. Where's the significant coverage of her specifically? All we've established is that we've verified she's a journalist in Seattle, but there's absolutely nothing here which suggests she's notable enough for Wikipedia to have noticed. She hasn't received any sort of coverage outside of Seattle, either, and the articles which claim to establish WP:GNG are all about one event, the fact a website shut down her account. Given all that, I think it's absolutely fair to question those !voters who claim WP:SIGCOV has been established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer and administrator Chetsford, thanks for the added discussion. Yes, this is the sort of thorough vetting of the sources Dennis presented which should help the AfD closer thoroughly analyze whether WP:GNG is met. I'm of the same opinion as you both; the articles presented aren't what I'd call significant coverage. She's a noteworthy Seattle blogger for uncovering city hall corruption and misspending, but noteworthiness does not equal notability, as I understand it. So, I tend to think this is actually a delete rather than a no consensus, at least not yet. When significant biographical works (in book(s) and/or significant, at-length biographical essay or documentary about her) are created, we can always re-create this article. Doug Mehus T·C 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We often see this argument in WP:N discussions about journalists, that because their name is often cited by other journalists we can create a long reference list and a long reference list must mean WP:SIGCOV is crested. But the articles about Barnett do not contain deep, biographical information, they are merely acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not routine for lone bloggers to scoop major news organizations, on their own beat, with consistent regularity. When you call it routine, you’re arguing with cited sources that tell us Barnett has had unique success in the wake of newspaper downsizing. You’re asking us to weigh your personal opinions against reliable sources. Sources carry more weight than an editor’s original research. Deep biographical information has no relevance to notability. We don’t delete articles about people with significant accomplishments because we don’t know the name of their high school or their birthdate. Such trivia is beside the point. Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't see anything in the sources which would lead me to believe Barnett has had "unique success" as a journalist. In fact, reviewing the sources, I think that argument is WP:SYNTH. I've discussed the extent of the sourcing above, and I do not believe there's anything which definitively demonstrates she's notable in any of the sources. If there are articles written specifically about her, not four-sentence blurbs which discuss her in passing with her other editor, not stories that could have been written by any journalist who was temporarily blocked from a website, which I acknowledge is difficult for a journalist, I'd be more inclined to support. I just don't see any accomplishments here much less any significant ones. I also searched for the most important Seattle journalists to give you an example of someone I'd find notable - Mike Baker received national press for winning a journalism award and he doesn't have an article yet, but he would be an example of someone I would think would be a wiki-notable Seattle journalist. SportingFlyer T·C 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which other independent journalists regularly scoop major media, changing the course of events and public policy in the process? If it's routine, it must happen all the time. I see Barnett credited in the Seattle Times regularly, but I don't see other names similarly credited. I see her cited for the significance of her work after the decline of newspapers, and you're saying there's many others just like her? Who? I'm looking at sources telling us Barnett is particularly notable for this. So you have sources saying there are many others like her? Please cite them. Mike Baker is an example of the opposite, one of the few remaining major newspaper employees. Twenty years ago reporters like Baker covered city hall, but now, per multiple sources, we don't find out what's going on from the Times, the local TV stations, or NYT correspondents like Mike Baker. It's not clear we would get any such reporting if it weren't for Barnett. Not that anybody is stopping you from creating an article about Baker; whether he is notable or not isn't really relevant. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I can think of a few independent and mainstream media journalists who do independent exposés on those subjects, including Essex Porter, Christina McKenna (former KIRO-TV journalist; now in academia and no longer reporting—the linked "Christina McKenna" is someone else), Robert Mak (again, not the journalist who even had his own KING5 Investigators TV program!), and Sharyl Attkisson. Three of those don't have Wikipedia biographies likely because they'd fail WP:GNG despite them having more notoriety. Ms. Attkisson has her own article because there has been a lot of significant coverage about her and she's published multiple non-fiction bestsellers. Erica C. Barnett does not seem to be there, at least not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 19:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations that they regularly scoop major media? Where are the citations that they played a major role in the post-newspaper landscape? The claim is that ECB’s work is merely routine, so the Seattle Times, KOMO, KIRO, Stranger, etc must routinely credit others as they do Barnett. Please. And why are you mentioning employees of major media and not independent journalists? Because there are few if any others like her? That she is exceptional? Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there still are some mainstream media journalists left in the investigative reporting realm. So she's not the only investigative journalist left. Nonetheless, I don't think that makes her notable. Commendable? Certainly. Noteworthy? Perhaps. Notable? No, not yet. Doug Mehus T·C 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christina McKenna isn't working as a journalist, correct? She's evidence of the exodus of investigative journalists, yet your fellow editors here would see your list of names and be deceived. Sharyl Attkisson? When was the last time she did any Seattle reporting comparable to Barnett? Seems to be working full time as a Trump apologist, promoting Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories. A bunch of anti-vaccine "exposes" before that. While Barnett's reporting has affected public policy, this Atkinsson person can share the blame for debacles like the 2019 Pacific Northwest measles outbreak. Are we supposed to take that seriously? Essex Porter appears to at least still be employed, but doing what investigation? Citation please. Robert Mak hasn't done anything since 2016, and even then, no investigation.

It appears you're making a series of false claims. You tell me there's all sorts of investigative journalists here in Seattle doing the same things as Barnett, yet you can't name one. The names you've given suggest there's an extensive list, when in fact that's entirely misleading. Would you please retract your false claims? None of the names you've mentioned support your case; in fact, they are merely a list of the journalists who have left the field, and evidence that independents like Barnett have the city hall beat to themselves. Your examples only underscore Barnett's exceptional status. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I'm not sure how you see my claims as "misleading." We're comparing notability of comparable journalists, whether print or non-print. I'm not trying to suggest Sharyl Attkisson ever worked in Seattle or covered Seattle city hall like Erica C. Barnett. I used her as a point of comparison in that she, like Barnett, is an independent investigative broadcast journalist. Likewise, whether McKenna or Mak are no longer working as journalists, I am going from my memory of them having done good exposés for which each won journalistic awards from their industry peers on Washington State political misspending, political corruption, and the like.

I reject your claim that Ms. Attkisson is a "Trump apologist" who promotes "Russian state media anti-Ukraine conspiracy theories." I'll work on digging up the stories Porter, McKenna, and Attkisson have won either of an Emmy, RTNDA, or Edward R. Murrow award, but am busy right now. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, as I said, Erica C. Barnett may well be noteworthy for the investigative work she's doing, but we need more than that to confirm notability guidelines for people. And, even if she may meet the SNG for journalists, she still fails WP:GNG due lack of significant coverage in multiple (minimum two; three is better) reliable sources beyond merely one, two, or three line, or even paragraph mentions about her. Multiple works noting her laudable work is a start, but it doesn't equate to significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors agree with my three sources that meet GNG, and my several examples that add upt to meeting ANYBIO. You posted your objections, and failed to sway most of them. Not much to add.

On Attkisson, here you go. And here. In what way, shape, or form is this investigative journalism? And why are you ranging far and wide across the entire United States to find investigative journalists?

Here, in Seattle, one of the two major daily newspapers stopped printing, and the rest underwent massive downsizing. Sources tell us Barnett is notable for filling the void left in local reporting. In Seattle. Barnett is repeatedly credited with uncovering news that nobody else got, and having a decisive impact on subsequent events. You tell us the sources are wrong, and pretend you have evidene of that, but you're only throwing around a lot of names that are irrelevant, and don't offer evidence that the sources are wrong about Barnett.

Can you cite anybody else doing what Barnett is doing? Here. Not off somewhere else. Not a Sinclair Broadcasting-paid propagandist. A real investigative reporter. Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment.

Everything you're posting here is misleading and disruptive to the discussion. You claim there are lots of others like the subject, and throw around a long list of irrelevant examples. Please retract these claims if you can't substantiate them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree and I think we're always going to, it's as simple as that - but the fact of the matter is, I've just looked through everything you've posted here and the sources in the article and there are no sources which state Barnett "frequently scoops major media" or that she plays a "major role in the post-newspaper landscape." There are articles on her alcoholism and a blurb about her memoir, but that is your own conclusion and not the conclusion the sources support. You write she's "repeatedly credited with uncovering news nobody else got" - are you talking about the single-sentence mentions in a couple of the articles above? Where's the evidence she herself has had "decisive impact on subsequent events?" Where's the source that says that? Sorry to be pedantic, but sources =/= notability, and I'm not "refuting" the sources - I'm saying none of them are enough to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 23:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, Well said. I wasn't trying to in any way be misleading, as Dennis claims. Nor was I trying to suggest Ms. Barnett's work is not laudable, but, like you and administrator Chetsford I'm not seeing any reliable, independent sources that provide Ms. Barnett with significant coverage about her. Doug Mehus T·C 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, to the satisfaction of most who read my !vote. I asked you to cite examples of anybody else doing work equal to Barnett's supposedly "routine" reporting, and you offer none. Now you ask me to waste my time repeating everything already stated and cited? The evidence is here in the current version of the article. Click on the footnotes and read. They tell you what ECB uncovered that others missed, and they tell you what influence it had on subsequent events. I'm not going to bother walking you through it if you won't bother citing the examples I asked for, or else admitting you have no comparable examples.

Most of the editors who saw my argument and read the article !voted keep. You're challenging me to go over it all again? That's bludgeoning and sealioning. You can forget it. You claimed ECBs work is commonplace, routine, yet when asked for examples of anyone else doing the same thing, you deflect. That says it all.

Dmehus, please retract your false claims, or cite support for them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I haven't made any "false claims." I'm currently busy right now, but will try and find sources showing Christina McKenna's, Essex Porter's, Robert Mak's, and Sharyl Attkisson's Emmy, Edward R. Murrow, and RTNDA award wins for "investigative news reporting" within the next day or so. In the mean time, I might suggest a Google advanced phrase search for their names and phrasing for their award wins with respect to investigative reporting.

The only ones who have presented any sources or substantive discussion beyond mere !votes are yourself, SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I. You presented the sources, which SF, Chetsford, and I challenged as meeting significant coverage. I'm not asking you to explain everything over again, so not sure how you might see that as "sealioning" or "bludgeoning" (sorry, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia editing and not familiar with those Wikipedia essays). I am assuming good faith, and ask that you do the same with me with respect to trusting that I know what I am talking about; I watched those reporters' investigative reports for years in the mid to late 1990s when I was 14-18 years old. Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle. Nobody cares that Attkisson won an Emmy 20 years ago (she burned her reputation to the ground since then with anti-vaxx misinformation[44][45] and far-right talking points). Twenty years ago Barnett had a job at a newspaper. What this is about is what happened after the newspapers had mass layoffs, and the remaining local reporters were spread too thin to sit through hours long city council meetings taking notes of on things that mostly go nowhere, poring over public documents and transcripts and mostly coming up empty. That's what changed. Seattle used to have two daily newspapers and two vibrant weeklies that paid multiple reporters to spend all their time doing this stuff. The TV news had to be good enough to compete with that. You're right that many years ago there were all these people doing that work, but that's not what this is about. Now the workforce is laid off and scattered, as in your examples of former local reporters who are now off elsewhere doing something else.

If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does, then please simply admit it and stop this waste of our time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bratland, I apologize if you feel it was an unnecessary diversion. SF, Chetsford, and I have disputed that the sources you provided meet WP:SIGCOV and explained our reasons why.

You're probably right that my including the other journalists' accolodes was an unnecessary, tangentially-related diversion, so I'll concede that.

I maintain my position that the sources you provided, for which I duly thank you for doing in addition to your discussion contributions for which I also thank you, do not meet our definition of WP:GNG. Erica C. Barnett may well meet the SNG for journalists/bloggers for her investigative journalism, which I'd already stated, but perhaps Chetsford and SF can clarify...SNGs an are an additional guideline, not an "instead of" guideline. Put another way, meeting an SNG means a subject is likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee notability if the subject fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, which is what we're arguing. Does that help clarify? --Doug Mehus T·C 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That's not what I asked for, and I think it's unhelpful, and even disruptive, to continue to waste others' time talking about people who are not investigative journalists in Seattle." For the record, as an observer - and occasional participant - in this conversation I do not consider my time is being wasted. Chetsford (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If you have no examples of anybody here in Seattle doing what ECB does" - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes notability insofar as Wikipedia is concerned. There is a difference between a person being objectively notable and a person being notable for purposes of WP. A person is only notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. A person who invented a working time machine would not be notable, as far as WP is concerned, if they were not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Barnett may very well be filling a void left by the demise of newspapers or whatever, however, the doesn't make her notable for purposes of WP. She may well deserve a prize or an Attaboy, but that doesn't mean she gets a WP article. There is only and exactly one route to notability for a journalist and that is through WP:SIGCOV. Our individual perceptions of their value or goodness is not a route to WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that at last we agree on the facts. Some of us feel those facts meet at least one if not two routes to notability, while your opinion is they don't. Not much more to say.

Unfortunately, as with the howler earlier as to the use of original research in an AfD discussion, a bit of misinformation has been introduced here, and someone needs to correct the falsehood that WP:SIGCOV is the 'only and exactly one' path to notability. At the top of WP:N: "it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". I've cited 3 sources that I and some others feel meet WP:GNG (also known as SIGCOV), and even if you aren't convinced of that, I've argued that the topic also meets WP:ANYBIO, for the reasons I stated above. Some others agree with me; you and some others of course disagree. Fine. Your opinion is your opinion. Maybe you think you've made strong arguments, but I don't see any valid arguments because you haven't cited sources that support them, such as for example, instances of others doing the 'commonplace' 'routine' thing that ECB is supposedly so unremarkable for. But lacking sources, it's ultimately a matter of editorial judgement, whether one, or both, of the two claimed routes to notability are met here. --Dennis Bratland (talk)

"Not someone who did investigations 10 or 20 years ago. Now, in the current media environment." Dmehus can validly cite someone from 1,000 years ago if s/he likes. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. This is Wikipedia, not Everipedia. Chetsford (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether or not those other people are notable. It's whether any of them are counterexamples to the assertion that Barnett's work is exceptional, not routine. That fact that 20 years ago these other reporters did routinely do the work that Barnett, and few if any others, now do with no institutional/corporate support, actually bolsters the case that she is notable. Some editors here have claimed her work is merely routine but so far none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does. The !delete argument hasn't cited any of the most obvious kind evidence that would make their case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"none have named anyone else who does what Barnett does" Because that's WP:OR. We don't engage in original analysis of resumes and notability is not a synonym for uniqueness. The world's only one-armed trapeze artist may be unique but, unless he is the subject of significant and non-routine coverage about himself, he is not notable insofar as we're concerned. You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not. As far as I know, she may be the most fabulous journalist since Edward R. Murrow. Neither the presence nor absence of a WP article is a comment on a person's vocational competence. Chetsford (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, WP:NOR says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Second, you said "acknowledgments she reported on this story or that story and, because this is her profession, do not rise above the level of merely WP:ROUTINE coverage of her." Did a source say that? Or is it a conclusion you reached as a result of your own original research? WP:ROUTINE says it's a common thing, everyday. If that's something that happens every day in Seattle, that local independent journalists are credited by major media with scoops that affect subsequent events or policy, then cite them. Or simply admit that there isn't anybody else getting credits like this in the Seattle Times, the weeklies, and TV news.

Innate goodness? What? Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you just making stuff up now? Can you focus on the subject at hand, and on the issues that have actually been raised?" Hi Dennis - I appreciate your passion but it would be welcomed by myself, and others in this dialog, if you could winnow your comments to those related to our policies and not use the Talk page to attack or disparage the motivations of other editors as you did here, and have repeatedly done with others. Thanks, in advance, for your kind consideration and your willingness to help make WP a welcoming space for civil discussion. Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you had no reason to say "You seem to be under the impression that we're here to pass judgment on Barnett's qualifications or innate goodness, which we're not." You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct? If you didn't, then please cite what I posted that would justify characterizing my editing in such an uncharitable way. It appears you're casting aspersions on me, for what reason I can only guess. Please assume good faith and cease questioning my motives, or belittling my posts by accusing me of advocacy or somehow promoting anybody's "innate goodness", whatever that even means. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You pulled that accusation out of thin air, correct?" Incorrect. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, excuse me but I think you forgot to post the diff that goes with that. Thanks! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, very well said. Erica C. Barnett may well be an intrepid investigative journalist willing to hold the powers to be to account, but of the sources provided so far in this AfD and of the sources I've been able to search so far, like you and SportingFlyer, I can see nothing which amounts to significant coverage about her. A lot of editors seem to be under the mistaken impression that passing an SNG amounts to the subject passing notability, but it's a wrong assumption. Here we have a case where the noteworthy journalist is not notable due to failing WP:GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 18:02, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN 54129 15:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be leaning Keep, but it's still in No Consensus territory, so giving another round to develop consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to RL0919 or other AfD closer: note that significant new discussion is occurring in the thread above this line. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, please note that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are fundamentally subjective. Those advocating for 'keep' have presented some support for WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, and the question is only whether that support is sufficient. There are so many guidelines on WP:BIO that both 'keep' and 'delete' sides have found supporting guidelines. It would be great if there were an objective criterion like a simple numeric cutoff for citation counts, but there isn't.

My opinion is that this judgment call, with reasonable opinions on both sides, should be resolved in favor of 'keep'.

° It should take the experienced wikipedians reading this only a minute to find many articles about individuals who are not and have never been marked as candidates for deletion, despite having far fewer notability-supporting citations—even setting aside "stubs" with zero or one citations. It's worth asking why this article, with 34 references right now, was marked and those weren't. If this article has been marked because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons, because of early COI issues with Ms Barnett making edits, because of the difficulty of defining "Blogger" versus "Journalist", or because it may be a difficult page to manage (this article about an ostensibly non-notable person already has over a hundred edits!), none of those are relevant to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. We should recognize the possibility that the initial flagging and some of the comments above are influenced by those concerns. If those not-relevant concerns influenced claims of non-notability, but are not a valid part of the notability debate, that advocates toward resolving the borderline case by leaning the other way toward accepting notability.

° Many sources assert that there is inequity in the wikipedian population that spills over to what is covered, kept, or deleted. Those sources include Wikipedia: see WP:WORLDVIEW and Gender bias on Wikipedia. In a borderline case about a category of people where the wrong call has been made by wikipedians (historically, not necessarily by those in this discussion), the cautious thing to do is to err on the side of 'keep'. This isn't about affirmative action or lower standards for women; this is about taking in the history documented in WP and the press and using it as one piece of information about how to handle a case with reasonable perspectives on both sides.

° People are sometimes notable locally but not nationally or globally. Have a look at the List of Armenian journalists. Almost all have only one or two citations, but I know very little about Armenian culture, and therefore defer to Armenians about evaluating these pages. I think this is analogous to deferring to molecular biologists about who is notable in molecular bio, even though their names are unknown outside the field.

One side of the discussion states that Ms Barnett is notable in Seattle; the other states that she is not notable from the perspective of wikipedians who seem to have time zone markers outside of the Pacific Northwest. I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight the subjective evaluation of generalists, which advocates for resolving this borderline case with 'keep'. For readers who disagree and advocate 'delete' for this page, the only consistent thing to do is to flag almost every page in the list of Armenian journalists for deletion.

I didn't look for additional citations to respond to the people who state that this is not passing WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, because there is no count-of-citations criterion. Both sides concede that there is some evidence for notability, and everything after that is a subjective evaluation—especially given the many subjective criteria for marking or not marking notability and the thousands upon thousands of wikipages with a fraction of the citations than given here. Context matters, and I believe that the contexts discussed above indicate that we should err on the side of 'keep' in resolving this judgment call.

[PS: I originally created this article; see the head of the talk page for disclaimers.] B k (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe that the subjective evaluation of locals should have more than weight" While a valid belief to have, I would disagree this is within either the letter or spirit of policy. However, thank you for registering an opinion nonetheless! Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B k, I agree with administrator Chetsford here. I respectfully disagree that SNGs can trump GNG. Indeed, in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto_Alciati deletion discussion, S Marshall, myself, and a couple other editors, in the minority, argued that the SNGs do not, in fact, trump the WP:GNG. Despite having "competed" in the 1920s Olympics, many editors argued he passed the SNG WP:NOLY (technically, he was scratched in that he never got to compete in the Olympics, but they still argued that he passed that and thus WP:GNG did not apply). The closing administrator even felt that those arguing delete had the stronger case because, in fact, SNG does not trump WP:GNG but still ruled "no consensus."
It's a similar story here, I suspect, in that the delete arguments are, arguably, much stronger, so the best outcome that those arguing "keep" can hope for would be a "no consensus" outcome. That would still effectively mean the article stays in place, with notability still very much in question. But, throughout your long opinion, and the preceding apparent evidence that WP:SIGCOV was met (still nothing about Ms. Barnett has been presented, I noted), I see no evidence as to WP:SIGCOV having been met. Doug Mehus T·C 01:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is certainly an interesting AfD, but I want to counter some of the points which have been recently made:

Local editors are in no better position to determine notability than anyone else, with the potential exception of language issues. The only thing which matters is whether she passes our notability guidelines, and there is nothing that suggests editors from outside Seattle are more likely to determine she's notable than people outside Seattle - it's all about whether there are enough reliable, secondary sources which support her notability. I'm mostly commenting because I'm concerned about some of the keep !votes and don't want to create a slippery slope based on their arguments at other AfDs.
Whether SNGs trump GNGs or not (they do not, the article still requires reliable sourcing), she still fails WP:ANYBIO, as there's no evidence of her "widely recognised contribution" in the historical record.
I don't concede there is some evidence of notability, there's at best one or two articles which might count.
Citation counts are indeed irrelevant, this is a straw man.
For those voters who are passionately voting !keep, please note I'd be open to changing my vote to a !keep if sources which definitively discuss her can be found - not just about her one flap with NextDoor, which as I've said above really isn't about her, and not articles which quote the articles she's written, because that's not significant coverage. I do not think she passes WP:GNG - the best sources on her specifically are blogs, or about a minor event she was specifically involved in. I'd like a reliable secondary source specifically on her which discusses how she's worked to change media in Seattle, and that might change my mind. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those just tuning in, here are some of the articles cited on the page that are about Ms Barnett, but not about the NextDoor incident.

A radio interview.^[1]
A short piece about Ms Barnett's importance in Seattle politics reporting.^[2]
Her mention as one of "Seattle's most influential people"^[3]
Her award from a civic association.^[4]
A piece about why Ms Barnett's forthcoming book is already gossip-worthy.^[5]

There don't seem to be arguments specifically addressing the citations, something of the form "Seattle Magazine's 'most influential' column does/doesn't indicate notability because...", so evaluating whether these are sufficient to pass Wikipedia's notability requirement seems to be a subjective call about an overall impression. B k (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick source analysis of the four articles presented, which emphasises how I don't think she passes WP:GNG:
- 1) Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary.
- 2) This article is written by the organisation about how Barnett joined that organisation, it's not secondary.
- 3) Barnett is mentioned twice and only in passing, the blurb might lend itself to the notability of the organisation PubliCola but unfortunately not Barnett
- 4) This is a good award to have won! Unfortunately the citation comes from the award's own website, and the only press to cover the award I can find is the newspaper Barnett was working for, so they're both primary. SportingFlyer T·C 03:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) SportingFlyer, it's incorrect to say " Interviews of a subject do not lend themselves to the notability of that subject, they're primary." Interviews very much serve as evidence of notability. Nobody gets to have themselves interviewed at will at the New York Times or on 60 Minutes just because they wish to burnish their fame and promote their brand. Sources devote interview space to people who are significant. The word count or minutes or bandwidth a publication gives to a subject is evidence of that. The truth value of what the interview subject says in the interview is a whole other matter; that is WP:PRIMARY. It's no more reliable than if they tweeted it. They're only stating their opinions, not necessarily establishing fact just because the NYT printed the quote. It's WP:SELFPUB in that sense, but the reliability of information as a citation and the value of coverage for notability are two entirely different things. A subject expert can be reliable and cite-able in their field of expertise, yet not be notable enough for a Wikipedia bio about them. Someone can be notable, and have a Wikipedia bio about them, due to the amount of coverage they get, yet not speak a single trustworthy word, or not be considered expert or knowledgeable on any topic except their own opinions. Your error here is mixing up these two categories. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dennis Bratland: Sorry, but please read Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, specifically If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability.. I am certain I have not erred in my assessment of that source for the purposes of Ms. Barnett's notability. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merely an essay. Carries no weight as a guideline or policy does. All you're telling us here is that out there somewhere is another guy who shares your opinion that interviews don't add to notability. Just an opinion, not a guideline, not policy. Some editors have wished to add this to the notability guidelines, but they've failed because that opinion lacks consensus. It makes no sense. Any John Q. Nobody can go write a Wikipedia essay, but John Q. Nobody can't get themselves interviewed in the Times. That honor is reserved for a select few. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        She didn't get interviewed in the Times. She was interviewed by a local radio station. And it's still not a reliable secondary source. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep, we get that. Once again, as I and others have been saying, that's your opinion. Repeating it this way doesn't give it any more weight than the first time you said it. You all keep going on and on and on with this, but you're not adding information to the debate. You're just telling us all over and over that your position is ever more entrenched. We get it. It seems to bother you that your points have failed to win a majority as the !votes roll in, but this bludgeoning isn't helping. It's time to step back and let everyone judge the sources on their merits. They're just as capable of that as you are.
        I don't like just letting it go when false statements like this thing about interviews are posted, or that there's only one route to notability, or that original research is banned form AfD discussions, but that's how these myths take life. Somebody has to speak up when misinformation is spread.
        But the outcome of the AfD hinges on the sources themselves, not this lame debate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's also your opinion. It doesn't bother me at all my points haven't gained traction - several people I respect agree with me, people like yourself who disagree with me haven't produced any quality sources, and I'm comfortable being correct in my analysis. AfDs aren't meant to be won or lost, they're discussions. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree with you and to move on. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "not this lame debate" If you feel this debate is lame, we're lame, everything here is lame - as you keep reminding us in different ways - you are free to choose not to participate. Obviously your participation is welcome but I feel it's necessary to advise you that it is also not compulsory, in case you were under the misperception your presence in something you find so "lame" was something beyond your control. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Dennis Bratland, Essays do help to interpret policies and guidelines, so I would take issue with your opinion that they carry no weight. SportingFlyer is correct, wholly, in his detailed assessment with respect to sourcing. I support all four of his points. Doug Mehus T·C 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm only replying because these bald contradictions of policy need to be corrected. People believe this stuff if they read it. Read WP:ESSAY: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight. Following the instructions or advice given in an essay is optional. There are currently about 2,000 essays on a wide range of Wikipedia-related topics." Read WP:POLICIES: "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Were I to go whip up my own essay to go with the 2,000 others, saying the opposite of your opinion, I don't think you'd find it helpful. They can serve as shorthand. You could !vote "per <essay>", rather than writing out a full treatise on your opinion, you refer to someone else who expounded on the same opinions. "Sorry, but please read <essay>" is a fallacious argument from authority.

Why not just let it go? Surely you've presented all your best arguments. You really don't need to keep reminding everyone that you support those points which you've previously expressed support for, I count, six times? Each person who !votes keep doesn't need to comment on every other keep !vote saying they agree with the others. If you were to suddenly cease supporting them, you only have to go cross out your !vote. If you say nothing, we all presume you continue to hold the position you previously stated you hold.

I will now not go and post "I agree" under each of the keep !votes. Not. Necessary. We. Get. It. Can we all drop the stick? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the articles you've cited are, in fact, the very articles you've previously said should be omitted from the article under all circumstances because they supposedly violate BLP (i.e. those acknowledging The Atlantic libel case and her alcoholism). If the articles are RS for purposes of establishing N, then you should have no objection to reinserting them into the article. If the articles are not RS, then they can't even be considered for purposes of N. Chetsford (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria by which the article is being proposed for deletion strike me as absurd. By this logic, we would delete the article for Harrison Salisbury, which contains considerably fewer independent verifiable sources indicating his importance. If Wikipedia had articles only for journalists who have been frequently and extensively profiled, rather than their work being frequently and extensively cited, we would have very few articles about living journalists, except for a few that have become celebrities in their own right. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel, Well, that may well be that Wikipedia is full of articles of non-notable journalists who shouldn't otherwise have articles. Nevertheless, that's not a valid argument for keeping this article. No evidence has been presented thus far, of the sources Dennis has presented (the only "keep" !voter to present actual sources; the other "keep" !votes were mere vague waves). We do not, as far as I'm aware, justify keeping articles because other questionably notable people have articles. Administrator Chetsford or editor SportingFlyer may be able to add further to this; better than I can. Doug Mehus T·C 00:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, Also Harrison Salisbury had an at-length obituary published in a major metropolitan daily newspaper; that qualifies as significant coverage. There are also in-text and footnote references which indicate offline sources exist that would turn that into multiple qualifying services. Thus, I think he passes WP:GNG relatively easily. No such luck for Ms. Barnett. There has simply been not even one qualifying significant coverage reliable, independent source presented, never mind the required multiple ones (WP:THREE indicates that three is considered the best minimum, but two would suffice). Doug Mehus T·C 00:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, "we would have very few articles about living journalists" (emphasis added). Yes, they get obituaries. - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (if there is any doubt what I'm saying) keep. I would think membership in a short-list of "Seattle's most influential people" would, on its own, come at least pretty close to sufficing for inclusion. - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dmehus: How is Seattle magazine not an "independent source"? or are you saying that inclusion in such a list is not significant? - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seattle magazine clearly doesn't cover her significantly, it just name-drops her twice. It also covers by my count 48 people and the "students, teachers and PTSA of Ingraham High School" in a list format. By WP:OSE, Harrison Salisbury has thousands of matches on a simple Newspapers.com search even though the Wikipedia article itself is currently undersourced. Finally, Dmehus, I would appreciate if you would stop pinging me into this discussion - the case for deletion is clear, but I've already spilled a lot of ink and don't want to spend any more time bludgeoning the discussion here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage for both the Nextdoor incident, as well as other coverage, such as her receiving a “Government News Reporting of the Year” in 2007 [46]. Samboy (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, While the Nextdoor story may be a significant item in her life, it is, crucially, not significant coverage for our purposes of determining notability. There has to be multiple (two minimum; three is better), at length biographical essays or reportings about her life from cradle (or near cradle) to current (or grave, in the case of deceased subjects).

I would also point you, others, and the XfD closer to this recent AfD discussion which closed as "no consensus" despite a plethora of vague wave "keep" votes and a minority of stronger "delete" votes. In that case, which is remarkably similar to this case, the vague wave "keeps" insisted on the subject "competing" at the Olympics so per WP:NOLY (an SNG), he "must" be notable. Similar story here where those !voting "keep" because she passes the SNG for journalists, she "must" be notable. Yet, as SportingFlyer, administrator Chetsford, and I have pointed out, the SNG does not replace the WP:GNG, which Erica C. Barnett has clearly and, crucially, not met. Note from SF's and Chetsford's replies above, the the Sound Effect podcast interview is neither a reliable sources (at least for establishing notability because it's crucially a primary, or quasi-primary, source. The remainder of the sources identified by Dennis in good faith have been mere tangential, passing mentions. Until her memoir is published, and even then, we need at least 1-2 more sources, she's not-notable and should be deleteed. Though, probably the "safe" close for the XfD closer would be to close as "no consensus" (which would have the effect of retaining her article, with notability still in question, and at least appeasing the non-evidence-substantiated "keeps"). Doug Mehus T·C 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a “vague wave” Keep vote. The Nextdoor issue has has significant coverage or is the primary topic of multiple articles in reliable third party sources: [47] [48]. The award she received in 2007, as well as a full article about her upcoming book from a reliable source means there is not a WP:BLP1E issue. Please be aware that “a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive” Samboy (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Samboy, respectfully, that's irrelevant whether the Nextdoor issue has significant coverage. That's important in the context of establishing whether Nextdoor is a notable publication (it may well be worthy of its own article, if it doesn't already have one), but such coverage does nothing to establish the significant coverage notability requirement of WP:GNG for Erica C. Barnett.

No one claimed a WP:BLP issue for Erica C. Barnett, so not sure why you are mentioning that. As to your citing some digital-only blog's announcement of her receiving some local award in 2007, that, too is not significant coverage. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple, reliable, independent sources of sufficient length of the subject's life to write more than a stub-class article. The only source that comes close to meeting WP:SIGCOV is the Sound Effect podcast interview, but the problem is it's (a) a primary or quasi-primary source and (b) it's not a qualifying reliable source. Thus, she still fails WP:GNG.

I respect your, and other editors', good faith !votes, even though this is notionally not a vote as it's an evidenced-based discussion, and would ask that you do the same by not saying my replies are "groundless opinion" or "proof by assertion." I'm simply pointing out that this is not a vote and, while some of the replies may not have been "vague waves" (that might've not been the right language), they are, nonetheless, !votes unsubstantiated by policy or evidence. That's all I, administrator Chetsford, and SF were trying to say. Doug Mehus T·C 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). "A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars". Sound Effect (Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.
^ "Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff". Seattle Met.
^ "Seattle's Most Influential People of 2011". Seattle Magazine. October 17, 2011.
^ "2007 Civic Awards Recipients — Port of Seattle Press Release". web.archive.org. July 21, 2011.
^ "Seattle journalist Erica C. Barnett is hard at work on a memoir, by Paul Constant". www.seattlereviewofbooks.com. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

Move to draft. Everyone will be equally unhappy. Gives time for whatever memoir to impact, or not. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbolick, a reasonable suggestion. This article has WP:PUFFERY and WP:NPOV issues, so I would support that. As well, when her memoir is published by Viking, that would likely go a long way to establishing her notability. Thank you for this suggestion...sometimes it helps to have someone guide us to a reasonable compromise in heated situations. This is one of those ideas. Secondarily, it would allow the article to be cleaned up for the above issues, not to mention Ms. Barnett's repeated COI editing of her own article. Doug Mehus T·C 18:50, 29 November 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. Opinions are split all over the place. Essentially, votes are either "redirect / merge" or "keep" being challenged and refuted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Grimes

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

WP:BLP, created by an WP:SPA who may have a direct conflict of interest with regard to the subject, about a person not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for the purposes of earning a standalone biography. Of the 15 references here, 10 are total non-starters in terms of getting a person over WP:GNG -- genealogy records, primary source "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's directly affiliated with, his own Twitter tweets, his own crowdfunding campaign, non-notable blogs, etc. And among the five sources that are actually real media, one is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and one is locked behind a paywall which leaves me no way to verify whether it's substantively about him or just namechecks his existence in the process of being fundamentally about someone or something else -- and all of the other three are covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E.
Nothing here is strong or well-sourced evidence that we need a biographical article about him as a person, separately from his name already being mentioned in BeLeave -- people are not automatically entitled to have BLP articles about them as people just because they were founder or president of a group that has an article, so nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he’s becoming fairly notable, so I would leave the article for now. — TrottieTrue (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability standards are based on the existence or non-existence of reliable source coverage about the person, not your unverified personal opinions about what the person is "becoming". Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the criteria you have set out. This page meets the notability standards more than many other pages currently hosted. You seem to be attaching a fair few of your own "personal opinions" here. Johnlilburne666 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained in my nomination statement why the sources on offer here aren't what we're talking about when we say that sources are required. Not every web page that exists is automatically always a reliable or notability-supporting source — we require a certain specific kind of sources, and none of the sources here are the correct kind. Bearcat (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly this is a run of the mill, young, non-notable political activist. The coverage on him is shallow and unreliable. That other articles should also be deleted or that the issues he espouses are important do not matter. We are not a British web-host, we are an American charity subject to New York laws about charities. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BeLeave. As best I can tell, he is known almost entirely because of his involvement with BeLeave (WP:BLP1E), specifically its high-profile investigation by the Electoral Commission, and BeLeave consisted almost entirely of him (see for example [49]), so having two articles is duplicative. There are some in-depth stories about him [50], [51], [52] but two of those are explicitly about the BeLeave saga and the other is simply his views on Brexit again, nothing worth covering separately. Since it seems to have been largely a solo project (notwithstanding the Vote Leave interactions), perhaps some biographical information could be added there. The article notes that he features at number 94 on a list of 100 influential Conservatives compiled by LBC but I don't think that satisfies WP:ANYBIO. › Mortee _talk 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BeLeave. He is primarily only notable in the context of that organisation. His legal difficulties fall into the category of WP:BLP1E. Hug^syrup 13:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already presented here and in the article. He's notable for founding the organization and for his legal difficulties which are two separate things making WP:BLP1E obsolete. A merger into BeLeave should be discussed on the talk page and not at AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" and "redirect" are possible outcomes of deletion discussions. Now it's been nominated for deletion, discussing those options is appropriate. I also don't think founding the organisation and the legal issue are separate notability claims (would the organisation have been notable without the legal issue?), or reasons to cover Grimes separately from BeLeave. › Mortee _talk 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee: Merger and redirects are appropriate outcomes at AFD only when an article does not have enough RS to satisfy GNG but the content is still of value to the encyclopedia elsewhere. In this case, there is enough RS for the subject to have its own article, so a merger to BeLeave is not necessary. Essentially, merger discussions like this should be help on the article's talk page where there is no time clock involved.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: To reverse that, "keep" is an appropriate outcome at AfD only if the article should be kept, not redirected or merged into another article instead (and the GNG don't guarantee a "keep", e.g. if the article is a content fork or the topic is for whatever reason best covered elsewhere). We disagree about whether there are RS showing Grimes' notability separate from that of BeLeave, which is fine and whoever closes this will weigh up the arguments each way. › Mortee _talk 23:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mortee:, that's not policy. If GNG is met we keep. Period. Granted, content forks are often dealt with here by necessity, but this is not a content fork because companies are not individuals and vice versa. The decision to merge the two into one article, is essentially an editorial decision and not a policy based enforceable decision. AFD should not become the host to merger discussions on articles that both meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of that is wrong. Two identical articles would both meet the GNG. We would keep one of them. This is turning into a meta-argument that isn't helping, though, so I suggest we leave this here. › Mortee _talk 01:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable based on ongoing coverage of his being investigated over alleged wrong-doings and campaigning for pro-Brexit causes. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRIME: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person" - which there clearly is in this case: BeLeave. Hug^syrup 09:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Grimes has become a well known figure in the UK's political debate sphere, beyond being a simple political activist. His name retrieves more than 2,920,000 results on a Google search, which, whilst not being a full indication of notability, demonstrates the amount of coverage that he has received. --RaviC (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An argument based on lots of Google hits is an argument to be avoided in a deletion discussion and is likely to be discounted by the closing administrator. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of Google hits. For example, a Google hit can mention his name without being about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can represent him talking about himself or other things in the first person, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can be written by him, not about him, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. A Google hit can not even be a reliable source at all, and thus not contribute anything toward establishing his notability. And on and so forth: simply saying that somebody has some megaboss number of Google hits is not a notability freebie in and of itself, and what you have to show is the number of media sources that represent third party, third person coverage about him as a subject in his own right independently of merely mentioning him in the process of being fundamentally about the organization. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, which is why I accepted that such a reference is "not being a full indication of notability". That said, many of these hits are from WP:RS sources, such as the BBC, Telegraph, PoliticsHome and Sky. --RaviC (talk) 13:50, 26 November 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. Sandstein 18:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Roux

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

He receives passing mention in news articles (because he is serving as a spokesperson) but none of the significant coverage required for WP:BASIC Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Nblund^talk 00:55, 28 October 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}}.

Comment - Each Wikipedia has its own guidelines, but for context, this article was previously deleted from French Wikipedia: fr:Discussion:Éric Roux/Suppression. It appears both article were created by the same editor, meaning the English language article was created after the French one had already been deleted.

Additionally, there is some odd behavior from a closely-knit group of editors involved in this article, and other CESNUR-related articles, across multiple Wikipedia projects (such as es:Bitter Winter). This raises WP:COI concerns, which I have mentioned on the article's talk page. Hence the !vote template. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think the article should be deleted at all. Eric Roux is well known as a religious leader and an activist, at least in Europe. This is backed up by several valid and reliable sources that you can find on Internet (whatever you may think of him or of Scientology). He is described as "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives" by scholar Donald Westbrook in SAGE Journals, “The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century” https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404. SAGE journal is definitely a well recognized academic source. He also has several pages about him in Journal of CESNUR in an article written by Professor Bernadette Rigall-Cellard. I know you seem to have problems with Journal of CESNUR, but beside the fact that their editorial board is made of well internationally recognized scholars in the field of new religions, Bernadette Rigall-Cellard is Full Professor of North American Studies at Bordeaux Montaigne University in France. She directs the Masters "Religions and Societies" and the Center for Canadian Studies. She is a specialist in contemporary North American religions https://www.u-bordeaux-montaigne.fr/fr/recherche/equipes_de_recherche/climas.html?param=184:81:brigal.

You can also find dozens of newspaper articles and TV interviews featuring Eric Roux in his capacity of spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, but also as a religious freedom activist. He wrote several books and chapters in academic publications that have been reviewed and covered by medias, and just recently, as an example, he appears as one of the authors in the book "religious minorities in France" published by one of the biggest French publishing house FAYARD: See here

Now, even if as said above, he would only be well-known as a spokesperson for the Church of Scientology, this in itself a source of notability which makes it worth to have an article. The significant coverage by independent sources is definitely sufficient.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BASIC notability guideline for people states that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Westbrook has a one paragraph mention in a solid source. The CESNUR source is a book review from a person who is already a member of CESNUR's editorial board. I don't think this rises above the level of a WP:SELFPUBLISHED article, and so it really doesn't make a dent in terms of notability. Nblund^talk 16:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Setting aside the strange issues above, being "unique amongst Church of Scientology representatives..." is not a clear claim to notability by itself. This uniqueness may be sort of interesting to someone, or not, but it's not a claim to notability. Passing mentions are insufficient. We are interested in reliable, independent sources with at least some depth. Grayfell (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The point is not that the text says that he is unique. It is that he is known enough to have a page on him by a scholar in SAGE, and the text on him has definitely some depth. Then as regards CESNUR source, first of all, it is not a "book review". Whilst the book review also exists, I was talking about an article of 100 pages by Bernadette Rigal Cellard called "The Visible Expansion of the Church of Scientology and Its Actors"(https://cesnur.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/tjoc_3_1_2_rigal-cellard.pdf). If you read the article, you find at least three pages at different places describing the work of Eric Roux. I understand you have a problem with CESNUR. But then you must also take into consideration the credentials of the author. Bernadette Rigal Cellard is a Full Professor in a major French University. There, she chairs the Master "Religion and Society". She is well recognized by her pairs. In the article, there is definitely some depth about the way she describes Eric Roux, with many details that also show the notability. It makes it a reliable source. And as regards CESNUR, please let me respectfully notice that the two only persons that have selected the article for deletion and joined in support for deletion, are both engaged in a systematic attack on all articles linked with CESNUR, and the second has been called by the first to intervene... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grayfell#CESNUR) That is their right but does not help in terms of neutrality. You think it's not reliable, I think it is, due to the quality of the contributors and their credentials in the field they are touching upon. So we can't reach a consensus. In addition, when you are checking neutrality, you also have to use common sense. Just today, I checked on the web and I found this article published yesterday: https://www.neweurope.eu/article/hijab-controversy-roils-france-again/, in which Eric Roux is interviewed, not as a leader of the Church of Scientology, but as "President of the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom and a well-known activist in the field of freedom of religion or belief" to comment on the French controversy on Muslim veil and the French government comments about it. New Europe is one of the biggest 10 magazines of the Brussels-EU area. That for example tells about notability. Moreover when you add it to the dozens of interviews, mentions, that you can find in national newspapers from various countries, as well as national TV chanels. I hope this helps.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately CESNUR has a negative reputation for making publications that contain bias and/or conflict of interest. Do to that reputation, it doesn't lend any credibility to a notability discussion at AFD. That's not the author's fault, but that is the reality of publishing in a disreputable journal per WP:Verifiability. Regardless, even if we were to include the journal article, there just isn't any references where the author himself is the main subject of the article. Being the public mouth piece of an organization, and occassionally getting quoted because of your PR role doesn't make you notable. There's also not enough citations/critical reviews of his work overall to satisfy WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Le luxembourgeois: I haven't "systematically attacked" anything, and if you would like to discuss questions about user conduct, you should take those concerns to my user page or to a relevant noticeboard. The interview in NewEurope is "supported content" which is paid for by the Faith and Freedom Summit Coalition, which is affiliated with Roux's own group. Content syndication efforts like this exist to make obscure people and events look important, they are little better than advertising, and they really don't carry any meaningful weight because they aren't independent. Nblund^talk 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that keeping it is a question of common sense. Notability can also be regarded as notability in a specific field. If not, you would only have superstars in Wikipedia. WP:BASIC lists the criteria for notability. The basic criteria are "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". For these we have at least two published academic secondary source, one being discussed regarding its reliability (because it is published in the academic Journal of CESNUR, which some consider not reliable, and some reliable). I argue that the one of CESNUR is reliable, also because of the credentials of the author (see above). Is the coverage significant? I think yes, based on the General Notability Guidelines [53]: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The two sources meet this definition.

Then you have additional criteria. There is no specific category for religious leaders, but I think we could process by analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges". "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.[12] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Based on this analogy, Eric Roux would meet both of the criteria. As regards his press coverage, you can easily find articles and National TV shows featuring him, whether in France, Belgium or even the US, during more than 10 years. He is the most visible and notable representative of the Church of Scientology in Europe.

In addition, if you go on Google Scholars [54] you find his work but also works from academics mentioning him.

I think that if you compare also to another religion, as Catholicism, you find articles on many of the Apostolic Nuncios. See here for France for example, one of them (the former one) [55] for which references are only coming from the Vatican. No secondary sources at all.

For me, there is no doubt that the notability is established beyond question.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are only repeated yourself Le luxembourgeois. The RS just is simply not there for the subject to meet WP:GNG and the CESNUR source does not meet wikipedia's requirements at WP:Verifiability no matter how you try to spin it. His academic hits at Google Scholar are relatively very small (FYI that link you shared is not specific enough for all the hits to be related to Eric Roux, and looking through those sources which do cite them, many of the sources in the search are questionable publications). There's just nothing here that is convincing.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically giving arguments and reasonings. It's too easy to just say: "this is not reliable, period", "this is questionnable, period".But it's not an argument. You deny CESNUR as a source but can't argue with the author of the source, and I gave the reasons why this should be also taken into consideration. In addition, I gave other reasons for which I think notability is established. You mention WP:Verifiability, and actually the page gives you what is not a reliable source: "poor reputation checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[9] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion." This is not the case of CESNUR (whether we like CESNUR or not), this is not the case of the author of the article cited and this is not the case of the article itself. Same for the article in SAGE. Not speaking about the mainstream medias featuring him. You say that his academy hits at Google Scholar are relatively small. Fine. But if you add academic secondary sources, mainstream national and international medias, the analogy to the category "Politicians and Judges", the hits on google scholars, the comparison I made with Catholic nuncios, etc., and a bit of common sense, I guess you can find out that there is notability here per WP:GNG. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le luxembourgeois, I would argue that CESNUR does lack meaningful editorial oversite because of the conflict of interest problems with the publication as stated above. Constantly repeating yourself, talking in circles, and claiming things aren't problems when they are doesn't solve the issues. This is a very cut and dry case, no matter how much you are trying to deny that it isn't. The google scholar hits are either only tangential/passing mentions of quotes by Eric Roux, or are in questionable publications that lack meaningful editorial oversite. There are no sources where he is the main subject. There is no good RS here.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that I'm sorry to say, but it seems you don't read what I wrote. Example, as regards you saying "no source where he is the main subject", I already answered to this by quoting General Notability Guidelines [56]: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For the rest I let you re-read what I wrote and all the arguments that have not been answered.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read what you have written and I have read the sources. I disagree with your assessment that they constitute significant coverage. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. We are not of the same opinion. It's that simple.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning to delete; concern that the RS quoted does no meet GNG (and particularly CESNUR); try one last re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per 4meter4, fails WP:SIGCOV, there's just not enough sourcing to do justice to a bio. Additionally, CESNUR is usually not a RS. Feoffer (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other evidences of notability and some remarks on CESNUR:

• CESNUR has an editorial board which is composed of renowned scholars. Even if some of them are deemed "controversial", they are not so in the academic world. Even Massimo Introvigne is recognized as one of the best scholars in the field of new religions. He has been occupying the function of Representative of the OSCE on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, was appointed chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, etc. Antoine Faivre is one of most renowned scholar on esoterism in France. Etc.

• Sources include an article in SAGE journal, which has not been contested at all (even if removed from the article with no reason) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0008429818769404.

• Other example, one academic source in the website of the Lund University: http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8875480&fileOId=8875481, one page on Eric Roux.

• Mainstream Media coverage: In France, dozens of articles, for example: https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Europe/L-Eglise-scientologie-rehabilitee-justice-belge-2016-04-28-1200756546. In Belgium, dozens of articles, TV shows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6iGSM9Pu64, on the official account of the French Parliament (2 hours interview): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzUOIl3PMFA, on M6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16fOe-jji04, in Belgium on the RTBF: https://www.rtbf.be/tv/article/detail_devoir-d-enquete-sur-l-eglise-de-scientologie?id=9106539, etc., you can find dozens of others by yourself. I know these medias are not making him the subject of their report per se, but invite him as an official of the CoS, but this shows his notability, as I said above, he is the most well-known and notable Church of Scientology's official in Europe. --Le luxembourgeois (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Comment. SAGE is not a journal but a publishing company that produces a large body of different academic publications. For those wanting to review the article Le luxembourgeois is referring to see: "The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century" from the journal Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses, 2018, Vol. 47(3) 373–395. I will be providing my own analysis shortly.4meter4 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have struck my delete vote above. The article from Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses is a better reference (I have access through my university library). It's author is a leading researcher on Scientology with a prominent book publication on the religion by Oxford University Press. Roux is the center of a case study in the article. That in conjunction with the other media sources just provided by Le luxembourgeois just barely squeaks by WP:SIGCOV. I was initially inclined to change to weak delete but in reality that opinion would be WP:IDONTLIKEIT out of my own bias. The coverage does in the end meet the standard of GNG. @Le luxembourgeois: I strongly urge you to strike your double vote and not repeat yourself in AFDs. Such behavior often causes other reviewers to vote against you rather than for you because it is considered bad etiquette. It only weakens your argument. You may add new evidence to discussions with the word "comment". The added evidence did persuade me to change my vote. This is the best way to conduct yourself in AFDs. Let the evidence speak for itself.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice @4meter4:. I had not realized it would be a double vote. I changed it to "comment" and made some changes.--Le luxembourgeois (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per 4meter4. I don't seem to have access to the article ("The Art of PR War: Scientology, the Media, and Legitimation Strategies for the 21st Century"), but being the centre of a case study in combination with the other mentions makes me think this is a notable subject. /Julle (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist before action is taken
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:29, 21 November 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.

[Spitzer_5-11-19-1] Barnett, Erica C. (April 11, 2018). "A journalist gets sober, then hits the bars". Sound Effect (Interview). Interviewed by Gabriel Spitzer. KNKX. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved October 23, 2019.

[2] "Erica C. Barnett (and her Mad List of Sources) Joins PubliCola Staff". Seattle Met.

[SeattleMag2011-3] "Seattle's Most Influential People of 2011". Seattle Magazine. October 17, 2011.

[4] "2007 Civic Awards Recipients — Port of Seattle Press Release". web.archive.org. July 21, 2011.

[5] "Seattle journalist Erica C. Barnett is hard at work on a memoir, by Paul Constant". www.seattlereviewofbooks.com. 2017-06-29. Retrieved 2019-09-15.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]